Ed Fast

[The Budget, January 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the hon. member for Malpeque complain about alleged cuts to transfer payments. If he had read the budget, he would know that transfers will not be cut back.

This is interesting. When we hearken back to the old Liberal days, and you may recall this, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals tried to balance the books on the backs of the provinces. They cut back transfers by a whopping $25 billion. These were transfers for health, social services and education to the provinces.

Today we have one of the cheerleaders of Mr. Martin's act of cutting transfers complaining about alleged cuts in transfers in our recent budget. How does the member for Malpeque justify that double standard?

[Proposed Coalition, December 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the crisis initiated by the separatist coalition has Canadians very upset. In my home province of British Columbia, the radio open line shows are being swamped with angry Canadians. People are furious at this power grab by the defeated opposition parties.

Even Premier Gordon Campbell is defending our democratically-elected government.

Could the minister give us his response to the remarks of the premier?

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, one of the best tools that Canadians have to evaluate whether the Liberal approach to the economy is the right one is to look back in history.

The largest and worst recession Canada ever had since the Great Depression was between 1980 and 1982 under former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. It is really instructive to see what happened during that time.

We remember it was a time of high deficit. It was a time of high debt and taxes. At that time, the interest rates in Canada were somewhere around 20%. Today they are around 5% to 6%. The inflation rate back then was 20% and unemployment was 30%. Today, employment is around 6%.

How is it that the member now believes the Liberal Party would do a better job of managing the economy than they did between 1980 and 1982?

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, November 24th, 2008]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my friend. He raised four strategies he would like our government to adopt to improve the situation in the forestry industry. I will certainly take those stategies under advisement. I appreciate his coming forward with some suggestions that we as a government can look at and process to see if they have the impact of improving our forestry sector.

However, he made one statement that was somewhat disingenuous. I do appreciate honesty in the House. He made the statement that the Conservative government, of which I am a member, had done absolutely nothing to address the forestry challenges we have in Canada. He knows that is not true.

I want to remind the hon. member that we have a $1 billion community development trust, which goes a long way toward addressing the concerns of challenged communities. The accelerated capital cost allowance program was implemented under our government. We have returned $4 billion to the forestry sector under the softwood lumber agreement. We have also introduced $1 billion of support for western Canada for the pine beetle-ravaged forests and communities that rely upon the pine and lumber industry in British Columbia.

Does the member accept the fact that we have done much to address the forestry challenges facing Canada?

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, November 24th, 2008]

Madam Speaker, the member for Ajax—Pickering was spinning us a tale, a tale that forgot about the history of our economy going back to the 1980s. The member may not remember this because he would have been quite young at the time, but in the early 1980s we also suffered a recession in Canada. It was a recession that was caused by the Liberal Party which had an ideology that did not serve the best interests of Canadians. We were left in serious straits which we only came out of when a new Conservative government was elected in 1984.

It is interesting that the recession of that day was driven by high taxes, high deficits and a very high national debt. What is different today? We have an international economic meltdown and yet Canada is still the best placed nation with the strongest economic fundamentals. Unlike the 1980s when the Liberals through their ideology caused such a terrible recession with high taxes and high deficits, today we have paid down $40 billion worth of debt, we have reduced taxes and our national mortgage is down. We can look forward with great optimism to the future.

How is it that the member has forgotten the lessons of history and is again talking about spending money to get us out of this recession? How is it that he is now taking an approach that is similar to the failed approach of the early 1980s? Why does he not recognize that the approach by the Prime Minister is one that is based in fact?

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to commend my colleague for an excellent summary of the direction in which the throne speech is taking our country. There is great leadership on the part of the Prime Minister, with broad strokes outlining how we will address the economic challenges facing us.

However, last evening I had the opportunity to participate in the Consumers' Choice awards in Vancouver. That is where we celebrated the best, the brightest and the most successful of our business people, people who run small and medium size businesses and also larger ones.

One of the messages they gave to me was they commended us for reducing taxation on businesses and corporations, especially during these very tough economic times. Yet I still hear from our opposition colleagues, the NDP, the Bloc and a few from the Liberals, insisting that somehow corporate taxes should be increased.

What is my colleague's opinion on the folly of increasing taxes on corporations and small businesses during these very difficult economic times.

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I too, welcome the member to this august chamber. I think she will find this chamber to be a very rewarding experience.

I want to focus on the heart of her comments which hinged upon her allegation that our government somehow squandered the surpluses that we had. One could compare government to a family's finances. A family may have a line of credit at the bank or some other obligation that it must deal with but suddenly it finds itself with some extra money. It could set that money aside in a rainy day fund but the interest that would be paid on the rainy day fund would be less than what the family would be paying on its line of credit.

The sensible thing to do, the thing that I and thousands of families across Canada do when they have some extra money, such as a bonus from their employer, is to apply it to their line of credit where the interest rate is higher.

Unfortunately, the member did not even mention the fact that our government actually paid off $40 billion in public debt. Basically we paid off money against the mortgage that would have saddled future generations. It was very responsible.

I would ask the member to comment on how she can allege that money was squandered when $40 billion was paid off against the national mortgage.

[Carbon Tax Proposal, June 18th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals across Canada are terrified of how Canadians will react to their leader's plan to impose a new carbon tax. The tax would jack up the price of gas, electricity and everything else.

Yesterday, three Liberal MPs distanced themselves from their leader when they supported a Conservative motion to protect Canadian farmers against a punitive carbon tax. These three MPs are the latest examples of senior Liberals breaking ranks with their leader over his tax trick.

Senior Liberal pollster Michael Marzolini has reportedly warned his party that “a carbon tax is a risky way to go”.

Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella has warned other Liberals that a carbon tax “is unfair to people on fixed incomes (like the elderly) and the poor”.

Yesterday, the former Liberal prime minister took great pains to avoid endorsing a carbon tax during a live television interview.

Not only is the Liberal leader failing to trick Canadians, he cannot even trick members of his own Liberal Party.

[Ethics, June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, many questions have been raised in the House about an audio tape. The Liberal Party has used this tape to smear the Prime Minister, despite the fact that the Prime Minister has always been truthful and has maintained that the tape has been edited.

Strangely, over the last number of days, there have been no questions on this matter from the opposition.

Could the government please tell the House if there is something of which we should be aware?

[Elections Canada, June 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, during times of economic uncertainty Canadians want a leader they can trust. This trust clearly cannot be placed in the hands of the Liberal leader.

Today is the deadline for former Liberal leadership candidates to pay off hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans and outstanding debts or face being in violation of Canada's election laws. Media reports today say the Liberal leader will not have all his loans and debts paid off and that he will be looking to Elections Canada for help by extending the deadline.

The Liberal leader cannot find enough supporters to pay down his debt. At least his chief rivals, such as the member for Toronto Centre and the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, made an effort to pay back their loans.

Will the Liberal leader come clean and show Canadians and this House the agreement he has with Elections Canada to repay his debts due to his fundraising failures or will he break the law by accepting illegal donations?