House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 51% of the vote.
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1994 October 4th, 1994
Mr. Chairman, if we move cases from the superior court to the provincial court, would we not just be increasing the workload of the provincial court and what would happen to the cases already in provincial court? Would we decide then that we are not going to prosecute even more cases? Does it not just move the bell curve that far over that we are not going to bother prosecuting these cases?
Royal Bank Of Canada September 28th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to two worthy initiatives that will help guarantee Canada a place in the new economy.
Recently the Royal Bank of Canada committed $25 million to a venture capital fund. Along with its partners an alliance was formed that will provide capital to bring neuroscience breakthroughs to the market. This commitment marks the first time a pool of venture capital has been raised to fund the neurosciences.
In addition, the Bank of Commerce appointed a vice-president of learning organizations and leadership development. The function of this position is to provide a means of measuring intellectual capital.
We have reached the time when banks and other institutions will not measure worth exclusively in terms of tangible assets. Rather, the assets of the future will also be based on intellectual innovation and invention.
As of 7.32 this morning the national debt had reached $532,190,587,211.96.
Department Of Natural Resources Act September 27th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize the hon. member opposite, the member for Davenport. I recognize his very longstanding, very real commitment to the environment and to sustainable development. This is not a recent conversion. This is as we know a very real, longstanding and very genuine commitment to conservation.
Given the position of stature of the member opposite within his own caucus and given the gravity of the consideration of fossil fuels to that part of the country that I represent, I would like to ask the member to respond to this question specifically.
Would the member recommend an immediate tax on fossil fuels to ensure conservation and to induce consumers to shift away from fossil fuels? Because of his influence within his own caucus, if the hon. member for Davenport had his way today would we have a tax on fossil fuel to conserve energy and to induce people to switch to other fuels tomorrow?
Department Of Industry Act September 26th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, if the solution implied in my hon. colleague's question is that regional economic expansion is key to preventing and eliminating regional disparity in the country or in any other country, for that matter, I would send the question back by saying that we have been sending scads of money to depressed areas of the country for years. Has it changed anything? I submit it has not.
I would also submit there is a situation that parallels the one we are talking about between the northern and the southern states of the United States.
The fastest growing economic area in North America today is the southern states. For years they were depressed. Gradually over time their economies were such that their labour rates and the cost of housing were lower. They had a highly motivated workforce and businesses started to invest in that area. Now it is booming.
If trying to eliminate disparities in Canada by taking money from a wealthier area and transmitting it through business to a less favoured area works, we would not have a problem today. However we do. The statistics quoted by my hon. colleague from Yellowhead indicated that nothing has changed after years of sending money to these various areas through ACOA, FORD-Q, DREE and all such things.
We are in exactly the same situation except we are in the hole by $500 billion. Even if we wanted to, we cannot afford it any more. We are creating and perpetuating dependency. We have to look for new solutions.
Department Of Industry Act September 26th, 1994
Yes, of course they are. They are entirely different. When we talk about eliminating grants to businesses which artificially change the marketplace and allow the government in its wisdom or lack thereof to pick winners and losers, it is entirely different from our fiduciary responsibility as citizens to look after those who are not able to look after themselves. We are talking about individuals who need help, not corporations that want help.
Department Of Industry Act September 26th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, as I understand the principle of the amendment, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. We are talking about the country as a whole, not just about Quebec. If it makes sense for Quebec it makes sense for everyone.
Department Of Industry Act September 26th, 1994
Every one of them.
Department Of Industry Act September 26th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very salient question. We cannot have one rule for one and a different rule for everybody else. Then we would be hypocrites. We must have one rule for everyone.
It is interesting we use the term grants which presupposes that it is our money. If I have $10 and I want to give it to one of my kids, that is a grant; but if I am taking somebody else's money and giving it to someone else, that is a loan.
I will answer the member's question directly. I think we should have a flat tax, yes. Without question we cannot have one set of rules, for example, on depletion allowances and all the rest of it. Income earned is income earned and we pay tax on it. Tax points and tax credits are exactly the same as cash that does not come in.
Department Of Industry Act September 26th, 1994
That raises the question. What should government do and what should the real role of government be in a free economy? I would submit that it is a whole lot less than we are doing today.
Let me give an example of the extension of what we started with all the good ideas of Walter Gordon. They were well meaning. He certainly did not get up the morning and say: "How can I wreck the country? Do you know what I would really like to do? I would really like to make sure my great grandchildren cannot afford to buy a car". C.D. Howe did not say: "We beat the Germans but we are sure going to destroy our future generations". It just sort of happened but look what it has led to. Transfer payments in the Department of Industry. Contributions under technology for environmental solutions initiative, $10 million; contributions to defence industry productivity programs, $158 million; contributions to Bombardier de Havilland.
It should not be called the department of industry; it should be called the department of grants to Bombardier, de Havilland and SNC-Lavalin.
Here is another one. It is over a number of years. It is $143,682,285. It is a 1994-95 disbursement forecast for contracts signed with SNC-Lavalin and subsidiaries for geographic programs all over the world. The $143 million is subsidized by little people earning 8, 10 or 12 bucks an hour.
David Lewis, a member of the New Democratic Party in this House, Stephen's father, coined the phrase corporate welfare bums. It is true there are corporate welfare bums. We have to wean corporations away from the public trough. If we are stupid enough to make it available they are going to be smart enough to take it because it is their tax money as well.
What do we do? It is fairly simple, fairly straightforward. We pay attention to what is going on in Alberta. There is no point in going through the trials and tribulations of what is going on in Alberta and not learning from it. The very least we can do is
learn from what is going on in Alberta and carry that forward to the whole country.
Government must reduce its intrusion into the marketplace and get back to basics. Our job is to look after the infrastructure of the country that cannot be looked after other than through the national government. Above all, we should have in the department of industry some kind of overriding mission statement so that we can look at it every day and ask whether what we intend to do or are trying to do fits with what our plan should be. Do we have a goal? Do we have even clue one about where we want to be at the end of the day? The first thing we need is a mission statement.
I submit this might be a place to start to establish and maintain a culture which rewards entrepreneurship, innovation and research and which ensures a level, honest, competitive marketplace. Nothing more, nothing less.
Business people in Canada do not want a free handout from the government, but if we are stupid enough to give it to them they are going to be smart enough to take it. It is up to us to say no.
Therefore I would like to move a subamendment to the Bloc amendment. I move:
That the amendment be amended by striking out the word "Quebec's" and substituting the following therefor "each province's" and by deleting the word "regional".
Department Of Industry Act September 26th, 1994
It is a clue. The question is, where did the debt come from? We have a clue here. We are narrowing in on how we got a debt of $500 billion and how we are going into the hole. This year alone the debate is $40 billion and $110 million every single day.
It is debt we are putting on to our children, our grandchildren and their children. Their standard of living is not going to be nearly as good as ours because we have been living beyond our means. It is immoral. It is not right. Our generation has to take responsibility for that debt.
One of the things we have to do is recognize the window of opportunity, change and get our economy back on track, get the government back on track doing what government should do.