House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was debate.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as Conservative MP for South Shore—St. Margaret's (Nova Scotia)

Won his last election, in 2011, with 43% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Excise Tax Act November 26th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure for me to speak to private member's Bill C-259 put forward by the member for Vancouver Island North. When he spoke earlier, I had the opportunity to ask a couple of quick questions. I said that he had done an absolutely stellar job in presenting this bill. I wanted to put that on the record one more time.

This is an important bill. It is important not just to a burgeoning diamond industry in Canada's north, but it is important to our resource sector. It is important to the gold mining industry, the silver mining industry, the gemstone industry across this country, and specifically and probably most important right now, to the diamond industry.

In 1918 a tax was brought in, which obviously was to pay for some of the reparations of World War I and the cost of sending Canadian troops abroad. At that time, just as the Income Tax Act which was brought in after World War II, it seemed to be a good and important idea, but today, times have changed.

I am a bit apprehensive and concerned. In his speech the government member who just spoke used all kinds of flowery words about fiscal responsibility and whether the government must look at this in a piecemeal fashion or use a bigger umbrella. I have some real concerns that the government will try to find a way not to support this piece of legislation.

It is one thing to talk about the importance of private members' bills and it is another thing to support them. This is a good bill. The industry has been requesting it for years. It is important and the government needs to support it without any ifs, ands or buts.

I want to speak about the Department of Finance for a minute. There was a study done by the Department of Finance about removing the excise tax. Remember that jewellery is the only luxury item that still has excise tax on it. People can buy a $50 million yacht in this country and not pay excise tax because it is not a luxury item. People can buy caviar, champagne or a mink coat and none of those are luxury items. Those are necessities of life. Yet a person cannot buy a piece of jewellery worth over $3 because that is a luxury. It is just wrong-headed.

The study done by the department concluded that removing the tax would not have a significant impact on contraband activity and therefore, would not offset lost revenue. I would like to speak to that for a second. How did it come up with the conclusion that it would not have a significant impact on contraband activity?

Even though the Canadian dollar has increased in value, it is still worth less than the American dollar. However, our jewellery costs more because there is a 10% tax on it. We are going to pay 17¢ on the American dollar to go to the United States to save 10% on a piece of jewellery, which we are going to smuggle back into the country. And this would not stop that? It would absolutely stop it in a heartbeat. People would not even consider it.

Why would a person buy a $5,000 diamond ring in Canada and pay $500 more than he or she would have to pay south of the border? The person could put it on his or her finger and wear it home. Everybody would do that. Everybody is doing that. This bill is only common sense.

Any money lost, or any thought of losing money, would be more than compensated by the increase in jewellery sales and the collection of the GST, which is 7%, on those sales. This is not rocket science. Even Liberals should be able to figure this out. This is common sense, straightforward, financially sound legislation and it is long overdue.

Let us look at a couple of numbers. In 2003 11.2 million carats of diamonds were mined in Canada for a total of $1.7 billion. That is out of two mines, the Ekati and Diavik mines. There are another three or four mines ready to come on stream. There is another diamond mine in Nunavut ready to come on stream. A half carat diamond has been found in northern Alberta. Diamonds have been found in northern Saskatchewan.

We have finally signed, through the United Nations, an accord to reduce the blood diamond industry of the world. We have the best source of quality gemstones in the world. We are continuing to punish the industry by saying it has to pay 10% more, ship them abroad. If people want nice diamonds, they can go to Antwerp or Boston. Perhaps there is a secret message, and the Liberals want us all to go somewhere else. I am not sure. We really have to deal with this. Tongue in cheek aside, it is an extremely important industry.

Along with that $1.7 billion diamond industry, Canada is the seventh largest gold producing nation in the world. Canada mined 152 tonnes or $2.7 billion worth of gold, with no value added. Keep Canadians, and northerners in particular, as hewers of wood and drawers of water. The government does not want them to think for themselves or to set up an industry that would allow them to become financially secure, independent and produce for themselves. Even the rest of Canada cannot not take advantage of that. It exports it and then considers giving it back.

Silver would be another idea. Canada produced 1,254,712 kilos or 1,229 tonnes of silver last year.

We have a golden opportunity here. All we have to do is get rid of this punishing excise tax.

Excise Tax Act November 26th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has done an absolutely stellar job of bringing forth this bill. It has been long waited for and is long overdue.

I wonder if he has any comments on why a government that has been in power for over a decade, nearly a dozen years, has not looked at this. We hear a lot of talk and speculation by the Prime Minister, of course it is when he is abroad, on making Yukon, the NWT and Nunavut into provinces, but no discussion from him on how these territories should fund their provincial governments.

Obviously, with the burgeoning diamond industry in the north, well instituted mining industries throughout the north, this would be one source of revenue for them and we hear about value added every day in this country. We tell all of our producers that we must have value added, yet we have a punishing tax that the government has done absolutely nothing about.

Citizenship and Immigration November 26th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the request of the Deputy Prime Minister, evidence was tabled proving that information was altered on the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration's website. However the minister continues to state that the information is accurate when we know her website was altered to cover up double billing by her chief of staff.

The Deputy Prime Minister asked for and received the evidence. Now it is up to the Deputy Prime Minister to explain this ridiculous and juvenile behaviour.

Citizenship and Immigration November 19th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, the question to the minister was about merit, not supposition. To add insult to injury, the Prime Minister's communications director, Scott Reid, knew about supposed improprieties at Citizenship and Immigration. How is it that the Prime Minister supposedly did not?

Citizenship and Immigration November 19th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in a reply to a question from the member for Edmonton--Strathcona, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration stated, “No matter who these people are, they all are deserving of humanitarian and compassionate consideration”. She should have said, “If you are a Liberal, you move to the front of the line”.

Is immigration based on merit or on returning Liberal favours?

Supply November 4th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from St. John's, I too appreciate the comments of the member opposite. There is an issue at stake here of fairness and we do need to get back to the table. It does need to be at the absolutely top level between the Prime Minister and the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.

However, unlike the member opposite, I do not agree totally that this is something that became bogged down in bureaucracy. The Prime Minister of Canada is the chief of Canada. He is the boss. That individual can call the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador tomorrow and tell him he wants a face to face meeting. It is not up to his bureaucrats to do it. It is up to him to do it.

Supply November 4th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, this is not about language. This is about fairness and the future of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. This is about honesty and about keeping promises. This is an opportunity for Atlantic Canada to share in the wealth and contribute to the wealth of this great country.

The hon. member tries to say that this motion is somehow law and somehow a bill. This is the first step on the journey. There is nothing in the language of the motion that should stop any member of the House, who supports Atlantic Canada, who supports Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia keeping 100% of their royalties, from supporting.

Supply November 4th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I think I understand, probably better than the member opposite, but I certainly did not want to cause grief to anyone related to those lost on the Ocean Ranger. However, unlike the member opposite, I knew people on the Ocean Ranger and I worked in the offshore. I understand exactly what happened out there that night.

However, if the member thinks it is not a tragedy for Newfoundland and Labrador to sacrifice its future, then you have it wrong.

Supply November 4th, 2004

Let me tell you something. If you want to call me out of order, you try. I was there. I do not know where you were, but I was there.

Newly minted Liberal statisticians: that is what I have been listening to. As we know, a statistician is someone who often, when working with the numbers, first looks at what is required for an answer and then finds the means to manipulate the numbers to come to that answer. I would say that we have a newly minted group of Liberal statisticians in the House, because they have looked for the answer first and now they are attempting to find a way to get to the answer. I can tell members that is what I have been hearing from the government benches. We cannot do it. We owe more to the future of Nova Scotia and more to the future of Newfoundland and Labrador than that.

Madam Speaker, I should say that I will share my time with the member for New Brunswick Southwest.

It would be my sincere and heartfelt opinion that all government members in this debate, and especially the Minister of Natural Resources, should follow the sage advice of our elders that one really should not deliver a speech if one has no intention of improving on silence. Silence is what we are used to hearing from the Liberal members on this issue. Suddenly today some of them found their feet underneath them, but we have a series of Liberal cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries we have not heard from in this debate.

I will give the Minister of Natural Resources credit that at least he showed up. There are more in the series: the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, ministers from New Brunswick, ministers from P.E.I., and the parliamentary secretaries in all four Atlantic provinces. All of them do not deem this debate important enough to participate in. That is a real travesty of their right to be a parliamentarian.

Beyond the silence, we have heard excuse after excuse from the Minister of Natural Resources as to why he is not fighting. He is not fighting for the prosperity of Atlantic Canada. During the election as late as June 27, the Prime Minister assured Atlantic Canada--and won seats in Atlantic Canada based on his assurance--that he would deliver 100% of the offshore royalties.

I can tell members what we get today and I do not need to be a statistician to manipulate the numbers, because these are the facts. The Province of Nova Scotia receives 19¢ of every federal dollar from offshore revenue. The federal government receives 81¢. The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador receives 27¢ of every federal dollar. I do not think that is a fair cut. I do not know if these guys are card players or mathematicians or what they are, but if that is called equality, it is not equality based on the premise that I understand equality to be based on.

Why is it that the moment someone becomes a cabinet minister in this government he is suddenly emasculated and silent? Why is it that these ministers no longer understand the reason they were elected to this House, which is to stick up for the part of the country that they come from regardless of where that part of the country is?

Let us not mix this up with this convoluted equalization formula. This has nothing to do with equalization. This has everything to do with fairness and there is certainly no fairness here.

In 1987, when Nova Scotia signed the final Canada-Nova Scotia offshore accord, there was no offshore, so it was easy for the government of the day, and with good intentions, I would say, to say that Nova Scotia would be the chief beneficiary of any revenues flowing from the offshore.

Let me tell members, though, that Nova Scotia is not the chief beneficiary of the offshore. This is not about changing the language. This is very simple. This is all about fairness.

Let us take a look at what we in Atlantic Canada actually receive from the offshore. This agreement would be a baby step, a very important first step for the region, because excepting the royalties there is not much else in Atlantic Canada coming from the offshore. Most contracts that supply the rigs are with foreign-owned industry. Offshore resources are taken elsewhere. Refining, processing and petrochemical industries are not located in the region. Even with the agreement, the Atlantic provinces will not be getting the full benefits of their offshore resources. Places like Norway--where the industries are set up at source and around the coast and the jobs stay at home--get the royalties plus the benefits from the infrastructure.

How is one able to build infrastructure? By keeping the royalties and by having the wherewithal to build the infrastructure that puts those extra jobs in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

If we look at the press releases and if we are following this closely, as I am sure all members in the House are, the Prime Minister committed to reforming the equalization system under which the richer provinces support the poorer provinces. He has not been able to do that, and on top of that he has not been able to even deliver to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia the royalties that they deserve from the offshore. He made an election promise of 100%. I would expect and I would be certain that he would intend to respect his pledge and deliver 100%.

I have one minute left and a lot to say. It is almost criminal to think that to this government 100% means an eight year limit to a deal and then a clawback of royalties should Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, heaven forbid, become as wealthy as Ontario. Could we imagine another province in this country as powerful and as wealthy as Ontario? Absolutely scandalous. Ontario is the breadbasket and the heartland of this country, but we should not link other provinces to being as wealthy as Ontario nor should we say shame on them if they are wealthier than Ontario. I do not think there is one person in Ontario who would think that is a fair formula, not one. I ask members to try to find one and get the person to state that publicly. It is ludicrous.

In my opening remarks I referred to statisticians. I would like to apologize to any and all statisticians if any of my comments caused hurt or cast aspersions on that very dedicated and illustrious group. However, I have no apology at all for the Liberal members opposite.

Supply November 4th, 2004

I was working in the offshore. I was there. I don't know where the member was, but I was there. I worked on the rigs in Nova Scotia and I worked on the rigs in Newfoundland, and I saw a rig jacked up in the middle of the night so it could get an air gap so that the waves would not hit its bottom.

This is a huge tragedy. This is the future of Nova Scotia, this is the future of Newfoundland, and it is a tremendous tragedy.