Jeff Watson

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague for a very thorough presentation.

I want to address the issue of these corporate tax cuts for just a moment. Members on the government side of the House and, of course, their coalition of corruption partners over there in the New Democratic Party, seem to be portraying this as something for just the rich who donate to our campaigns or something like that.

Let me begin with some of the news from today: indefinite layoffs announced by General Motors of Canada; rumours that Ford's Essex engine plant in Windsor may be closing down; loss of a third shift possibility at a Windsor assembly plant. The government just heard a presentation of money for DaimlerChrylser in its cabinet this week. The industry needs some help but the government wants to get rid of corporate tax cuts that could help them.

Does my colleague not believe that it is a benefit to the average working Canadian, the communities and this government, through tax revenues from these high paying auto jobs, to keep them here? Is that not the real reason that tax cuts are important in this country?

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to highlight the record of this government over 12 years. Over 80 times it has shut down debate in this House. Whether it was a majority or a minority Parliament, it did not matter. The government did not want to hear the voices of Canadians through duly elected opposition members of Parliament.

There are millions of Canadians out there who voted for Conservative members of Parliament like me and who expect us to fight bills like Bill C-38 right to the bitter end, yet the government wants to limit the voice of Canadians through us as duly elected members of Parliament. Why? Why does it want to shut down the voices of Canadians who voted for members of Parliament on this side of the House who oppose their legislation?

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Jean Brault is forced under duress to give donations to the Liberal Party. We call that extortion. A Prime Minister, to consolidate his slipping grip on power, in a backroom is forced to give up a bag of goodies to that other party. What does the hon. member think Canadians should call that?

[Criminal Code, June 22nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I echo the sentiments of my colleague by saying it is a great pleasure to rise in this place to speak to what I believe is a fine piece of legislation. This bill is long overdue. The bill has been brought forward by the hon. member for Langley who is my seatmate here in the House. In his first year here, he is demonstrating himself to be a fine member of Parliament.

I look at this legislation that he has brought forward which provides for minimum sentences on theft of a motor vehicle. Dealing with criminal justice issues has become a serious passion for the member for Langley. He has worked very diligently on this particular issue and others. The voters back home in his riding of Langley will be very pleased with the work that their member is doing. The new rule changes have allowed him to bring forward his private member's bill in such an early fashion and the chance to have it voted on and moved forward. This is an exciting time for him.

This is a very important piece of legislation. Motor vehicle theft is a very serious issue in Canada. It is a serious issue in my community back home. In the communities of Essex County, particularly the city of Windsor, there is a growing influence of organized crime; vice crime is on the rise.

A number of people, even in my own circle of friends, have had their vehicles stolen. It is a serious cost to them and a serious cost to our fellow Canadians as well. We pay for it through our increased insurance rates. We like to complain a lot about how much we have to pay for car insurance in Ontario. It is not just attributable to poor driving but to the fact that our vehicles are being stolen.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada estimates that auto theft costs Canadians $1 billion a year. That is a staggering number. We are not talking pocket change here. This is very serious: $1 billion a year.

Canada's auto theft rate is higher than the rate in the United States. My riding is across the river from Detroit, Michigan. Many of us think that crime is pretty bad over on the United States' side of the border and we pride ourselves that things are a lot quieter and our communities are a lot safer over here. Canada's vehicle theft rate has been higher than the United States' rate since 1996. It is virtually a decade already where we have exceeded the United States in vehicle thefts.

What is particularly serious is the nature of the crime. Vehicles are being stolen, not just as a crime in itself but in order to commit other crimes. It is not just a simple act of theft by somebody on a lark. The statistic I have is that one-quarter of vehicle thefts are linked to organized crime. It is very serious. For our colleagues from Quebec who are tackling organized crime within their own provincial boundaries, this is a serious issue. One-quarter of vehicle thefts are linked to organized crime.

The proceeds from auto theft fund organized crime terrorism. That is where the proceeds are going. Vehicles are stolen to commit other crimes and it is done in an organized fashion. Sometimes the vehicles are exported overseas, or resold in other provinces, or stripped for auto parts. They are very sophisticated operations.

The real serious problem is that courts in Canada are not taking this seriously enough. They are not penalizing these criminals in the proper fashion. Why not? The Criminal Code currently rates auto theft simply as a property offence, which fails to grasp the larger issue that these vehicles are being stolen to commit other crimes, that there are strong links to organized crime, to funding terrorism. Those are very serious things.

The courts need clear direction from Parliament regarding the seriousness of this offence. That is why I salute my colleague, the member for Langley, for bringing this bill forward. This is part of our attempt to send a strong signal from Parliament on behalf of society at large, the communities we represent, that they do not tolerate auto theft. They understand the seriousness of it.

We need to express that here within these walls by passing Bill C-293. It is a very important piece of legislation that would provide for minimum mandatory sentences and/or serious fines. It would send a clear message to the auto thieves themselves. It would act as a deterrent. Maybe people who were being corralled into an organized crime ring or drug ring would think twice about it, because they would not just get some sort of house arrest or a little slap on the wrist. There is a very real threat that they would spend some time in a real jail. That may dissuade some of them from getting involved in these kinds of crimes.

Not only would it dissuade potential offenders from offending, but it stands the real promise of dissuading actual offenders, those who have already offended, from reoffending. That is a real concern as well, those who have been involved in organized crime or a drug ring, who have been caught under the old rules. If this law passed, it would change the scenario for them. They would have the potential to do real time. They may think twice now and they might find a way out of it so that they do not reoffend and end up in jail.

The other important thing about this is that it would finally be communicating society's condemnation of auto theft. We have had enough. It is costing us $1 billion. Insurance rates are soaring. It would send a signal that we have had enough and that we are done with it, that we are going to get serious about this. We are going to ensure that those who steal automobiles for the purposes of committing other crimes are put away. They are going to serve serious time. That is very important.

This is important if we are going to send a serious signal about the larger issue of organized crime. We are not going to tolerate it any more. We are going to fight back. Society wants to fight back. Canadians can do that through their members of Parliament. That is what the member for Langley is doing. That is what I am up here doing on behalf of the citizens and the communities of the riding of Essex and even for our neighbours in the city of Windsor. We know they do not tolerate this anymore. In our community we have seen vice crime on the rise. We have seen a lot of crime that has been going up.

It is very important for us as citizens to express our displeasure. We are done with it. We are just not going to tolerate it anymore. The way we can do that is by passing Bill C-293.

I want to talk about the profile of the typical auto thief. It is not some young kid on a joyride who walks into a neighbourhood, picks a car that is nice and easy to break into, takes it for a little spin and leaves it somewhere else. According to a 2004 auto theft study, the typical auto thief is a 27-year-old male with 10 prior criminal convictions and who is usually addicted to crystal meth or some other illicit substance.

I think I heard one of the hon. members across the way say that the courts have to factor in that the person stealing a car may not have a criminal record and that we have to look out for things like that. Ten prior criminal convictions is the standard profile for an auto thief who is usually a 27-year-old male. This is not just the ordinary kid off the street. We have to send a strong message. It is a very critical issue.

I applaud and salute the member for Langley for bringing this forward. It is about time that we got serious about the issue of minimum sentencing in the country. The other parties may oppose this because they think criminals have a constitutional right to have house arrest instead of being put in a jail. We on this side of the House disagree. We in the Conservative Party of Canada think that it is high time that we start getting serious about minimum sentencing and send a strong signal that we have had enough with auto theft.

I will be proudly voting for Bill C-293 in support of my colleague and in defence of our communities.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I may be young at 34 but I remember the red book in 1993 and the election campaign that year. The Liberals came to power. Nobody was talking about tax relief, paying down the debt, or any of those types of things. In fact, the red book was a recipe for handing over one's chequebook. There was more and more spending.

But surprise, there was a protest party out west, one of the legacy parties of this Conservative Party. It elected a surprising number of members of Parliament. They came to Ottawa and pushed for things such as eliminating the deficit, zero in three, I think it was back then. There were some surprising ideas that interestingly enough were not in the red book.

Where did the current conditions for today's economy come from? They did not come from ideas from that bench. They came from the official opposition. They came from the Conservative Party's fighting to put the fiscal house in order.

Bill C-48 on the other hand, to get back to the debate at hand, is a recipe for returning to deficits. Combine this with some of the Liberals' other $26 billion in spending promises since the Prime Minister showed up on national television to beg for his political life. They have a $10 billion per year unfunded liability for a national day care system. Put this all together and it is a recipe for higher taxes, program cuts or borrowing the money to pay for them. That is fiscal irresponsibility.

The Liberals have allowed the NDP in because the government needed to be propped up. This is the way the Liberals do it. It is a recipe for deficit spending. It is irresponsible and I look forward to opposing it.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, let me just end my remarks with the NDP logic and what it looks like. That logic says to get rid of tax relief for auto companies, to hurt the quality of life for Canadians by passing Bill C-48, and to hope there is enough money left over after Liberal year end spending sprees to try to replace the quality of life the NDP hurt in the first place.

It is no wonder that the NDP has never formed a government in Canada. It is not likely to do so. We all remember Bob Rae. Canadians will come to their senses, too, when it comes time for the next election.

To sum up, Bill C-48 is a bad deal cut on the back of a napkin. That is not sound fiscal management. It defies the budgetary processes of the House for thorough prebudget hearings and everything else. A couple of people met in a hotel room to prop up a government; this is how they do fiscal management here in Canada. It is a bad deal. I look forward to voting against it.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 21st, 2005]

There is incivility on that side of the House. That is quite the hypocrisy coming from the New Democrats.

We want to pay off debt so we can relieve generations to come of crippling bills. The New Democrats want to send a major $500 billion bill to my children and my children's children rather than paying off the national debt.

We want an arrangement whereby we have real jobs here in Canada, not overseas in China. We in the Conservative Party of Canada are fighting for auto workers, for family farmers and for others who deserve to work here in Canada.

Bill C-48 is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The New Democrats are peddling paradise while they are flouting the open and transparent budgetary processes of the House. They are peddling paradise using deceptive reasoning.

I want to probe a couple of the arguments that the NDP has been putting forth in favour of Bill C-48. The first is that the New Democrats are simply taking the tax cuts for corporations like Ford, General Motors and Chrysler and reallocating them to other areas, to what they call their priorities. This is not actually true. This is not a simple reallocation within the same fiscal year.

Bill C-43 offers corporate tax relief. It is a guaranteed budget expenditure, so it is accounted for in a particular year's fiscal arrangement. Bill C-48, the NDP's budget wish list, is a conditional expenditure that triggers only beyond a $2 billion surplus. It does so no sooner than 18 months from now.

A national crisis could emerge. There would go the surplus and the NDP's Bill C-48. We could have downturns in the economy, which could eat up that fiscal room. We could have further provincial demands that need to be satisfied.

Corporations like General Motors, Chrysler and Ford need guaranteed relief to keep jobs here in Canada. They need to know that a guaranteed expenditure is coming to help them so they can plan to stay here and keep jobs in Canada. The NDP is promising, with smoke and mirrors, something that may not even come true.

The NDP will argue that there is plenty of fiscal room and says not to worry about it. The NDP also wants a child care system that would cost $10 billion a year more than the Liberals are currently funding in Bill C-43. That will mean a disappearance of any fiscal room and more. That will necessitate increased taxes, and there may be program cuts from health care and education in order to reallocate money to this national day care.

Or there may be deficit spending. We had plenty of that in Ontario. We remember Bob Rae. We certainly remember the $11 billion deficits that were run in the province. We remember Rae days, on which people could not visit their doctor because the doctor's office was closed that day. Why? There was no money for the doctor to get paid that day. That is what we remember about New Democratic fiscal prudence, or what they like to call fiscal prudence.

This means that maybe child care is on the mantel, to be chopped off. Maybe child care will not be pursued. Where are the dollars going to come from? Will they go to fund Bill C-48? Will they go to fund national day care? They cannot do both with the same fiscal surplus.

Let us look back in time. We have had $90 billion in unplanned surpluses since 1997. The actual surpluses were astoundingly higher, but the Liberal government made an art of end of the year, empty the cupboard, politically driven spending sprees to shrink surpluses so Canadians would not be so alarmed by their size.

I see a train wreck coming for the New Democrats, who actually think they may get something with Bill C-48. They are not likely going to see a dime go to funding their priorities when their Liberal cousins empty the cupboard by year's end. They have been duped. Either that or they are trying to dupe Canadians into believing that something will be there. They know it will not be. The NDP has been keeping the Liberals afloat and the NDP gets nothing. That is a raw deal and those members do not even see it coming.

Let us talk about corporate tax cuts for a moment. The NDP has been claiming that corporate tax cuts simply benefit the rich while claiming that New Democrats are helping regular Canadians.

First, the Conservative Party believes in tax relief, not simply tax cuts. Canadian families,along with corporations having trouble competing because of the high dollar and other reasons, need relief now, and not just a simple one time tax cut. They need sustained relief in taxation. Real people struggle every week to make ends meet. They deserve tax relief.

Second, tax relief for corporations actually benefits Canadians in the workforce. I am Parliament's first auto worker. Let us talk about auto workers for a moment. Having our dollar going up in Canada is hurting our exports. Canadian auto companies' productivity is being hurt. Their ability to compete globally from here in Ontario is being hurt.

Massive layoffs have begun in the United States. We have seen layoffs in my community of Windsor and in the communities in the riding of Essex. We have seen them across Ontario. This is happening not just with Ford, Chrysler and General Motors, but with our parts makers and parts suppliers and our tool, mould and die sector, which has had a 38% attrition rate in Essex county in the last decade under the Liberal watch. Those jobs have gone to foreign labour markets such as China and the United States.

Buzz Hargrove, a friend of the New Democrats, the one who actually helped them cut this backroom deal, says that these layoffs are coming to Canada soon with the trickle-down from the 25,000 layoffs that GM has announced in the United States. The NDP wants to get rid of tax relief for Ford, General Motors and DaimlerChrysler right at a time when they are losing the ability to keep auto workers employed here in Ontario. Those are Canadian families at risk of losing their jobs right at a time when that party, which says it likes to fight for auto workers, is getting rid of that tax relief.

Every auto job supports six other jobs. Five hundred thousand regular Canadians lose their jobs when auto jobs head to cheaper foreign labour markets like China or to lower tax jurisdictions such as Georgia, Alabama or South Carolina.

No, tax relief benefits real Canadians on main streets, not just in urban centres but in rural towns, villages and hamlets. The NDP just does not get it. It is no wonder that the first auto worker in Parliament elected by regular Canadians is a Conservative from Essex and is not from the NDP, the CCF, the Liberals or anybody else.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in debate on Bill C-48 to talk about the Conservative Party of Canada and about me as a Conservative member of Parliament and a new member of Parliament, and how we are here to build a better Canada. I have a tangible investment in future generations. I have four kids. My oldest turned eight only three days ago.

We are interested in building a better Canada with an improved quality of life within a better fiscal arrangement, not with boondoggle mismanagement the way things have been done for 12 years on that side of the House, and not with sponsorship scandals where hard-earned tax dollars are skimmed to fund Liberal Party election campaigns in Quebec. Neither do we want deals on the back of a napkin, those sorts of poor fiscal arrangements.

What we are looking for in the Conservative Party of Canada is lowering taxes to increase freedom for families so they can pursue priorities in their lives, so they can put their kids into soccer classes, so they can do the things they want to enjoy life. We stand for paying off the debt--

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, let us recall that Bill C-48 comes at the expense of tax relief for corporations such as Ford, Chrysler and General Motors.

In my community of Windsor, Ontario, in the first quarter of 2005 we are down 6,000 jobs and unemployment is up to 9.4%. Many of these jobs were in the auto parts sector that supply our major OEMs, such as Ford, General Motors and DaimlerChrysler. The tax relief for these corporations is very important to preserve jobs here in Canada, high paying jobs that support a quality of life through charitable giving and tax dollars.

Would my hon. colleague comment on why the NDP is abandoning auto workers at this particular time by getting rid of corporate tax cuts that would have helped Ford, Chrysler and General Motors stay in Canada?

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to make Certain Payments, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting to be in the House to listen to New Democrats talk about fiscal prudence. I am trying not to laugh because I remember the Rob Rae days in the province of Ontario where I could not visit my doctor some days because there was no money to support doctors. There were deficits in the billions of dollars.

On the issue of fiscal prudence, in the last election I remember a Conservative platform that had deep tax relief, plus further investments in necessary programs. We were loudly criticized over there as being fiscally reckless and having a $40 billion black hole. It is interesting that the $40 billion black hole forms the basis of surplus projections that the NDP keeps talking about in this room available for Bill C-48.

Looking back, there have been $90 billion in surpluses since 1997. They were actually larger than that because there was a lot of year end spending to whittle it down so that taxpayers would not get sticker shock.

As the NDP crows that this is fiscally responsible, that it will be great and it will get what it wants, are the Liberals likely to fritter away the money before it ever gets to them? Are they actually going to get anything in the end even though they are up here crowing about it? It has supported a corrupt government but will get nothing in the end.