House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was money.

Last in Parliament September 2008, as Conservative MP for Edmonton—Sherwood Park (Alberta)

Won his last election, in 2006, with 64% of the vote.

Statements in the House

North-West Mounted Police May 10th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, it was 1874. The North-West Mounted Police, only one year old, was dispatched from Manitoba to points further west. The primary goals were to establish friendly relations with the aboriginals and to maintain peace as settlers arrived. Two hundred and seventy-five men, 114 ox carts, 73 wagons, 93 cattle, field artillery and agriculture tools were on their way to Alberta.

Now 125 years later this trek west is being re-enacted as a part of preserving the history of our proud police force. Saturday, just two days ago, the first contingent left Emerson, Manitoba. The northern contingent of this trek is expected to arrive in Fort Saskatchewan in my riding on July 23.

We are proud of our history and the RCMP which had its beginnings 125 years ago. Congratulations to the organizers and participants in this historic re-enactment. We look forward with enthusiasm to the excitement of this celebration throughout the summer.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998 May 10th, 1999

Madam Speaker, Bill C-72 deals with the 1998 budget and that is what we are talking about. We are talking about the whole issue and what should have been in this budget. We are talking about what should have been in Bill C-72 to fix the budget to make it right. Instead we are being fed all this garbage. I think it is time that we looked at the way the government does these things.

The Income Tax Act is pages and pages of convoluted words that only add to the distress of Canadian taxpayers. There are several ways to reduce taxes but all of them require the use of professionals. Gone are the days when ordinary taxpayers making $12,000 or $15,000 a year could do their own tax forms. Canadians have to hire professionals. They know that this government will screw them out of another couple of thousand dollars unless they have a paid professional. Whether Canadians pay the government or the professionals, their money is being stolen from them. It is a shame and the government ought to be ashamed of itself.

What does Bill C-72 say about health care? It is what it does not say. It is a fact that budget after budget is a shell game on how we are going to communicate. We have a government that talks about an education budget. All the government does is it arranges for students to have a maximum amount of debt. The government gives them no real help. It taxes them. Sure the government gives a little deal with a tax break on the interest on student loans. Thank you very much but that has to be the correct kind of loan. Bank loans are not covered. Is that not shameful.

Some students cannot get enough money from their student loans to go to school, especially mature students with families. They do not have enough money from the basic student loan to attend school. They have to get a bank loan. Can they deduct that interest? No. They pay taxes and interest on the money that is left after the tax bill.

That is how the government operates. It takes money over and over again from those who are unable to pay a great deal because of their low income levels. Not to mention the fact that our dollar has slid down to almost zero because of the tax and grab scheme of the federal government. I think it is atrocious.

We have tax changes that are supposed to increase the non-refundable personal tax credit for the individual surtax. Once again the spin doctors and the communicators announce a number, $500.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998 May 10th, 1999

Madam Speaker, of course the member is totally wrong. The millennium fund was announced in the 1998 budget and the member knows it.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998 May 10th, 1999

Madam Speaker, then I will rise on debate.

The government wants to close the debate and get on with the vote, and I suppose in a way I do not blame it, since we have already filed our income taxes which concern this bill. I do not understand exactly what the government is doing. We thought we would be using the day to debate this issue, to talk about taxes and the measures the government is using, and here we are with a very flagrant motion to stop the debate and to basically shut off our discussion on this whole topic.

I wish that people in Canada knew what was going on in the country. We have a lot of members who are very upset. I am talking about members of our society, our citizens and taxpayers. They are very concerned because we have a government that insists on taxing them to death. At every turn there is another tax. There is a tax on a tax. The governments of the past 30 years have not done a thing about this. They have simply been riding roughshod over taxpayers.

This Liberal government has brought in a bill to implement parts of the Income Tax Act provisions from the 1998 budget after the provisions have already been put into practice. That probably puts the thumb on the whole issue of why we are in such trouble in this country. These Liberals want to pass themselves off across the country as having been successful in bringing our fiscal house into order. That is what they keep crowing about.

The fact of the matter is that we have more debt than we did when the Liberals first took office, about $180 billion more. We have higher interest payments on the debt as a result, even though we are blessed these days with low interest rates. We have an endless stream of taxes and user fees. The average Canadian family has at least $3,000 less than it had when the Liberals took office.

I believe that the way parliament works is the root of the problem. We have no mechanism by which the taxpayers can be represented here, no mechanism at all. Many members over there would argue that is not true. The Liberal government represents the government and its wishes. Liberals vote the way the Prime Minister or the finance minister directs them. They will acknowledge that they do not represent the people, that they vote on these issues the way they are told to. Surely it must be the role of the opposition to represent the people here. That is fine, but the frustration is that we on this side get up to speak on behalf of taxpayers, we speak on behalf of students, we speak on behalf of those people who are laying on cots in hospital hallways, we speak until our voices are hoarse, but no one listens. No one does anything about it. Then, when it comes time to vote, we are routinely outvoted simply because we do not have quite enough members here yet.

I am looking forward to the day when we have members in this House of Commons on the government side who, in contrast to the Liberals and the Conservatives, are dedicated and committed to representing the people who sent them here, to representing the taxpayer and the call for lower taxes, for fairness in taxation and decency in the way the government spends our money, not the flippant kind of spending that we see over and over again from this government. It is really atrocious that the government keeps doing these things and not listening to taxpayers.

I will refer briefly to a newspaper clipping, the headline of which indicates that 85% of Canadians are upset by the tax bite. I suppose that no one would really ever say that they love taxes. If I earn money and someone has the legislative right in this country to take it away from me, I suppose, no matter how good the cause, there is going to be a certain degree of resistance to that. However, we ought to pay attention when the headline says that 85% of Canadians are upset. In the text of the clipping it says that these people are very concerned about taxes. They are upset by them. In that scale of question, half of Canadians said they were very upset or extremely upset. The reason is twofold. The total tax bite is too high. Together the different levels of government take too great a proportion of our earnings. It is around 50%. It takes until July 1. Maybe that is why it is called Canada Day. We work from January to July just to pay our taxes.

It is little wonder that the proportion of families who have two earners instead of only one is being increased so much, against the will and the choice of many Canadians. They simply have to do that in order to pay their taxes.

I have mentioned in the House before that my wife and I decided she would be a full time mom. What did I do? I had to get an evening job to supplement the income. I used to tell people that I worked on Tuesday night for Trudeau and on Thursday night for my family. Back in Trudeau's time it was already that bad.

Has it been alleviated? Did nine years of Conservative government solve the problem? I think not. We had a massive increase in our national debt under that administration. Have the Liberals solved the problem? They want people to think they have. I suppose reluctantly we ought to say, thank goodness, at least they did not spend the surplus that was dumped into their lap through lower taxes, particularly in Ontario and Alberta, and more competitive and better trade because of the free trade agreement. The Liberals were against it, but it has been a bit of a saviour for our country and our economy.

It is incredible that these people want us to believe they have done anything. I insist that the budget is balanced these days despite the government. If we had not had this government we would have been way further ahead now.

I find it atrocious that the government has absolutely no plan to reduce the debt. Over 30% of our tax dollars go to pay interest. That is a direct transfer of wealth from ordinary Canadians who are earning it to the pockets of the bankers and the rich people who have more money than they need.

We have poor people who are hardly able to make ends meet. They have to pay atrocious rates of taxes, one-third of which go to interest payments on the debt. Does the finance minister or the Liberal government have any plan to reduce that debt? The answer is no, they do not have a plan.

I have a copy of the figures taken from the budget. This happens to be the 1999 budget, but the comments are still appropriate, even though we are talking here about the 1998 budget. It is the same thing. I am looking at the net public debt numbers.

It is true that the deficit has gone down, but what has happened to the public debt? What is the plan? The net public debt in 1998 was $579.7 billion. What is the plan for 1998-99, which is the budget we are talking about? It is right in the document, $579.7 billion. It is exactly the same number. What is the plan for 1999-2000, the budget which the finance minister gave several months ago? It is $579.7 billion. In that document, for the year 2000-01 what are they projecting for the debt? It is $579.7 billion.

What is the change in the debt? Zero. Because the government has no plans to pay off the debt. Instead it is saying it has a contingency fund and if it does not need it, of course it will be used to reduce the debt. Meanwhile the government is using all sorts of chicanery in its budgeting process, in its documentation and in its communications and says “We are going to take this money and put it into a fund. We will be able to use it so that Canadians will think we are doing something”.

In this budget which we are talking about today, and the debate on which has now been shut down, there is a motion about the millennium fund. The parliamentary secretary, for whom I have a lot of personal respect, read a departmental speech and referred to the millennium scholarship fund. That is atrocious. It is against accounting rules. It is against everything that makes any sense.

The government in the 1998-99 budget is costing out money that will not be available until the year 2000 so we can celebrate the year 2000. It is taking money year by year, budget by budget, and socking it away for the big Liberal re-election fund which coincidentally will happen within a year of the millennium celebration. That is atrocious. The way the government is trying to spin it is absolutely shameful.

I have a son who is a student and is really having trouble making ends meet. He has to look after his family while he goes to classes. He is trying to earn money so that he can pay his tuition and provide food and housing for his family. He has to make enough money so that he gets close to having to pay taxes. If he actually earned enough so that he could get by without having to borrow, he would have to pay taxes. As it is now, all the Liberal government does is force him into debt while it is saving up for its election fund with this big high power millennium scholarship fund for students in the future. The government is ignoring those who have a genuine need today. The 1998-99 budget ought to deal with the issues of 1998-99 first and foremost.

I am not against the government saying it projects in subsequent budgets that this will be done and there is room for long term planning, but to actually budget it out is contrary to the rules of accounting. It is contrary to what the auditor general says is acceptable and those guys are doing it anyway. They are running roughshod over the rights of Canadian taxpayers.

I think of the ways the government mismanages and misspends money. My hon. colleague from the NDP brought some of these to our attention already. It keeps spending money and wasting money on things no Canadians would support if they were actually given an opportunity to vote on them. Instead the government is just wasting our money.

The hon. member mentioned the dumb blond joke book for $98,000. There are people in my riding who make $15,000 a year and pay taxes. If I asked them if they were happy about the fact that the taxes they are paying are going to supplement the publishing of such a book, they would really get upset and I would not blame them.

There are other things which are just ridiculous. There is one in Hamilton which is using $60,000 of taxpayers' money, which I suppose is the money that 60 middle income taxpayers have to earn in a month. Sixty taxpayers will be sponsoring a trail in Hamilton so that visitors can stroll along and discover old factory buildings. That is totally absurd.

We need to leave the money in the hands of the people who earn it. Sure we can justify taking money out in the form of taxation for reasonable expenditures, but this type of thing has to stop. I am committed to making it stop.

We are contributing $50,000 to a scavenger hunt in Parry Sound. When I was a youngster we had scavenger hunts and they did not cost a penny. Somebody would make up a list of things that people would go looking for. They did not need $50,000.

There is a millennium project under way recreating the Calgary town hall with the original bell for $1.1 million. Why can the locals not do that? It is because the federal government is taxing them to death. They have no choice in these matters. The whole country has to fund this. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998 May 10th, 1999

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I need clarification. We have a motion that the question be now put and I am not sure that is debatable, if I am not mistaken.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998 May 10th, 1999

Madam Speaker, I hate to dominate the debate but I did give others the opportunity to stand before I stood for the second time.

I need to get my head around this. There is certainly the view that some Canadians may spend it outside the country. The fact is that if it is earned in Canada, it is taxed in Canada. Surely the member is not going to be in favour of passing laws that say people face some financial penalty if they invest their money outside the country. I am sure he would not be contemplating that.

I want to make a comment and again have a response with respect to how people spend their money. I am quite convinced that a member of the NDP would certainly favour reducing the money that flows from the poor to the rich. What is happening is that not only collectively as taxpayers and as citizens do we owe a lot of money to the big financiers and the large financial corporations, but also as individuals. People are loaded with debt like they have never been before. It could just be that with a tax cut those individuals would be able to reduce their debt and certainly we should reduce it as a country so that we end up transferring less of the earnings of those in the middle to lower income class to the rich class.

I think the hon. member should be in favour of that. I would like his comment.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998 May 10th, 1999

Madam Speaker, I have to comment. I was truly warmed at the reading by the minister, and he is not the minister; I was thinking of minister in the ecclesiastical sense. It warmed the cockles of my heart.

The member said something about tax breaks not having an effect on the economy. I want to challenge his thinking about this and I would like him to respond.

Whether one taxes or not does not really destroy any money. All it does is change who gets to spend it. It is my understanding that when we are taxed, our earnings are simply put on a train or now on the electronic highway and they are shipped at a million miles a second to Ottawa. Politicians and bureaucrats spend the money which the people have earned.

It is certainly true that some government spending provides people with jobs. We know that is true for all government workers as it is true for other people as well who contract for government jobs. I do not think we would totally discount that taxes are an active player in the economy.

Most studies I have read or read about imply very strongly that if we leave the money close to the people who earn it, they actually invest it in a better way than most governments spend it. The member indicated some of the waste government is involved in.

I would like the member to comment on why it is in his view that reduction of taxes would not help the economy. It certainly would not hinder it. I think it would help it because the people would spend it more wisely than the politicians and bureaucrats.

National Housing Act May 7th, 1999

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words about housing in Canada.

We have before us today a bill to make some changes to the CMHC. I emphasize that home ownership is a cherished value in Canada.

For most of my generation when we graduated from university we got married and the first thing we did was plan to purchase that first house. It is incredible when I think about it. At that time my wife and I chose to live on one salary. We decided that she would be a full time mom to our children. We were able to borrow the money and make the payments on my income of the day. I am sure everyone will be pleased to know and young people will be especially pleased to know that my salary when I was first working in my profession was a little under $6,000 a year. With that I was able to borrow money and start our first home.

A young couple starting today cannot do that. They cannot afford to have their children. They cannot afford to have a house unless they are both working. Even then with all of the taxes and the GST on top of all of that, it is really tough for young people nowadays to get started.

The bigger issue by far is the affordability of homes in this country. CMHC at least in theory and in its philosophy is supposed to support the notion of making housing more affordable. Through the CMHC the government, the taxpayer, takes on a certain amount of the risk of providing the money to purchase homes. That is one of the things government can do but I think the government should have done it in the past. I am talking about the governments of the past 30 years. We will go all the way back to 1970.

The governments since then have racked up so much debt and increased the payments of interest on that debt. I would hold the Liberal government, the Conservative government after that and the present Liberal government accountable for that. Young people nowadays have such a high tax load that it is very difficult for them to get their own housing.

I am basically supportive of measures that would provide for the ownership of homes or that would make it possible for young people to own their own homes. It is a good model of housing that we have. It is quite different from some countries where the thought of owning your own home or your own apartment is totally elusive. It is part of the dream, part of the initiative, part of the psyche of our country that can help us in this ongoing problem of productivity. It motivates us. There is something special about being able to own your own place, to make your own decisions on how you decorate it and how you live.

I have some concerns about the bill. I have some concerns about CMHC extending its industry around the world. I wish we would concentrate on the problems in this area within our own country. We certainly support helping other nations to a degree through our foreign affairs department and through our humanitarian efforts around the world. However when it comes to something like this, CMHC should concentrate on Canadian enterprise, Canadian housing, and not get involved in other countries to that extent.

The other thing that is somewhat troubling is that CMHC expends taxpayers' money, or at least it has the potential of doing so. It is supposed to be designed in such a way that it turns a small profit or operates evenly, but it does have the potential of spending public money. It should always be held accountable through the minister and through parliament to the taxpayers. This bill falls short in that regard.

There should be some amendments made to it so that the Canadian taxpayer is protected and we do not give a blank cheque to the minister to spend as much money as he or she wishes. We like to think that would not be out of control. Accountability is always important to make sure that does not happen.

I conclude by saying that a bill like this one deserves some level of support because there are some good things in it but amendments should be made. I emphasize over and over again that our first obligation to young people and young families in our country in terms of home ownership is to reduce their taxes so they have enough of their earnings left over and they can pay for their mortgages and own their own homes.

Petitions May 5th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured again to stand on behalf of many Canadians. There are 102 signatures on the petition I am presenting. It calls for the consideration of tax fairness to families who choose to have one of the parents stay home and look after their own children. This petition is one of many that are coming in on this topic.

Points Of Order May 4th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to correct the record.

The Minister of Finance referred to a statement I made. What I actually said was that I did not like the way they accounted for the health spending, which is quite different—