Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was billion.

Last in Parliament April 1997, as Reform MP for Calgary Centre (Alberta)

Lost his last election, in 2000, with 22% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Committees Of The House June 22nd, 1994

I do not mean stole. I will take that comment back. -where they were elected in every seat but one, duly elected democratically.

Let me quote the current finance minister: "I would abolish the tax", August 1990; the Minister of International Trade: "I would tax prescription drugs and food", 1989. During the campaign the Prime Minister said that he would scrap the tax. As recently as February of this year and May 4, 1994, in answer to one of my questions about this proposed tax, he indicated that he hated the GST and that he would kill it.

With comments like that, now they have proposed a replacement for the GST which is virtually the same as the current GST. It is nothing more than the son of GST, a clone of the GST with a new name. They now expect the Canadian public to accept the fact that they have fulfilled an election promise, that they have not only replaced the tax but they got rid of the awful GST.

What we will have if they proceed with this particular proposal is a very awful tax which is the same as the GST. The Canadian public will feel betrayed.

Here is an interesting situation I put to the government and to the Canadian public that are listening. The Deputy Prime Minister said that if the Liberal Party did not abolish the GST she would resign. She said this at a CBC town hall. That is a very firm commitment. I know she always keeps her word. The question is, how do we determine if this new national value added tax abolishes the GST? If it is determined by the Canadian public that it does not abolish the GST, then I would recommend that the Deputy Prime Minister fulfil her promise and duly resign.

It should be acknowledged and recognized that not only the Deputy Prime Minister but the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of International Trade basically made an election promise they cannot keep. Rather than coming clean in the House and telling the Canadian public that "we can't keep

clean," they are continually trying to proceed with this double talk in the hope that the Canadian public will not hold them accountable.

I beg to differ, Mr. Speaker. The honeymoon is over and I believe that the government over the summer and in the fall will be held accountable. I just wonder how they will vote on this concurrence motion that brings it closer to government policy.

As we know from the media, both the finance minister and the Prime Minister are trying to distance themselves from this report by the committee. They choose to ignore the recommendations of the committee because they know it is a political hot potato.

The leader of the Liberal Party made promises. He is a populist leader and the popular thing to do when you have made a mistake and are wrong is to admit it rather than continue the farce of this double talk and trying to fool the Canadian public.

I take a little bit of offence at the finance minister's answers to my question in question period today about how we are guilty of double talk and if he ever saw double talk it is the Reform minority report on the replacement of the GST which has been filed with the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Finance.

I will highlight some of the aspects that are in this minority report and I will leave it for the Canadian public to decide if this is double talk.

A majority finance committee report on the replacement of the GST cannot be fully endorsed by the Reform Party. While the replacement goes part way in responding to concerns presented to the committee, many of the concerns will only be addressed by future negotiations with the provinces. If the provinces do not agree to integration, if the provinces do not agree to harmonization, this proposal has been a waste of time and all those witnesses that came before the committee, all their constructive words of wisdom, will have been a waste of time.

The majority report recommendation merely tinkers with the current GST and does not live up to the Liberal promise to scrap it. We are of the view that value added taxes are incapable of responding to a significant portion of the concerns raised during the hearings.

The Reform Party recommends that spending cuts be the government's first priority. As well, the entire current system of personal, corporate and value added taxes should be replaced by a simple visible and proportional system of taxation that is similar to the single tax that one of their more intelligent members has recommended, that incorporates the principles of fairness and the lowest rate possible. In the interim, the party will support reforms to the current regime that move in this direction.

The Reform Party strategy for tax reform is as follows: We believe strongly that tax reform must include a number of components. First, a review of spending in order to balance the budget in as short a term as possible with the least negative impact on the economy, and we see that as three years. We came here with that philosophy, we recommended that philosophy, but the finance minister said it is too draconian, that a 6 per cent cut in spending is too draconian. Now I read in the paper as of three or four weeks ago that he is now looking for 12 per cent cuts in next year's budget.

Second, we believe a simple visible system of taxation that incorporates the principles of fairness, simplicity and the lowest rate possible. The Reform Party opposes tax inclusive pricing, which is just hiding the tax. It is like the gasoline tax you pay at the pumps. None of us know what we pay but we know that governments have raised it and pretty soon the Canadian public once again falls out of touch with what taxes we are paying. This is the Liberal way of eventually raising taxes in years to come and that is why the British call this the very awful tax because that is what happened in that country.

This practice of hiding the tax violates the principle of open taxation which is essential to efficient functioning of open democracies. Disclosures of taxes paid on cash register receipts preserves an element of openness in taxation, but as the experience in Europe has shown, it eventually results in strongly diminished public awareness of the tax.

Third, the Reform Party believes that tax reform must also mean tax relief. We believe that Canadians are concerned as much or more with the level of taxation as with the method of taxation. If we are asking the Canadian public to sacrifice, there must be a reward at the end of the day. That reward would be to eliminate and abolish the GST and we would do that once we get the budget balanced.

We agree with those who say that the introduction of the GST was the trigger that set off the underground economy, a general distrust of politicians and a belief that governments had lost control of their finances. The current government believes that this distaste can be dispelled through a change in the mechanism. It believes that if it scraps the GST or changes the name that the antagonism toward a new value added tax will go away.

That is my point today. If this is what the government believes will happen it will be sorely surprised and like that commercial on TV they slap their face while saying, "I needed that", that is what it is going to get.

Canadians will be wary of accepting changes to how they are taxed when the bottom line is that they must pay between 30 and 60 per cent of their income to carry a government that cannot control its spending. Not only will the government not control it, it will not even enter into serious dialogue to cut spending. They bring us into their offices, we show them $9 billion to $12 billion worth of cuts and they say: "We can't do that because it is philosophical". Anytime we make a point to criticize their philosophy they change the subject.

Only when Canadians see meaningful expenditure reform and deficit reduction, only when Canadians believe that they will get value for their tax dollar, will they acquiesce on the tax burden required to provide these services.

The Reform Party's plan for tax reform recognizes that the current structure of taxation is not suited to carry us into the 21st century. Our plan recognizes the need not only for changes to the mechanism but the necessary changes to the level of taxation. Our plan recognizes that deficit reduction is an integral part of tax reform.

Our party's plan for tax reform would embark on a comprehensive plan for expenditure reform with a plan to eliminate the deficit in three years. Concurrently the Reform Party would work toward the implementation, as I said earlier, of a simple visible, proportional tax. Third, once it is clear that the deficit reduction strategy is leading to a balanced budget, the Reform Party would eliminate in stages the national value added tax, the GST tax, the son of GST, whatever, the great Liberal flip-flop, GST, VAT, NVAT, whatever, and implement a personal and corporate tax based on the principles of the proportional tax.

The Reform Party acknowledges that tax reform is a difficult process. We were somewhat apprehensive that the limited time frame given this committee would not allow adequate investigation of the type of sweeping reforms that are necessary to address all of the concerns with the GST. Our apprehension is verified in that many of the problems with the GST are not dealt with in this report-my colleagues will touch on that-being either put off to future negotiations or implicitly ignored.

The Reform Party sees the GST, now the national value added tax or equivalent, as a temporary tax which belongs in the provincial domain. As much as the tax will exist for a temporary period of time, the Reform Party supports the constructive changes that would streamline the operation and remove as many of the significant problems that exist until such a time as we can implement such wider tax reforms that provide both tax relief and tax simplification. This would include the elimination of a federal value added tax.

My final point in the few minutes left to me is the following. I am a rookie politician. I came here because I am fiscally responsible. I want to see government live within its means. Two and a half months ago I was named a member of the finance committee and the first job I had was to help evaluate a replacement for the GST on behalf of the government.

All members of the committee worked hard and constructively. They all listened to the witnesses and tried to see where the group could stay together for the longest possible time to achieve a unanimous report in the best interests of all Canadians and all provinces. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, all of us tried to do that.

I went back to the previous report that was filed when the Conservatives first brought in the GST. Many members opposite were on that committee; the Minister of Industry, the party whip and others sitting on the other side.

Their recommendation was not to bring in a GST, no consumption tax. Two and a half years ago many members of that party gave that opinion. They gave it in committee. Some Liberals came to our committee. No GST-truly abolish the GST; replace it with a better system of taxation, replace it with nothing, replace it combined with some spending cuts and this party has ignored those recommendations. For two and a half years it has done nothing to work toward its goal of a simplified system of taxation, more equitable, more efficient.

As a rookie MP, I am very disappointed. If you stand up today and say something and you get your chance to do it two and a half years later and you do not do it, is power that corrupting?

Committees Of The House June 22nd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, the second issue that I wish to address relates to the report that has been filed.

This report is an attempt to fulfil an election promise. It is very apropos that we talk about the Liberal Party's election promises and its behaviour between now when it is the government and when its members were in opposition. The things they said to the Canadian public to get here, to get themselves elected, especially in the province of Ontario where they stole every seat except one-

Committees Of The House June 22nd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Finance regarding replacing the GST and options for Canada, there are two issues I would like to address and I will also present the Reform Party's plan for tax reform.

The two issues I would like to address on this motion are the Liberal red book promise and the Liberal campaign election promise. There is a distinct difference between the two and this government is now attempting to confuse the Canadian public by putting the two together.

First, with respect to the red book campaign promise, the Liberals promised in that book, and it is there for everybody to read, to replace the GST with a simplified tax, more fair to small business and harmonized with the provinces.

The government is going to call this the new national value added tax but it is nothing more than a Christmas wish list. The government has made no hard proposals, only various options for provinces to consider, for Canadians to consider. It shirks its responsibilities by coming out one way or another on anything that is within the proposal. All decisions are left for the provincial governments to make. It is trying to sell the perfect tax world. If the provinces do not go along they will be the ones blamed and the federal government will claim that it has done the proper thing based on a report from a committee.

I have two colleagues who will address this issue as well and I will leave it to them to point out our concerns with this new national value added tax. I predict in short order, probably before Christmas, it will be referred to as the very awful tax and Canadians will be encouraging the government not to implement it.

My two colleagues will also point out the basic fundamental flaws that value added taxes are unable to resolve.

I would like to go on to the second aspect of-

Committees Of The House June 22nd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I move that the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Finance presented to the House on Monday, June 20, 1994 be concurred in.

Goods And Services Tax June 22nd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, the honeymoon for this government is over. It is time it be held accountable. The finance minister in opposition said he would abolish the GST. Today he stands up and defends the GST which he calls a replacement tax.

Will the finance minister depart from his usual double talk, like he just did which quite frankly is insulting to the Canadian taxpayer and admit that he, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade will have to break their promise to abolish and kill a GST type tax?

Goods And Services Tax June 22nd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that last night they loved each other and today the romance is over. What happened?

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Promising to scrap the GST was one of the major campaign strategies used by the Liberal Party during the last election to get elected. Canadians heard about their people and heard about their plan, but what about their promises?

With Parliament recessing for the summer, can the finance minister explain to all taxpayers without referring to the red book and without blaming the separatists, simply put, how his party can promise to kill a tax and then turn around at the same time and keep it under another name and still hold a straight face?

Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act June 21st, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Does the government have to give a reason to limit debate for an hour or can it just do it?

Goods And Services Tax June 21st, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I will complain. I want to know if the Deputy Prime Minister would resign. Why does the Prime Minister stand up on her behalf? She should answer the question.

Mr. Speaker, listen to these quick quotes: "I would abolish the GST", the finance minister, 1990. "I hate it and I will kill it", the Prime Minister, 1994. "The tax should hit the whole works, from food to pharmaceuticals", the Minister for International Trade, 1989.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that Canadians will be that gullible as to believe this new GST really kills and abolishes the old GST? If she would not mind, would she answer the first question as well?

Goods And Services Tax June 21st, 1994

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed that her government would kill the GST and that the Prime Minister would live up to this promise. On October 18, 1993 the Deputy Prime Minister in a CBC town hall stated that if the GST was not abolished under a Liberal government she would resign.

If during the next year Canadians deem that the national value added tax, that very awful tax, the new GST, is just the son of the old GST under a new name and therefore not really abolished, will she still agree to resign?

Excise Tax Act June 21st, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I feel like I have been put on the spot. Our party believes we should be representing our constituencies and by so doing, because we come from so many varied ridings, both urban and rural, both sides of the mountains, both ends of the country, Ontario to B.C., we will have differing opinions. We will have different views on the same issue.

In trying to determine how to vote on a bill, on an issue, I think it is important first of all to bounce ideas, the thrust of the bill, against your party's principles and platform. The Liberals do it with their red book. We had a blue book which we call now the blue sheet. If it is consistent with that then there are no doubts on which way to go.

Then other issues become involved and problems start to surface, it becomes bigger, it becomes a multibillion dollar problem if you include alcohol, hand guns and everything else that gets smuggled into the country. Smuggling is a major problem. I do not believe it is in any red book or blue book.

I believe it is the responsibility of MPs to look at the issue from a Canadian perspective and make a decision in the best interests of the country. Bounce the ideas off constituents so they can have input. There are a lot of mechanisms and ways

and means by which they can communicate with their MP. We then have a balanced approach.

I am not so sure my colleague intended we should debate an issue first and then draft the legislation or that legislation should be drafted first and then we react to it. I prefer the latter. However if there are amendments such as those we have tried to make to this bill, they should be listened to instead of throwing them out as this current government likes to do.