Dick Harris

[Taxation, November 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Jean feels the full impact of this finance minister's insatiable appetite for taxes.

I want to ask the finance minister, is he really proud of what he does to Jean's family? Is he really proud of how much tax he—

[Taxation, November 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense. Jean's family income has decreased over $4,000 since 1993. His disposable income from his cheque has decreased over $2,200 since 1993 under this finance minister's insatiable tax campaign.

Jean cannot hide his income under some offshore foreign flag. He—

[Taxation, November 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, here is another chapter in the great tax rip-off carried out by the finance minister. This is a pay stub for Jean. Jean is a pipefitter who works in Fort McMurray. His gross pay was $2,265, but by the time the finance minister got through with his paycheque, Jean took home about $1,200, a 49% tax bite.

I want to ask the finance minister a very simple question. When is he going to give people like Jean, hard working Canadians, a tax break? When is he going to do that?

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-13. It is a rare occasion when a member of the official opposition can stand in the House and actually congratulate the government on putting forward a bill that does contain at least a few very good points.

We are inclined to support this legislation because it has some very unusual and strange things, unusual and strange to the Liberal Party of Canada. One thing is accountability. It builds accountability into the new CIHR. It is really strange that it does allow for the governing council and the advisory board to be chosen by the research people themselves as opposed to simply being appointed by some Liberal patronage officer, which has been the case in the past with the Medical Research Council.

The Canadian institutes of health research will replace the current Medical Research Council. This is good for a number of reasons. One is accountability. Another is that the governing council and the advisers will be chosen by the researchers themselves.

Also, for anyone who does receive a research grant under this new set-up there will be an accountability requirement that goes along with the funding. That means that within six months and every six months subsequently, as I understand it, the researcher that has the funding will have to account for the work he or she has been doing and show why he or she should continue to receive funding. This is a good thing. It has not been present unfortunately under the current Medical Research Council and that has been a process that we have not been able to support.

Another good thing about the Canadian institutes of health research is that the administrative costs will only be in the range of 4% to 5%. This is another aspect of this unusual piece of government legislation that we can certainly support.

Most of the boards, commissions and governing councils that have been set up under a varying amount of Liberal appointments and structures have subjected the Canadian taxpayer to more and more administrative costs. At the bottom line it has been shown very often that these numerous boards the government has set up have simply been places for friends of the Liberal Party to spend the rest of their days in relatively nice comfort.

We are going into question period now and I will be very pleased after question period to talk about some of the features of the bill and why we will support it. I will also continue to remind Canadians that it is very seldom that the government puts forward a bill that the Reform Party, the official opposition, can actually support. This just happens to be one of them.

[Mississauga Centre, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, what a difference a few years and a promotion make. Not too long ago the hon. member for Mississauga Centre was portraying herself as a great defender of free speech. No one in this place was about to muzzle her. No, siree, Bob.

Now she aims her broadsides at her own colleagues, members of the so-called Italian caucus, MPs she believes are guilty of treason against the government for daring to do their job, Liberal backbenchers who from time to time slip into committees actually intent on asking ministers a tough question.

Shame on the hon. member for Mississauga Centre for denigrating fellow MPs by attacking those who speak for their constituents and shame on this government for once again making it clear that loyalty to cabinet ministers is far more important than MPs accurately representing their own constituents.

[Employment Insurance, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, $21 billion, that is how much this government has overcharged Canadian workers and Canadian businesses. There has been a $21 billion overcharge on EI premiums.

The chief actuary said that the government can lower those premiums to $2.05. Why does the Prime Minister not listen to the chief government actuary and lower EI premiums to $2.05 for Canadian workers? Why does he not just do that?

[Employment Insurance, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has said that a $2.40 EI premium is his comfort zone, but the chief actuary of Canada said that his comfort zone is a $2.05 premium, the same comfort zone as the Reform Party and millions of Canadian workers and businesses.

Why do the Prime Minister and his finance minister not just enter into the comfort zone of working Canadians and lower the EI premiums to $2.05? Why do they not do that?

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was about to do that. I was explaining that because Liberal members of the Indian affairs committee have refused to let hostile—

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know we have been advised this morning that the Indian affairs committee refused to allow anybody but witnesses friendly to the Liberal government at the Nisga'a hearings in B.C. I know we have heard that and I know it is difficult for my colleague—

[Employment Insurance, November 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the $21 billion surplus still sits there. The $2.55 rate still sits there. The chief actuary says $2.05 is more than enough to sustain the fund and provide for a rainy day disaster.

The finance minister ignores the government's chief actuary. Why does he do that? Why does he not lower the premiums to $2.05 as the chief actuary has said? What is his problem?