Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was budget.

Last in Parliament April 1997, as Liberal MP for Winnipeg North Centre (Manitoba)

Lost his last election, in 1997, with 37% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Committees Of The House April 24th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Industry concerning its review of section 14 of the Patent Act amendment 1992, chapter 2, Statutes of Canada 1993.

I would like to take this occasion to thank the members of the committee for their hard work and also the many witnesses who came forward.

I would particularly like to take this opportunity, on behalf of all committee chairs, to thank the House of Commons publications services which worked very long hours in the last few days to get all these reports out.

Supply March 5th, 1997

Yes. Guess who was the proudest defender of the plan? Guess who wrote to the famous John Kroeker, who the member brought up in the House of Commons yesterday, to say this is the best thing for Canadians? Ernest Manning wrote a private letter to him which said that this plan should be defended by Canadians, that this is the best way to protect workers in a modern society. It was the father of the member's leader. He should go back to his papers to find out where he was in 1965-66. The member should do his research and he will understand how this plan works. He should start telling Canadians that at 7 per cent, what will happen to that $600 billion if we do not have a Canada pension plan. What will they do, raise income tax? Will they put their hands over their eyes? What will happen to that?

Canadians will have money for their Canada pension plan by keeping their contributions down to 9.9 per cent, by sharing the cost between the employers and the employees. Do Reformers mention employer contributions in their superfund? Of course they do not. The great travesty in this whole thing is that the workers pay the 10 per cent plus they pay 7 per cent for the outstanding obligation. For 17 per cent, what do they get? A high risk mutual fund run by the Reform Party. Is the member crazy? Is he nuts? I would like to hear a response.

Supply March 5th, 1997

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to join this debate. I have never seen an opposition party so willing to open up its weakest flank by declaring a day to debate an idea that does not actually exist. That is one of the great travesties in this debate.

This is a very serious debate. Members are very concerned about it. One of the core issues facing our society is that of economic insecurity. The eight provincial governments and the federal government have finally answered the question of economic security in the Canada pension plan. It is a great achievement. Only three political leaders in the country would not join in: the premier of Saskatchewan, the premier of British Columbia and the leader of the third party. What a group of scoundrels. None of them are willing to live up to his responsibilities. What do they have in common? Their unwillingness to deal with the arithmetic reality that is involved in the reform of the Canada pension plan.

People have begged us from the outset to please do something about this plan.

Industry February 12th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Industry.

Excise Tax Act February 11th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the House leader started off after question period and there was confusion about reverting to Routine Proceedings. We just got that confusion cleared up. There is a committee report to be presented which now has the unanimous consent from everybody to be presented. There is a committee meeting starting in a few minutes.

I wonder if I could have the indulgence of the House to revert to Routine Proceedings with the consent of the House and present the committee report now.

Excise Tax Act February 11th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

House Committees December 4th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Industry has the honour to present its third report.

In accordance with its order of reference on Tuesday, October 29, 1996, your committee has considered Bill C-57, an act to amend the Bell Canada Act, and has agreed to report it without amendment. A copy of the relevant minutes to the proceedings relating to this bill, issue No. 3, which includes the report, is tabled.

Committees Of The House June 5th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the first report of the Standing Committee on Industry. In accordance with its order of reference of Monday, May 22, 1996, your committee has considered Bill C-4, an act to amend the Standards Council of Canada Act and agrees to report it without amendment.

Speech From The Throne February 28th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Government of Canada has not made any of these proposals but all 11 governments, including the 10 provinces, have agreed to discuss these ideas. What Canadians tell us will be the way that we decide to go.

On the question of the money being available to the provinces, that is true. One of the questions in the discussion paper that has been circulated is whether or not that should continue. If premiums change, for example, there could be quite a pool of capital and I think we should all take an interest in how it should be invested.

Speech From The Throne February 28th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I do not share the total pessimism of the opposition spokesperson but I understand his frustration. If he thinks he is frustrated, I can say what it is like being a parliamentary secretary in the Department of Finance for the last two years and having to deal with reality every month.

The reality is that the government has made tremendous strides in the steps of reduction strategy and that it will in the next couple of years reach the targets that are acceptable to all Canadians. It will show tremendous progress on that front.

It has to be remembered that the drain being put on young people is untenable unless we change our ways. We agree with members opposite 100 per cent on that issue. It is hard to imagine that the Government of Canada will probably have to have a cash excess each year of about $50 billion to match interest rates for a while. That is a tremendous burden.

Having said that, the reductions that we are making in public expenditures and in interest rates, and the modest economic growth that we are seeing, are still contributing to a more positive cash flow situation for the federal government. I am optimistic that we will be able to hit these targets and give people enough tax base so that they can accommodate any changes in the CPP.