Lost his last election, in 2000, with 33% of the vote.
Canada Post April 23rd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, in 1996 the Liberal government's own Canada Post mandate review recommended that for the good of the industry Canada Post should sell off its ownership of Purolator Courier and get out of the courier business.
Why is the Government of Canada involved in an industry that is already well served by the private sector?
Canada Post April 23rd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, we heard the startling revelation yesterday that Canada Post, which already has a massive presence in the courier industry, has just gobbled up what was left of Purolator Courier.
This means that the Government of Canada now owns more than 50% of the courier industry in Canada. Before the government buys out or puts out of business the rest of this industry, will the minister encourage the Competition Bureau to review this further intrusion into the private sector?
Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act April 22nd, 1999
Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the hon. member. In her speech she was talking about the pensions of Canada Post employees.
Why should we be tampering with their pensions? In October and November 1997 we were in a contract dispute with Canada Post and the Liberal government legislated its employees back to work. It has been almost two years since the employees were legislated back to work and there is still no settlement in sight. I would like the hon. member to comment on that.
Questions On The Order Paper April 16th, 1999
With respect to the Parliamentary Precinct Directorate of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada: ( a ) how many public servants are employed with the Directorate: and ( b ) how many staff departures have there been since June 1997?
Criminal Code April 15th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer the comments of the Progressive Conservative Party on Bill C-484. The PC Party believes in consecutive sentences to get tough on criminals. The PC Party also believes in legislation that gets tough on criminals who use firearms in the commission of an offence. The PC Party believes that by getting tough on criminals of all ages while offering and supporting meaningful programs for their rehabilitation, we can create a safe society for all Canadians.
However, we do not believe that Bill C-484 will be able to remedy all the degenerative legislation that has been enacted over the past six years by a Liberal government that is soft on crime. For example, this legislation could be rendered useless due to Liberal initiatives such as conditional sentencing.
This Liberal initiative has already been applied to rapists so why should we not believe that it would not be liberally applied to offenders falling under the auspices of Bill C-484? Conversely, we feel Bill C-484 is disproportionate to the rest of the Criminal Code in terms of the proposed sentences offered to criminals who fall under the bill.
If the government would commit to sensible gun control legislation that did not discriminate against law-abiding gun owners, and if it would follow the lead of its own MPs and commit to consecutive sentencing, the opposition parties would not feel the need to propose amendments to correct such bad legislation.
Since the Liberals came into power in 1993 they have tried to paint themselves as champions of justice and protectors of the public interest. In doing so they have promoted gun control legislation through basic, simplistic terms that played on the fears of a public fearful for its own public safety.
It is obvious now that the Reform Party too is falling victim to this Liberal image doctoring as its proposed amendments are playing right into the hands of Liberal ideals concerning gun control.
Instead of creating more negative firearms publicity through the bill, the Reform Party should be blasting the Liberals for their soft stand on crime. If the Liberals took a harder stance on issues such as youth and organized crime, if they listened to their colleagues and passed legislation on consecutive sentencing, and if they gave our police forces the proper funding needed to enforce the law, there would be no need for constant Criminal Code amendments to correct bad Liberal legislation.
Meaningful legislation would allow people to feel safe in the towns and cities of Canada. They would feel safe enough that the anti-gun lobby would not be forced to create its propaganda that also affects law-abiding gun owners in an adverse manner.
Our party supports the noble basis of Bill C-484, as it is steeped in the ideal of public safety. However, we are tempered by difficulties that this proposed legislation will encounter when confronted with existing, backward Liberal legislation. In noting this inevitable confrontation, we feel that the following problems will ensue.
First and foremost, our party has made it abundantly clear that the Liberal government has and continues to enact firearms legislation that discriminates against law-abiding gun owners. The Liberals are famous for being parochial fence-sitters that manoeuvre in the middle ground so as to avoid committing to anything that may damage their popularity. After all, the Liberals have continually proven that their objective is to support any popular cause as long as it ensures their re-election. The result is a government with no foresight and no platform other than that of doing whatever is necessary to be re-elected.
As I previously mentioned, the issue of gun control is one that was very easy for the Liberals to be seen as the champions of justice for the Canadian people. With violent images of crime being broadcast nightly into the living rooms of Canadians, the Liberals gained widespread support by saying that Canada had to get tougher gun registration laws to cut down on the availability of guns to the public. They quickly translated this tugging of Canadian heart strings into the now infamous Bill C-68, which is as disappointing as the current Bill C-68 debated today.
Neglecting the fact that this bill would cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to implement and that it would take up to 233 years to register all Canadian firearms, the Liberals went ahead with the legislation championing themselves as the protectors of the Canadian public.
It is easy to see the effectiveness of the legislation now that the initial hype has been tempered by harsh reality. For example, the Liberal government that will do anything to avoid controversy has now come face to face with law-abiding gun owners who are protesting Bill C-68 as it discriminates against them with an ineffective, time consuming registration process.
In continuing with the theme of Liberal legislation that led to harsh realty, last week there was the occurrence of an absolute tragedy at the OC Transpo depot in Ottawa. The fact is that the Liberal's Bill C-68 would not have prevented a person like Pierre Lebrun from buying the gun used to facilitate his horrific killing spree.
This is what happens when dealing with a government that has no ideology or focus. It was popular and thus politically safe to implement legislation like Bill C-68. The Liberals must have felt that discriminating against law-abiding groups of gun owners would be a necessary evil but well worth it when compared to the support they would gain through an emotional subject like gun control.
However, in the Liberals' push for popularity they neglected to deal with the real issue at hand. If the Liberals—and in the case of Bill C-484, the Reform Party—would focus their efforts on the root causes of crime, we would not need Bill C-484, which will only bring more negative propaganda against gun owners.
We need to remember that the gun itself does not commit the crime. Therefore, we need to focus on stopping the real causes of crime, such as unemployment, poverty and the lack of protection from non-rehabilitated offenders who are released too soon due to concurrent sentencing and prison release quotas.
However, these problems are not as easily dealt with. Thus, we will not see the Liberals or the Reform Party delve into these issues and risk their popularity.
The second caution which our party would like to make has to do with the idea of amending the Criminal Code. Amending the Criminal Code can be a dangerous practice as it involves some of our society's most fundamental beliefs. Although these beliefs relate specifically to the manner in which our society disciplines itself, they also overlap into other areas, such as the charter of rights and freedoms.
Thus, if society was allowed to make amendments every time the Criminal Code fell afoul of popular opinion, we would make changes in haste that could adversely affect significant portions of society, and because such changes would be made in response to popular public opinion, it would leave minority groups unprotected from the tyranny of the majority.
We need to have faith in our judicial system which allows our judges to interpret the Criminal Code as it relates to an individual case. Although the system is not perfect, it allows for thoughtful, non-partisan decisions to be rendered and it allows for appeals of the process to be heard.
Youth Criminal Justice Act April 15th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the people of of Tobique—Mactaquac, New Brunswick, are sick and tired of violent crimes. Since 1993 we have seen the Liberal government downloading services to the provinces with no resources. It seems to me the government through Bill C-68 is expecting police forces, social services and provinces to do more.
I have a great deal of respect for the Reform member. Does he expect the same government to provide funding for the new Young Offenders Act?
Points Of Order March 25th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, earlier today part III of the estimates was tabled. I realize that there are difficulties with massive distribution of bulky documents. However, I have not been able to obtain a copy of those papers. Members of the media have been provided with copies while the majority of members of the House do not have copies. The media want my reaction and I have been significantly disadvantaged by the House distribution system which has been inadequately served by the government.
I want to bring this situation to your attention, Mr. Speaker. Today there is not a satisfactory arrangement to serve the needs of members of parliament.
Transit Passes March 24th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak on this private member's motion presented by my colleague from the NDP, for whom I have great respect.
We will support this motion because this is a win win win situation. The only gamble the federal government takes is a potential loss of revenue which to my knowledge would be small. It is the responsibility of other levels of government and individual transit properties to market their services according to this new policy.
Revenue losses can occur only if transit properties are successful at encouraging businesses to participate. The impact of success on ordinary Canadians, economically, environmentally, and on our health, will be tremendous. Also, it is a real window of opportunity, because the balanced budget has increased the finance department's ability to examine and invest in new strategies that promote sustainable transportation practices.
This is a rare opportunity for the federal government to effect public policy at a local level. This tax exemption is one of the few financial instruments available to support transportation demands and management efforts and is one of the easiest to implement. This measure is supported by social, environmental, business, labour, health, transit, political and municipal organizations across Canada, representing a wide variety of interests.
Forest fires, floods, ice storms, cyclones, extreme temperatures, smog days, high UV reading days and children with asthma have opened Canadians' eyes to the dangers of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. The tax exemption would be an immediate concrete action, proving that the federal government is serious about working toward a sustainable future.
It is a reality. The federal government is unable to meet its international obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Provincial governments are struggling with the high cost of health care due to pollution related illnesses. Municipal governments do not have the resources to maintain and expand transportation infrastructure. Canadians can no longer afford to support an indefinite increase in single occupancy vehicles and yet they have little incentive to use public transit.
Transportation is the largest single sector source of Canadian carbon emissions, 32%. It accounts for 30% of energy used and 65% of petroleum consumed. In cities where public transit is available, 50% of transportation related emissions occur due to cars and light trucks. Only 10% of Canada's 9.1 million commuters use public transit. This was reported by Statistics Canada in 1994. Today the number might be a little higher, but I do not think it is really that much higher.
Support for this initiative continues to grow steadily. Encouraging the use of public transit is no longer viewed solely as a transit issue. It is a health issue, a social issue, a pollution issue, an environmental issue and an economic issue.
At a national level this proposal is a solid foot forward in the battle to meet our Kyoto obligations. It is a proposal that makes sense. It is cost efficient and has been proven to be an effective incentive in other countries, most notably the United States.
New riders are defined as those changing their primary commuting behaviour, but current riders were also found to increase their transit use by 25% to 30% after receiving transit benefits.
The bottom line is that single occupancy vehicle use is reduced when an employer provided tax exempt transit benefits. The same GAO report quoted by finance discusses the limitations of the report in following paragraphs. Employees surveyed were receiving an average of $21 per month in transit benefits.
It should also be noted that because employers are not currently supplying transit passes except in some rare instances there is no existing revenue to be lost. The revenue can only be lost if the transit pass is substituted for taxable wages. All other revenue is not lost but forgone.
This is a huge difference when we look at the cost of other initiatives that may require immediate funding from existing budgets. This revenue that is forgone does not happen immediately but will be spread over many years as transit properties begin marketing these incentives.
Taxation is already effectively used to discourage some behaviour while encouraging others. We have taxes increased on alcohol and cigarette use, tax credits to all companies for land replenishing costs, tax reduction for charitable and political donations. This tax exemption is a proven incentive in the U.S. to use public transit.
Ground level ozone, the smog, has increased by 20% and that was from a report on advancing the dialogue on sustainable transportation in Canada, 1996. Four hundred Toronto residents die prematurely each year due to poor air quality. Ozone is a pulmonary irritant that results in inflammation of the lungs, decreased lung function and decreased resistance to infection.
Transportation related air pollution is particularly harmful to people at risk, young people, the elderly, those with asthma or chronic lung and heart disease.
By 2010 the number of cars on the planet will double and the number of vehicle miles travelled will triple. Again this is from a report on moving the economy from a conference held in Toronto in 1998.
One of the greatest economic and environmental challenges now facing the world is control of carbon dioxide, CO2, and other greenhouse gasses that threaten to destabilize climate and lead to global warming. Rising sea levels, regional aridity, drought and extreme weather events cause human displacement, severe regional food shortages and losses that exceed the financing capabilities of the insurance industry.
Government response to date will not meet our international obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Kyoto protocol. That is why I am urging members from both sides of the House to support this motion.
Public Works And Government Services March 19th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, although I could stand here and make fun of the minister's math skills all day, the reality is that those MROs should be closed and the money should be put to better use.
For example, in Plaster Rock and Florenceville, New Brunswick kids have no recreation complex in which to play sports because the government claimed there was no money for infrastructure grants.
What is the minister's priority, giving ministers and expensive office they almost never use or providing kids with a place to learn and grow?
Public Works And Government Services March 19th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, we have learned that cost of operating the ministerial regional office in Fredericton for the first year is $484,000. Only three cabinet ministers have used this office in the past year. That means it cost taxpayers over $161,000 for each meeting. One can get a hotel suite with an adjoining board room in Fredericton for $175 a day.
Will the minister shut down this money pit and end this embarrassing habit?