Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In his presentation the Conservative House leader read from a document which had been prepared by the government House leader back in 1993. I would ask that document be tabled.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 80% of the vote.
Privilege February 13th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In his presentation the Conservative House leader read from a document which had been prepared by the government House leader back in 1993. I would ask that document be tabled.
Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act February 12th, 2001
Madam Speaker, the member from the New Democratic Party who just spoke talked about selling out the country and American ownership. I would suggest that if we want to slow down the Americans who are buying Canadian companies, we do it by pursuing fiscal policy that will cause the dollar to increase. The dollar is at an artificially low level and that certainly does make it very easy for Americans to buy us out instead of Canadians buying their own companies. I would like the member to comment on that. That is the way to have Canadians buy Canadian companies and keep Canadian ownership: through pursuing proper fiscal policy, which will cause the dollar to increase.
Further though, the member opposite talks about the Canadian Alliance wanting to privatize everything and having that type of policy. I say that is not true. In fact, we have an example today of where we do not support the government, which talks about privatizing the administration of the Firearms Act and privatizing the enforcement, if we can believe it, of the Firearms Act. That is completely unreasonable. I do not support it and my party does not support that kind of policy. It is a crazy policy. It is a taking privatization to the extreme. I would like the member to comment on that.
Agriculture February 12th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, most people in the world struggle from day to day to buy the food they need, but most Canadians have earned enough already this year to pay for their food for the entire year. The reason is that farmers in Canada are so efficient and so good at their jobs.
What thanks do they get? I thank and many Canadians thank farmers, but the government really does not seem to care. If it did it would be fighting to remove export subsidies and other trade distorting subsidies in Europe, Asia and the United States. That would increase the price farmers get for their grain.
If the government cared, it would lower taxes and unfair user fees so farmers' costs would go down. If the government cared about farmers, it would fix the regulations that hurt farmers. It would lower freight costs and allow new marketing opportunities for farmers.
Unfortunately the government's record on agriculture speaks for itself. Now is the time for the government to do the right thing. It really would not hurt to thank farmers for providing the best, lowest priced food in the world.
Criminal Code February 7th, 2001
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-245, an act to amend the Criminal Code (search and seizure without warrant).
Mr. Speaker, this bill would rescind part of Bill C-68, a bill that was introduced by the government some time ago.
What the bill would specifically do is remove the unusual search and seizure provisions put forth in Bill C-68 and bring them more into line with other search and seizure provisions, which is certainly something Canadians have asked for.
In the case of unreasonable damage being done during a search process, the bill would ensure that the individual involved would be compensated. It would fix part of what was put in place through Bill C-68, the gun bill, which was unfair.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Income Tax Act February 7th, 2001
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-244, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of mechanics' tool expenses).
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill again, a bill that I introduced about four years ago. It has been debated in the House and has been brought forth by other members since then.
The bill would allow mechanics to deduct the cost of their tools, the insurance costs on their tools, the rental costs and so on. It would also allow them to claim a capital cost allowance on the cost of tools above $200 when a requirement of their employment is that they pay for their own tools. This is something that is supported by all parties to some degree and is certainly supported by all mechanics.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Employment Insurance Act February 5th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the presentation of the NDP member, and from his comments I can understand why the NDP lost seats during this election campaign. His solution to the problem in employment insurance seems to be to pay out the surplus through larger payouts to unemployed people rather than to do what would create jobs, in fact, and what would lower premiums. It has been well documented that payroll taxes, including unemployment insurance premiums, are big job killers. Rather than focusing on having business create new jobs by lowering the premiums, he has taken the approach that we have this huge surplus and we just have to spend it, we just have to get it into the hands of people.
Of course coming from the NDP that is not too surprising. Coming from this member, it is not surprising at all, because this is the same member who on Friday, in introducing his private member's bill, proposed setting up a price setting commission. He referred to any Albertans opposed to a new national energy program as being somehow consumed by corporate greed and suggested that Albertans are selfish if they do not support some type of new national energy program.
I could not believe that this member would propose such a thing. Certainly if we want to alienate western Canada, Alberta in particular, that is how it is done. The member has certainly done a good job of that. I have had very few issues on which I have had as many calls from constituents as I did on this issue.
Why is the member proposing this change which would in fact kill jobs rather than create jobs? Would he not prefer to see people work rather than see higher payouts? I would also like him to comment on his proposal for a new national energy program.
Economic Policy October 18th, 2000
What is the reform afraid of?
The Liberal Party Of Canada October 18th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, as we apparently get into an election campaign after less than three and a half years since the last election, let us look at the Liberals' record on keeping promises.
On taxes, they promised to cut, to scrap, to abolish the GST. They did not. They did deliver 50 tax increases in the last five years alone. For the past three years they have promised tax relief, but have members looked at their pay stubs lately?
On the environment, they promised legislation to protect endangered species and they failed three times.
On agriculture, they promised farmers $1.9 billion to compensate for losses due to unfair trade. They have delivered 42%.
On crime, they promised to overhaul the Young Offenders Act. After seven years they have failed again.
In fact, the biggest crime of all is that this government thinks Canadians will believe their hollow promises again.
Canada Health Care, Early Childhood Development And Other Social Services Funding Act October 17th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, where has the member been throughout this debate? Why have there been no Liberals speaking in this debate, or very few, until just now when something they do not like to hear tweaks them? The Canadian public is being told facts that they do not like to hear.
The absolute fact is that since 1993 the government has cut $36 billion in health funding. The fact is that this deal returns only $23 billion of that amount. Why are these members not standing up in the House and talking about that?
The member talks about tax points. Why has he not been standing in the House explaining what these tax points are? I would certainly welcome him doing that.
Canada Health Care, Early Childhood Development And Other Social Services Funding Act October 17th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, talk about crocodile tears. If the member had done his homework he would know that this amendment would increase funding beyond what is in the current legislation.
The member wonders why he has not heard points of useful debate. It is because he has been too busy talking to listen. He is still talking rather than listening. If he would listen to what we are saying he would hear some points which are worth bringing out, which do add to the debate, and which will help inform Canadians about what is going on here and about what we are considering.
When the government came to office in 1993, federal funding to the provinces for health care was $17.5 billion a year. It gutted that so that in 1994 it cut funding to $14.5 billion a year with the plan it implemented. That is what his government did. Where has he been for the last seven years?
If and when the legislation passes it will return the funding level to $15.5 billion a year. That is all it does. It does not even increase it to the level of funding when the government took office.
He has the nerve to say that what we are proposing will not increase spending from what they are proposing. That is not true. That is not accurate. I would ask the member to do his homework in the future.