Lost his last election, in 2004, with 35% of the vote.
Parliament Of Canada Act June 13th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase the question. I think the way I phrased it was indeed over the top and I do apologize in that regard.
Which one of his members who voted yes to this bill would he add to the comments he made to the Vancouver Sun ? Would the members who actually voted yes to this bill fall in the same class and receive the same kind of reaction on an internal basis?
Parliament Of Canada Act June 13th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the question at hand is the amount of rhetoric that we receive from the member when he talks about the hypocrisy of the situation and attacks our government.
This debate is about the unprecedented rhetoric and the stunts that were played by putting replicas of pigs in the House of Commons and by giving away keys to cars. They said they would not take the chauffeur and would not move into Stornoway.
On August 6, 1998, when a member of that party decided to opt into the pension plan this member said, according to an article in the Vancouver Sun , that MPs who opted back in were liars and hypocrites. He went on to say that he opted out and told the voters he was opting out. Now he has broken his word. This is the same pension.
My question is quite simple. Which one of the members who voted yes to Bill C-37 is a liar and which one is a hypocrite?
Parliament Of Canada Act June 13th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point. I just want to help out the hon. member. His members have taken great pains to point out that they should be called the Canadian Alliance and not the Reform Party. He called himself the Reform Party.
Parliament Of Canada Act June 13th, 2000
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When bills are brought forth in the House they are normally sent to a parliamentary committee where they are scrutinized and Canadians participate, as opposed to being sent to committee of the whole.
Parliament Of Canada Act June 13th, 2000
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to make some remarks in the debate this evening. The course I will take in terms of the presentation I will make over the next number of minutes will reflect on the comments that I made in last night's debate. I will speak very much to the politics of this particular issue, more so than to the substance of it.
I think it would be wrong for me to stand and accuse members of the CA, the party formerly known as Reform, of being people without principles because I clearly know that is not the case. They are individuals who believe in their country and they want to make a better country.
The energy of the debate comes from the stunts, the antics, the rhetoric, the visceral attacks that members of the former Reform Party make against numerous members of parliament. I could refer to the Minister of the Environment. They chose to put that individual's picture on a billboard with one of Canada's most horrendous mass murderers to illustrate an issue with respect to the feint hope clause, section 745.
That was done not only by Reform candidates. To be fair, it was also done by a special interest group. The point is, no one deserves to be put on a billboard or to be subjected to that kind of tactic.
I can also point to the stunts they pulled on the House of Commons lawn, where they actually had replicas of pigs to represent parliamentarians feeding from the trough.
We also remember the stunts that they pulled with respect to giving away the keys to a car which was meant for the leader of a political party.
The hon. members for West Nova and Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and I in my riding of Fundy—Royal like to play bingo. It is an institution that exists very much in rural Canada. I know that my constituents who have pensions play bingo. Bingo cannot be played in Stornoway, as the member for Calgary Southwest advocated, because it was not turned into a bingo parlour. It is now the home of the Leader of the Official Opposition. Reform members made a stunt out of it.
They also said that they did not need a chauffeur, but now the member for Edmonton North has a chauffeur driving her car. Those are the stunts and the language these members choose to use.
My comments are made in tribute to principled individuals who sat in the Progressive Conservative government between 1984 and 1993, individuals who lost their seats because they were attacked with that same kind of rhetoric. Some of these comments may be applicable today, but they would be against their own internal mechanism.
The member for Calgary Southeast commented in the Vancouver Sun that MPs who opt back in are liars or hypocrites. He went on to refer to one member of parliament who had opted in. He said that he had told the voters he was opting out and that he had broken his word.
The leader of the party formerly known as Reform said in September 1995 “Canadians will know which MPs are greedy and which really care about taxpayers. Believe me, the voters won't soon forget those MPs who promised integrity in government but decided to pig-out while the trough was still full”.
It is this sort of visceral attack that actually precipitated a fair amount of the energy of the debate we have before us at this time.
On February 28, 1995 the former leader of the Reform Party stated “It is the intention of Reform MPs to opt out of the MP pension plan. We call upon every other member of the House to do likewise. Opt out or get out will be the cry in the constituencies. It is a cry which must be respected if fairness and leadership by example and integrity are to be restored to parliament and any budget it endorses”. Those comments were made by the member for Calgary Southwest.
What are the big picture issues that Canadians are concerned about? They are concerned about the fact that we still have a $600 billion national debt. We owe it to every young person and future generations to pay down the national debt in a very deliberate way.
We also owe it to the Canadian economy so that we can maintain our place in the world. We must address the fact that we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world as a percentage of our economy and the highest personal income tax rates.
Those are the issues Canadians want us to talk about in this place. Instead, time and time again we have ratcheted up the rhetoric using the kinds of quotes I just read. They are very visceral attacks made in the course of campaigns for crass political gain. That is the issue that we have before us.
A few weeks ago in my riding the member for Edmonton North said “We are going to send the member for Saint John, the member for New Brunswick Southwest and the member for Fundy—Royal home after the next election whether they receive their pension or not”. The fact is, there is not one poll to substantiate the fact that they would even have one iota of a chance of winning a seat in Atlantic Canada. The point is, they were still willing to use the pension card only a few days ago.
I was very happy to celebrate my nomination, at which there was a very articulate speaker. Bernard Lord is one of the youngest and most dynamic leaders that we have in this country. As the Premier of New Brunswick he has done some very special things in his first year in government. He has been able to lower taxes, balance the budget and put more money into priorities such as health care and education.
I am very pleased that he had a chance to speak at that nomination meeting, which was attended by 300 people. All eight MLAs were either there in person or sent letters of endorsement. A couple of cabinet ministers attended. More importantly, 300 grassroots members came to support and endorse that campaign.
I want to pay tribute to my president, Glen Baxter, whom I regard as one of the strongest presidents of any political party in the country, for putting together such a positive event.
What that illustrates is that with all eight riding associations supporting my campaign provincially, all eight MLAs, we know that we will be very strong in the riding of Fundy—Royal the next time around.
The debate that we have before us today gives us a chance to illustrate the stunts of sombrero dances against the Senate, visceral attacks against a great Albertan, Ron Ghitter, the stunts with respect to the car, Stornoway, the pension plan and the changing of the party name.
All of these stunts come down to one issue. I refer to the comment which came from across the way from the parliamentary secretary for heritage. He said that they were going to do politics differently, in a more mature fashion. What Canadians have witnessed on numerous occasions over these last seven years has been exactly the opposite.
I will not taint all members of the Canadian Alliance or Reform, but the fact is, that is what they did. They assailed our leaders. They assailed people like Brian Mulroney, who was the prime minister between 1984 and 1993.
They were very quick to point out that the economy was in a worldwide downturn, but they went at it as if we were the only country not to have a balanced budget during that era. Margaret Thatcher was a Conservative. She had some of the same challenges in Great Britain. I do not know if they would attack Ronald Reagan or George Bush in the same way, but they faced the same challenges over that timeframe.
They forget to comment on the fact that the Progressive Conservative Party from 1984 to 1993 was indeed a prosperity builder. It was able to upgrade our trade with the Americans from around $100 billion each and every year to over $320 billion. That is why we have growth in our economy today.
Those are the issues that Canadians need to hear and talk about. That is the legacy that we need to point out. The debate comes down to one issue: the visceral attacks, almost hatred, being uttered by so many of those members.
I will not repeat the comments that were uttered time and time again in yesterday's debate. But we should probably take the lead from the House leader of the Canadian Alliance when he said, “We have no one to blame for this but ourselves. This is a bit of a dilemma of our own making. Let us not kid ourselves”. My comment to the members of the alliance is if they sincerely want to do politics differently, if they sincerely want to build a broader coalition of conservative voters, they have to do one thing and that is to tell the truth and apologize for the stunts and the antics which they performed.
The Progressive Conservative Party has taken the time to speak here tonight to point out the hypocrisy that was demonstrated by those members. A good number of them are now choosing to participate in the pension plan. I do not begrudge them believing they should have some kind of compensatory regime upon retirement. I will even tip my hat and say that the pension plan is more palatable to Canadians currently because we cannot collect it until we are 55, that of the amount of contribution dollars required there is a higher input from members than from the taxpayer. I will tip my hat to the Canadian Alliance for helping moving the yardstick and helping to correct the issue.
But the issue of concern here is that they have an awful lot of crow to eat. There is the pensions, the bingo hall, the car keys, the chauffeur. In the election of 2000 or 2001 the voters will remember this issue more than anybody can imagine.
Parliament Of Canada Act June 13th, 2000
Madam Speaker, I just want to explore this issue a little further. We do have some concurrence on how we grow an economy by paying down debt and lowering taxes, so we do agree on that side of the equation. On the parliamentary reform aspect of things, he said I did not have any interest. I am trying to get more interested as we speak.
In that regard, the question is quite simple. How many signatures under the Reform formula that exists, which now represents individuals from the Canadian Alliance, are required to have a recall on any particular issue? How many signatures are required to do that? That is my question. It is a direct question. What is the number of signatures required for a recall under the platform on which the hon. member ran?
Parliament Of Canada Act June 13th, 2000
Madam Speaker, I have a simple question relating to the reform platform. There are some aspects of it that I actually agree with from time to time, especially on tax policy and the need to lower taxes and pay down the debt. Those are the kinds of things where a broader Conservative consensus can be built some time in the future.
One aspect that I am curious about is the issue of recall. How many signatures are required under the reform formula for recall? If we could obtain those signatures on this particular issue, would reform respect that petition?
Canadian Executive Service Organization June 13th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Executive Service Organization or CESO is a Canadian volunteer based not for profit organization founded in 1967. Its mission is to supply Canadian advisers and trainers to emerging businesses and organizations in Canada and worldwide that cannot access paid consulting services.
My constituent, Mr. Cornelis Hoogveen, from Rothesay, New Brunswick, was a CESO volunteer. He went to Slovakia to assist in the management of a dairy company in need of help. Cornelis was asked to assess the dairy's operations and marketing and the co-operation between dairy farmers and processors.
While Cornelis was on site the final stages of privatization were taking place and his first task involved putting in place a new company structure. He recommended reducing distribution costs by streamlining the order department and hiring a distribution supervisor. A wage increase system was also put in place and an organizational chart developed.
Cornelis expects that the implementation of his recommendations and staff training will result in a reduction in duplication and waste as well as an increase in sales and profits. I thank Mr. Hoogveen.
Parliament Of Canada Act June 12th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I have just a couple of questions because I have always been intrigued about how this would make out.
I want to compliment the member for his remarks because his level of rancour was in proportion to the debate.
I have two concerns. Given the problem we have with the speed by which the bill has been brought forth, perhaps there are ways to ask the House, since we are masters of our own domain, whether the bill could be hoisted, debated over the course of the summer and then brought forward in the fall in order to have a proper debate in committee with witnesses. Would the hon. member support that initiative?
Does the member think that this issue would be eligible for recall if a significant number of signatures could be obtained?
Parliament Of Canada Act June 12th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, Canadians, this member included, believe we should have a competitive regime. A pension plan should be something that would reflect the level of risk and the level of investment and contribution found in the private sector. That is the gist of the comments that may be in the book.
The issue is only if. During the vote that we will have later they will have to make their own determination. That is the relevant issue. I would say to the hon. member that is the issue before the House. As I said before, I wanted to talk about the politics of the issue in that regard. The visceral language, the attack, and the rhetoric used before was wrong, was over the top and was not becoming of this place House over the last seven years.