Lost his last election, in 2000, with 19% of the vote.
Prime Minister May 26th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the wagons are circling among eager Liberal backbenchers to protect the Prime Minister. Debbie Weinstein has spoken freely to the media about the Prime Minister's blind trust, yet the Liberals have done everything to keep her from answering questions from parliamentarians.
Will the Prime Minister tell us why his trustee is allowed to speak to the media but not to elected parliamentarians?
North American Free Trade Agreement May 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, in April the Business Council on National Issues, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters Canada organized a luncheon to celebrate five years of NAFTA.
There is so much to celebrate. Total trade among the three countries has increased by 75% and now surpasses $700 billion a year. Employment has increased significantly in all three of the NAFTA partners.
The Prime Minister's comments to Michigan State University on Friday neglected to mention an important fact. NAFTA's success story in Canada came about for one single reason: the visionary leadership of the former Conservative government.
The Prime Minister and his Liberals must stop taking credit for Canada's growing economy because of NAFTA. This Liberal rewriting of history rivals credibility.
Province Of Ontario May 5th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, today a provincial election was called in Ontario. The Conservatives are seeking a mandate to continue to cut provincial income tax by 20% and to increase health care spending by 20%.
Over 540,000 new jobs have been created by Premier Mike Harris, and according to the Conference Board of Canada the number of new jobs will total 866,000 by the end of next year.
Here in Ottawa we have three different cabinet ministers with three different lines on taxation. Will the Prime Minister explain why Ontario gets a booming economy and record setting health care spending while Canada gets the three stooges of high taxes?
The Economy May 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it sounds like the industry minister is wimping out.
The federal government's own report, “Sustaining Growth: Human Development and Social Cohesion” listed six productivity drivers and not a single one was health care. The report cited a better business environment, trade, innovation and investment in research and development. The report recommended personal income tax cuts as one of the best remedies to Canada's productivity problem.
Will the Minister of Industry tell the House who Canadians should believe, his own government's productivity research or the ramblings of a Prime Minister who once thought he invented the GST?
The Economy May 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, every single Industry Canada document in the past several years has stated that productivity is essential to Canada's economic prosperity and social security.
In February, the Minister of Industry told the Empire Club “productivity is the most important determinant of our standard of living”. This past weekend, he called for tax cuts to improve our productivity, the worst of the G-7.
Does the minister agree with his Prime Minister that more money spent on health care instead of tax cuts will improve productivity?
Questions Passed As Orders For Returns May 3rd, 1999
For the 1997-98 fiscal year, what were (i) the eligibility requirements, (ii) the re-payment obligations, (iii) the average contribution made in the ridings of Outremont, Laurier-Sainte-Marie, Saint-Maurice and Lasalle-Émard, and (iv) the average contribution made in the Province of Quebec for each of the following Canada Economic Development for the Quebec Regions initiatives: ( a ) innovation, research and development, design; ( b ) market development and exports; and ( c ) entrepreneurship and business development?
Return tabled.
Questions Passed As Orders For Returns May 3rd, 1999
For the 1997-98 fiscal year, what were (i) the eligibility requirements, (ii) the average contribution made in the ridings of Saint-Maurice, Markham, Saint John, Calgary Southwest, Halifax, Laurier-Sainte-Marie, Ottawa South and Lasalle-Émard, (iii) the average contribution made in the Provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, (iv) and the average contribution made nationwide, for the following initiatives: ( a ) the Transitional Job Fund; ( b ) the Labour Market Development partnerships; ( c ) the Youth internships; ( d ) the Targeted wage subsidy program; and ( e ) Summer career placements?
Return tabled.
Question No. 192—
Ibm Canada April 27th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, as home to over 750 technology companies and growing, the town of Markham is Canada's high tech capital. That reputation grew on Friday when IBM Canada officially announced that the new site for the IBM software solutions laboratory will be in Markham.
This lab is one of Canada's largest research and development facilities and employs more than 1,500 software developers, engineers and support staff. IBM lab employees currently work at three separate leased facilities in the greater Toronto area.
Starting in the fall of 2001, they will all work in a new $125 million state of the art building in Markham. This is the latest example of IBM's positive contribution to Canada.
In 1998 alone, IBM Canada has invested $250 million in research and development, hired over 3,300 regular employees, has a workforce of over 17,000 regular workers across the country and will provide work term experience for 800 students.
Let us do more to nurture the success of companies like IBM Canada.
Supply April 19th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the federal Liberal government continues to be the number one obstacle to growth in this country. Today we were reading about the latest evidence of Canada's weakening economy. According to an internal federal report, hikes in personal incomes taxes have contributed to a significant decline in the after tax income of Canadians. Stagnant family incomes, a poor middle class and rising poverty were identified as the consequences of Canada's high tax policy. In short, the report concluded that Canadians on average have become poorer in the 1990s.
One of the lesser told stories is the negative impact on the economy brought about by the Liberal government's cost recovery program. There is nothing wrong with a cost recovery program based on reasonable fees, increased efficiency and smarter performance, but credible evidence suggests that the present program is the Liberal government's latest attack on the private sector.
A recent report prepared by the Business Coalition for Cost Recovery, which represents small, medium and large size firms that employ 2.2 million people and contribute $330 billion to the national economy, detailed the devastating impact the federal cost recovery program has had since 1994. Canada's manufacturers have been subject to a massive 153% increase in regulatory fees. User fees charged through cost recovery are among the fastest growing costs of doing business in Canada. The $1.6 billion in regulatory fees charged to businesses in the 1996-97 fiscal year cut Canada's GDP by at least $1.3 billion and cost at least 23,000 Canadian jobs.
The cost recovery fees, as currently structured, are undermining the productivity and international competitiveness of Canadian businesses. For of all the problems caused by cost recovery the government is only gaining 20 cents in revenue for every dollar in fees charged to businesses.
As I have noted on numerous occasions in the House in recent months, if the Liberals were truly concerned about productivity and increased business investment they would have used this budget to place an immediate moratorium on new or increased regulatory fees until a complete overhaul of the cost recovery program were complete. Instead they chose this complicated and inconsistent cost recovery structure that unduly interferes with the very private sector we need to grow for a stronger economy.
These regulations and fees comprise a hidden form of taxation and their excesses need to be curbed to guarantee sustained growth for Canada's economy. I challenge this government to start addressing the root causes of low productivity such as the heavy regulatory burden of the federal cost recovery program.
Building Contracts April 13th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister asks the people of Canada to trust him. He asks Canadians to believe in his claim of no inappropriate conduct in the Chateau Shawinigan affair without any corroborating evidence.
He asks Canadians to have faith in the little guy when his cabinet ministers and backbenchers do everything possible to prevent all the facts from coming out. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister refuses to use section 11 of the Auditor General Act to conduct an independent audit of the Thibault and Duhaime deals.
This afternoon the industry committee will be asked to vote on a motion I tabled to summon the manager of the Prime Minister's blind trust to appear before the committee in camera. If there are no grounds for further investigations, then surely the Liberal majority should support my motion.
I urge the Prime Minister to ask his Liberal committee members to support my motion to prove that his integrity is worth more than a cup of coffee.