Lost his last election, in 2000, with 22% of the vote.
Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act October 18th, 1994
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We had an agreement with the government whip that we would apply to this vote the same as we voted on Bill C-49 and the last member of Parliament who just rose to say he wanted to vote with the government voted opposite to the government on Bill C-49.
Social Policy October 7th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Minister of Human Resources Development gave a speech on social programs. In that speech he outlined the type of attitude he felt would be needed in examining Canada's social programs, the need for co-operation, earnest debate, the free exchange of ideas and, most important, the need to refrain from deliberate, partisan cheap shots.
No sooner did he get those words out of his mouth than he proceeded to deliver a cheap shot of his own by repeating the ludicrous charge that the Reform Party would cut $15 billion out of social programs. This is rubbish, old style politics and he knows it. It is the Liberal government that is facing $15 billion in cuts out of total program spending if it is to meet its meagre deficit targets.
Canadians deserve better than this type of irresponsible scare mongering. Preying on the fears of the needy is no way to garner the respect of the people of this country.
When it comes to partisan cheap shots the do as I say, not as I do attitude is totally unacceptable. The minister should reread his speech and follow his own advice.
Social Security Programs October 7th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. We finished off yesterday by announcing that under Standing Order 43(2) we would be splitting our time. We had the last speaker last night. The hon. member for Edmonton Southwest had 10 minutes and 5 minutes. I believe we should be up first today to continue our allotted time, finishing from yesterday.
Social Security Programs October 6th, 1994
Madam Speaker, objectivity is required in the matter of social reform, not partisan politics that are being played out by the Minister of Human Resources Development. If we want to have a true social conscience in this country and if that is what government wants to provide, then let us help the truly needy and not continue the practice of helping everyone lest we offend and possibly lose votes.
Will the Liberals have the courage to act after they have received the input they are seeking? The government must govern, the government must lead, the government can only consult for so long. It has already been a year. How much longer do Canadians have to wait before their do-nothing, say-nothing, feel-good leader puts the action plan on the table?
Financial Administration Act October 6th, 1994
Madam Speaker, as a businessman I have often said that governments should be run like businesses. Now, having been a politician for a year, I say that government cannot be run like a business but it still should be run more businesslike, in a business manner.
My speech is a little long so I will pick out some of the highlights. I realize there cannot be an absolute parallel between the private sector and government. In other words government cannot hire the Auditor General. We do need that arm's length distance.
The Auditor General, however, must be absolutely independent of Parliament and cannot participate directly in the budget planning process. However Parliament would be foolish not to take advantage of the Auditor General's advice in assessing the government's budget plans from the outset.
Why not have value for money audits conducted by the Auditor General in conjunction with budget planning? Why not have sunset clauses contained within all government programs, including social programs, so that they run out after one year, two years, three years, five years or whatever it takes? Then we could see if we want to renew it, add more money, delete some money, or cancel it altogether.
These are some of the things an auditor could do, working in conjunction with the finance minister. The important thing, the crux of the matter, is that governments must stop living on borrowed money and stop refinancing current needs and desires on the backs of our children and grandchildren.
In conclusion because the bureaucracy and politicians are spending the money of other people, no wonder it is hard to balance the budget. No wonder we cannot find out who is responsible. No wonder ministers blame bureaucrats and bureaucrats blame different departments of other departments of bureaucracy. No wonder we have such big fiscal problems within government. I really believe it is important that if we could get the Auditor General to have more authority and become more involved with the budgeting process in this government not only would it complement and assist this government, it would help all future governments and it would, most important, help the people of Canada, the taxpayers.
Financial Administration Act October 6th, 1994
We want government to start to live within its means and start today. We are not responsible for collecting taxes for 44,000 people.
Social Security Programs October 6th, 1994
Yes, I will side bet you any time, any amount you want.
We believe that like a house Canada is currently mortgaged to the tune of $531 billion. Every year the government borrows about $44 billion more to pay for things we cannot afford. The interest payments on this mortgage alone eat up one-third of our tax dollars and have led to increases in the tax burdens on Canadians and less money for social programs and left their economic fate in the hands of foreign creditors.
The time has come to start getting the books in order today. Pay down this mortgage and live in a home that Canadians can afford and enjoy.
Through you, Madam Speaker, to the members of the Liberal Party, I would like to take a moment to provide the building plan for that home. Start by laying out a foundation of reasonable spending, setting priorities on what is truly important. On top of this build the four strong walls of fair taxation, direct democracy, institutional reform and equal rights. Finally, protect all those inside the house with a roof of efficient and effective social programs and stop wasting money on needless frills like gold plated pensions, parliamentary travel, better known as MP tourism, and subsidies for business and special interest groups. I wonder what the Prime Minister and his group of premiers and his whole hoard of bureaucrats going to China will bring back in terms of dollars and cents on a business deal for this country.
The benefits of us owning a mortgage free home includes lower taxes, an improved economic climate and secure social programs. If the Liberal contractors cannot budget and build such a home, the Reform Party will.
We believe it is unfair to finance current programs at the expense of future generations, as mentioned by my colleague from Calgary North. The time has come for Canada's social programs to be financially self-sustainable.
We should democratize UI by having it administered by the employers and employees who finance it. Tighten the rules for UI qualifications so that the program reflects its original purpose as a temporary safety net for those who lose their jobs. Provide incentives to help people become less dependent on government. If UI and welfare equal minimum wage, why should people work?
Also the Reform party believes that our social program should be designed to eliminate all duplication of administration between federal, provincial and municipal governments. Not enough money is getting to the truly needy. I witnessed that personally on the campaign trail during the last election. I met individuals who had legitimate cases. Seniors who had a $55 or $75 cheque said: "This has to last me for a month". Yet they were refused or unable to obtain assistance because of the red tape while seasonal workers across Canada who earn $55,000 or more are using it to pad their incomes. This must stop.
Social programs should be based on family or household income and administered through the tax system. Old age security, for example, is not even mentioned. It costs $20 billion per year and is not funded out of anybody's premiums. It is given to everyone who turns 65 regardless of whether they need it or not. I have not paid one cent toward that program. I will become 65 in 15 years and I will get an automatic $365 per month. I do not know if I deserve that if I make more than $54,000 a year.
Social programs should be fair to all regions of the country and treat all Canadians the same regardless of where they live. The Canada assistance plan for example costs $8.2 billion per year and matches provincial spending on welfare for the have not provinces.
What I am going to say in the following sounds tough, but we have to deal with the reality that if you cannot make your region economically viable in any way, shape or form, then taxpayers should not be asked to pay the bill. The money just is not there.
Before we get to that extreme we propose that the federal government decentralize the CAP by passing equivalent tax room to the provinces and let those closer to the provinces decide how the money should be spent. In earlier times people dealing with particular issues in a region were the people who knew the local conditions best. They knew which of their neighbours needed help most. Issues could be dealt with quickly and responsibly and people were directly familiar with their own budget constraints.
Perhaps it is time to push government programs and services closer to the people by placing them under the jurisdiction of the lowest level of government possible. Set basic federal standards, make it portable, make it accessible and give the provinces more flexibility in managing their own affairs. Maybe then we will see more grassroots or local solutions with effective results for the have not provinces.
A social dilemma has been created by the misapplication by this government and the Conservative government of the Keynesian economic theory. In a recession it is fine to borrow to stimulate the economy. In good times you have to pay back what you have borrowed. These past two governments have failed to do that. It is past time for governments to recognize the second half of that theory and start paying down the debt.
Not one member across the floor or in the separatists ranks has like us refused to take the MP pension. Nowhere in the report of the Minister of Human Resources does it say that MPs will lead by example and make the sacrifices that are being asked of all other Canadians. Not one minister has had the courage to go into his department and tell non performing employees: "You are fired" to old school bureaucrats who play the political game. But those bureaucrats have forgotten who they work for, the taxpayers.
If the government really wants to help Canadians help themselves then it should leave more money in the hands of the people who earn it. Taxpayers know how to spend and invest their money much better than the government. Do not tax people and redistribute the money. Leave it at the source. If people are allowed to keep the money they earn they would not need social programs from the government.
A 10 per cent cut for all families earning under $60,000 would leave more money for food, shelter and clothing and that should be the very objective of social programs.
If the government and the finance minister had the political will and the business acumen to lower overall spending, they could easily lower taxes. The handling costs of sending money to Ottawa for bureaucrats to redistribute back to the people as they see fit basically takes 30 to 35 per cent of the moneys out of the programs. This is an enormous impact on the efficiency of the programs.
Objectivity is required in the matter of social reform, not partisan politics as is being played out by the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Social Security Programs October 6th, 1994
Madam Speaker, it is beginning to look as though Pierre Trudeau's vision of a socialist Canada has come true. By making the federal government this country's largest employer he guaranteed most people would be reliant on government for their livelihood.
By instituting new laws to create a just society we are now faced with criminals having more rights than their victims. By systematically tearing down the traditions and freedoms of the old Canada he has been able to convince his political apostles that the old ways were corrupt and his way correct. By destroying the country that our forefathers built and fought for he made way for the country that it has become, chasing itself in circles like a confused dog while the world watches in amazement. Even the finance minister said he wants to square the circle. He just does not know where to start.
Those are not the words of a political speech writer, spin doctor or myself but of Mr. Don Nich, a Calgarian and a taxpayer, who like so many Canadians is tired of status quo federalism and passive and ineffective Liberal policies.
As the debt clock ticks its way into the second half of $1 trillion we are increasingly aware of the fact that the old ways of doing things simply do not work any more. They have in fact led to what many Canadian economists describe as a crisis situation threatening the basic financial security of our country now and for many generations to come.
How have we come to be in such a financial mess? Through years and years of allowing federal governments to ignore the problem, by continuing to live on ever increasing levels of borrowed money. More than 25 years of borrowing started with the Liberal government in 1968 and heaven help us continues with a Liberal government today.
By spending at levels we cannot afford and thrusting the resulting burden on to the people of this country through taxation Ottawa has created a two headed monster that threatens the very core of our country. One head of this monster is increased program spending; the other head is the crushing complex system of taxation.
During the last election Canadian taxpayers made it clear that they want politicians with the guts and the vision to lead the way with changes that will benefit them and their children no matter how difficult those changes may be. They can see the two headed monster and want it stopped before it devours their future.
What has the government done to answer this call? The answer is a discussion paper. Today alone the Liberals will spend $113 million more than they bring in. Today alone the Liberals will continue to take $6 from the taxpayer for every $1 that their members pay toward their gold plated MP pension plan for life which socially conscious Reform MPs have sworn to reject. Today alone the Liberals will let the debt clock continue to run at nearly $1,500 per second. Finally, today the Liberals will spend yet another day talking about social reform rather than introducing legislation that they promised all Canadians during the election in their red book. They have deferred the plan and will avoid the problem for another year.
I predict that any legislation that this government does introduce whenever it introduces it will cost the Canadian taxpayer more than the current $38.7 billion it is attempting to review.
Social Security Programs October 6th, 1994
Madam speaker, on a point of order, the Reform Party under Standing Order 43(2) will be splitting its time now in 10 minutes and 5 minutes.
Social Security Programs October 6th, 1994
Not cheap shots.