Lost his last election, in 1997, with 33% of the vote.
Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96 March 2nd, 1995
Madam Speaker, I am agreeing with your position. What I am asking is for unanimous consent of the House to allow a 10-minute question and comment period in light of the fact that this was more along the lines of a ministerial statement where there is a chance for the opposition parties to respond.
I believe the government would be open enough to allow a question and comment period. I am just asking for unanimous consent.
Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96 March 2nd, 1995
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Standing Orders have some descriptions of Statements by Ministers. What we have just heard more aptly fits the description of a ministerial statement under citations 348 and 349.
Points Of Order March 1st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of all members of the House, would you clarify whether or not it is in order for a member to ask for a retraction and either the member retracts the statement or refuses to retract the statement and then, I suggest from my understanding of the standing orders, you, Mr. Speaker, make a decision on which member had the right position?
The Budget February 28th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the address by my leader, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest. It is the only address I have heard on the budget to this point in the House that actually made any sense.
We saw a budget tabled yesterday that had some tax increases and some spending cuts. However the problem I find is that our total national debt, the GDP ratio, remains unchanged. It is still
around 73 to 75 per cent, which means that we are not gaining any ground.
Yes, we are experiencing some pain as taxpayers. We are going to pay more to put gas in our cars. We are going to pay higher taxes and, yes, we are going to see some reduction in services. We are going to see it at the bottom. We are going to see 45,000 people cut from the civil service and very little cutting at the top. That means services to Canadians are going to be reduced.
We are going to see some pain. We are going to see some additional costs but we are not going to see any gain. We are not going to see any better future for our children in the long term.
Would the hon. member talk about the positive aspect of the Reform taxpayers' budget in that respect in light of the budget tabled by the minister yesterday?
Main Estimates, 1995-96 February 28th, 1995
There are no fish.
Firearms Act February 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, it was with a great deal of thought and consideration and also with a great deal of consultation with the legal counsel of the House that we did present this amendment to the motion being debated before us today. Very simply the wording is:
That all the words after the word "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
This House decline to give second reading to Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons, because the principle of establishing a system for licensing and registration of all firearms and the principle of creating a variety of offences are two unrelated issues that should be addressed separately.
This is a reasoned amendment and we have been informed that according to the legislative counsel of this House it is in order. It is a reasoned amendment and therefore I would put to you, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment be allowed to stand.
Questions On The Order Paper February 27th, 1995
With respect to the $4.8 million grant to build a museum of industry in the riding of Saint-Maurice, ( a ) under what program was this grant awarded, ( b ) what guidelines were followed to the awarding of such a grant, ( c ) how many permanent and part time jobs were created and ( d ) how many contracts have been awarded and to what companies and/or individuals?
Property Rights February 24th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will have your stop watch out.
I am very pleased to express my support for property rights in Canada. The issue of property rights is an important one for all Canadians. It is not merely an issue for the wealthy or for those with business interests.
It is not an issue that can be labelled left or right. It is about personal freedom which is fundamental to free societies. It is a tragedy that a mature democracy like Canada has excluded the right to own property from its constitutional and legal tradition. I will explain how the issue of property rights, or rather a lack of them, adversely affects prairie farmers.
The effect of inadequate property provisions in our legal system means that these farmers do not really own all the commodities they produce. To own something means that one can choose how one uses one's property so long as it does not harm others.
Wheat is not a hazardous substance, therefore the farmer should be able to sell his grain to anyone he pleases by the marketing mechanisms he or she with colleagues choose at whatever price the buyer and seller mutually agree to.
Moreover, the farmer would have the choice of the means of transportation and the route taken to ship the wheat. After all, it is his grain, is it not? In the prairies wheat does not belong to the farmer. It is not his because he cannot sell it freely. He is told who he will sell the grain to. He is told what the price will be and he is told how he must ship the grain. Because of the lack of property rights in Canada, farmers do not own the wheat they produce with their own labour. By implication, the farmer does not own his own labour and therefore he does not own himself.
The farmer is reduced to being an agent of the state, paid for his efforts whatever the government decides to pay him for the produce. If property rights were honoured, all farmers would have the choice whether they wanted to market collectively. I am sure many farmers would make that choice. That is fine as long as it is the farmer's free choice and not one mandated by government.
It is said all that a man owns is himself and his labour. Because of that he then owns the fruit of his labour. By introducing property rights into the Canadian legal tradition we would be freeing farmers to make their own choices about how to meet their own needs using their own resources and the fruits of their own labour. Property rights legislation would give each farmer the authority to make his or own decision as to how to meet those needs.
I would urge all members of this House, particularly members from farm communities, to support the principle of property rights in Canada.
Property Rights February 24th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I would like consent to divide my time with the member for Vancouver North and the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands.
Questions Passed As Orders For Returns February 24th, 1995
With regard to regional ministerial offices, for every year since 1988, ( a ) what is the number of regional offices, ( b ) where are these offices located and ( c ) for each office (i) what was the date of opening, (ii) what was the date of closure (if applicable), (iii) how many persons are/were employed by each office, (iv) what is/was the budget of each office, (v) what proportion of that budget was spent, (vi) what percentage of these funds were spent on office administration, salaries, capital costs, outside contracts and hospitality, and (vii) what are the guidelines under which these expenditures are made?
(Return tabled.)