House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was children.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Conservative MP for Lethbridge (Alberta)

Won his last election, in 2008, with 67% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act April 11th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond. The member just said that families were important, but. Families are very important. The problem is that there have just been too many buts, too many howevers and too many what ifs.

In order to clarify conjugality the member for Calgary Centre asked the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism at a round table at CPAC if she was saying that two people who did not have a physical relationship would qualify under Bill C-23; yes or no. The minister responded by saying that if they fulfilled the other requirements of the conjugal relationship, yes.

What does that mean? What are the other requirements? Where is the definition of conjugality?

The minister says it is not about that. We are getting so many mixed messages from the government that people are confused as to what it means, why the definition is put in there. The government should clarify it, take all the indecision away, put the minds of people who are questioning it at ease and put the definition of conjugality and the definition of marriage in the bill, wherever it needs to be.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act April 11th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we be here today to debate this issue. I am here to speak for hundreds of my constituents who have phoned, faxed and e-mailed me. Hundreds more have filled out petitions which I have tabled in the House. They contained thousands of signatures asking the government to repeal the bill.

I want to approach the issue in two separate ways. The proposed bill has not received wide public debate. I think a bill of this importance should be subjected to that. A number of questions have been raised and I would like to get to some of the ones people have asked. Then I will get into the record of the Liberal government on family issues and its lack of support for families. I will also deal with some of the things it has put in place, and some it has not, which affect families and undermine their importance.

The first issue is the fiscal impact of the bill. The Liberals have not put out any dollar figures as to what it might cost the Canadian taxpayer. The finance minister when referring to the bill and some of the amendments said that the fiscal impact of these amendments would be minimal if anything at all and that it was not a cost issue.

It is a cost issue. We should know how many people will be affected. We should know the cost it will have on the treasury, on the taxpayers of the country. We do not know that. Bill C-23 purports to give benefits to people who have never received them, which will be an additional cost.

The whole idea of conjugality has been the subject of much debate and many questions. Bill C-23 defines in statute that a common law partner is any individual person who is cohabiting with another individual in a conjugal relationship for a minimum of one year. Who defines a conjugal relationship? The dictionary says that it is of or relating to the married state or to married persons in the relationships.

Does this mean that we are equating a conjugal relationship with a married relationship? Is that what we are saying? Is that what the bill means? Does it mean that these relationships will be forced to incur the same responsibilities as married couples? Is there that aspect of responsibility? Or, does it mean that these relationships have a societal contribution equal to a marriage relationship? How will the government prove the conjugality of a relationship? I suppose the real question has been how we will prove conjugality. As a previous Liberal prime minister said, I agree that the government does not have any place in the bedrooms of the nation. Why has the government refused to clearly define it in the legislation? Where is the definition? Will there be any methods to stop people from abusing the bill by saying they are in a relationship when they are not? How are we ever going to pull that out?

The bill should clearly define a conjugal relationship but it does not. It should outline the rights and responsibilities associated with that definition. Are there additional responsibilities if one falls under the bill? What change will that have for society as a whole? I want to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Dewdney—Alouette.

Let us look at the relationships that are not included, the other dependent relationships that exist in society. We all know of such relationships. It could be a daughter taking care of an elderly mom, or a couple of elderly brothers who live together to help each other out. Whatever the situation, these situations are not addressed because they are not based on conjugality.

There is a lack of public input. Time and time again people have said the issue is of such importance that they need a debate on the national stage. It has to go across the country to give everybody an opportunity to debate both sides of the issue in a very broad manner. We have not seen that happen. As a matter of fact closure has been brought in on a number of occasions in parliament and certainly on this bill.

We talk about marriage. Is the bill about marriage? Is it about the definition of marriage? People have said that the definition of marriage needs to be reaffirmed. We did that last June in the House. A motion was put forward and passed that the definition of marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that parliament would take all necessary steps within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada. It is simple. The motion passed. The people have spoken.

However, the bill was brought forward without a definition of marriage. The justice minister made an attempt to include a definition but only in a way that legal advice has told us could be struck down. The definition of marriage needs to be implanted in all of the 68 statutes affected by the bill; it should be embedded right in the text.

One key issue people have brought to my attention is that the definition is important to them. They would like to see it embedded in the bill, as witnessed by the thousands and thousands of signatures tabled in the House asking for the definition of marriage to be included in the bill and, if not, for the bill to be pulled in its entirety. Yesterday we put forward some amendments to do so but they were voted down. We have tried to include that definition through amendments to the bill, but the House chose to vote them down.

I want to speak a bit about the family as a whole in society and some of the things we have seen which are detrimental to strong families. One is the tax system which is unfair to families where one parent chooses to stay at home. We think tax breaks and lower taxes are essential in helping to create stronger families.

Another is the child pornography issue. The notwithstanding clause was not implemented to protect our children from people who use, sell and collect child pornography. In the B.C. case we asked members of the government to use the notwithstanding clause to keep that law in effect while the challenge went through the courts. It chose not to do so. It has been going on for a year and a half to two years now and it is still in abeyance.

The whole child pornography issue has affected my work as well. I brought forward private member's Bill C-321 to amend the criminal code to allow equipment used in the production of child pornography to be seized by the courts and taken away from the people who use it. In many cases in the criminal code this is allowed to happen and in the case of the production of child pornography it is not. Hopefully one day that bill will be drawn and debated. In the meantime I am pursuing the justice minister to have that change made in the laws.

Another issue we deal with on a daily basis when we watch the erosion of families is that of sex offenders. We wanted to have a registry of sex offenders. If we add up all the issues, it comes back to what we think. We need a definition of marriage in the act. We need a definition of conjugality. We need support for families. We need to strengthen families.

We do not need attack after attack on the family unit to try to take away its authority. Members of all parties have gone to world conferences where there has been an attack on families. We as a country should recognize the importance of families and do things to strengthen them, not to undermine them.

Petitions April 11th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the another petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36.

These petitioners feel that Canadians are overtaxed. They are demanding that the federal government account for the gross mismanagement of their tax dollars in the HRDC department. They are also requesting the immediate resignation of the HRDC minister and that the auditor general conduct a full and independent inquiry into HRDC management and accounting practices.

Petitions April 11th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today on two different subjects. The first petition is three separate ones.

The petitioners, who are my constituents, are calling for parliament to withdraw Bill C-23. They say that a bill which fails to define marriage in legislation as a union of one man and woman, a definition which was affirmed by the House on June 8, 1999, is an inappropriate intrusion into the personal lives of Canadians and extends benefits only to a relationship of a sexual nature. They would like the bill withdrawn.

Motions For Papers April 5th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning what the Minister of Natural Resources just asked. Did he ask for the agreement of the House to do what he was proposing to do?

Petitions April 5th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to table a petition that deals with Bill C-23.

My constituents call upon parliament to withdraw Bill C-23, a bill which fails to define marriage in legislation as the union of one man and one woman, a definition which was affirmed by the House on June 8, 1999.

They state that the bill would remove any sort of unique public policy recognition of the institution of marriage, despite significant empirical evidence about the value of marriage as a cornerstone of public policy, and that it is an inappropriate intrusion into the personal lives of Canadians and extends benefits to only those relationships of a sexual nature, to the exclusion of all others dependent upon a relationship.

The petitioners sincerely hope that the government would take these words to heart and withdraw Bill C-23.

The Budget March 29th, 2000

Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify a couple of points especially about family taxes, tax cuts and the whole idea of getting the government's hands out of the pockets of hardworking Canadians.

We put out a proposal on a 17% single rate tax. An income of $28,000 has been mentioned. Let us look at a single income family of four. This is federal personal income tax payable in the year 2004. This is after the implementation of the proposals. Let us look at a family of four earning $30,000. Under this Liberal status quo budget and tax regime this family would pay $2,541 annually. Under solution 17 the family would pay $387.

That is substantial tax relief. That is the kind of tax relief Canadians are expecting when revenues and budget surpluses are going to be in the tens of billions of dollars, approaching $100 billion. That is the kind of tax relief Canadians expect from their government, substantial tax relief that will leave more money in their pockets, $200 or $300 a month, instead of the $200 or $300 a year that has been proposed.

Let us look at a family of four earning $40,000. Under this Liberal government's status quo tax regime, that family will pay a little over $5,000 a year in tax. Under solution 17 a single rate tax, it would be $2,000. That is a 60% saving in taxes. That is the kind of substantial tax relief Canadians are expecting from their government when they are looking at huge surpluses.

The Budget March 29th, 2000

Madam Speaker, some days the debate in here is better than other days. I will be sharing my time with the hon. leader of the Canadian Alliance.

As we talk about what was and was not in the budget, one thing we ask Canadians to do is to check their pay stubs. Compare those of January this year with those of January last year and those of January next year, and then factor in just what kind of a tax cut they are getting from the Liberal government. It will not add up to very much.

I want to touch on the concerns that people have brought to my attention as we talk about the country and the well-being of Canadians in general. The number one issue that keeps coming up is health care. It has been on the table for a long time.

Canadians fear that the health care system is not going to take care of them when they need it. They are worried that family members who become ill will not get the care they need and that it will not be available to Canadians on a universal basis.

We need to put into perspective what has actually happened. While the government was cutting billions of dollars out of health care since it was elected in 1993, the grants and contributions to departments like HRDC were going up. We need to keep in mind that the waiting lines are growing, that 212,000 people are on waiting lists for health care in this country because of cuts that the government has made. All the time it was doing that, it was increasing the grants and contributions to departments like HRDC. That is not the way Canadians expect their government to act.

We are looking for solutions to the health care problem and we have heard a lot about Bill 11 in Alberta lately. I do not believe we have seen legislation that is going to solve Canada's health care problems. We have not seen it yet.

We and other Canadians have to allow ourselves to open up our minds and get into the debate. Our country has a huge resource of very knowledgeable people in the health care field, people who know how to deliver it properly. We have to open our minds and allow ourselves to create a system that is sustainable and universally available to all Canadians. If we do not allow that to happen, if every time someone comes up with an idea that is a little different from the status quo, we jump on them and try to beat them down, we are going to end up perpetuating the trouble we have now forever.

Let us allow ourselves to have that debate and come up with some sustainable solutions. Health care must be put at the top of the priority list. Canadians want that. They are demanding it. It is a concern to everyone.

As our population ages, as the seniors who helped create this country need more and more care, it has to be available. As people of my generation age, there will be a huge bubble of people to take care of. All of these things have to be factored in when we are looking at solutions.

I mentioned the trouble we have seen at HRDC with the unaccountability of the government in handling taxpayers' dollars. One thing Canadians are extremely disturbed about is that the government takes money out of their pockets, takes it to Ottawa and then mismanages it. We cannot have that.

We are hurting. We are paying the highest taxes of the industrialized countries. The government takes the money and mismanages it and we cannot track where it went. Grants were given when there were no applications. No follow-ups were done to see if jobs were actually created.

Day after day the HRDC minister stands in the House and drags into this debate hardworking, honest, volunteer organizations in all of our communities. She drags their names into this debate. They are not the problem. The hardworking organizations that do a great job are not the problem. The problem is the government and the minister that is mismanaging their money. I feel sorry for the groups that have been mentioned by the minister. She is bringing them down to her level instead of raising herself up to their level of accountability and hard work.

A little earlier I asked a question of the member opposite about the debt.

Again today the finance minister said the debt is being paid down. However in the five year projection that was in this year's budget documents, the debt does not go down; it stays at $576.8 billion. It takes over $40 billion a year in interest payments to service that debt. In a five year period that is $200 billion just for the interest. According to the document I am looking at which was produced by the government, the principal does not go down one nickel.

When we think about the $40 billion that is being spent on debt charges, what happens if the economy turns a bit and interest rates go up a couple of percentage points? That will cause a change in a hurry and it will hurt every program. Every worthwhile need that citizens in the country have will be affected.

The high cost of fuel is a huge issue from coast to coast to coast. Certainly in my riding it is. A group of people has come together to raise the awareness of the cost of fuel. There is a tax component both provincially and federally in the cost of a litre of fuel. That should have been addressed in the budget. Where is the break for people who are on fixed incomes who try to get by when their cost of living keeps going up?

On transportation, our highway system has degenerated to the point where doing trade east and west is becoming difficult. It has been run down. There are $4.5 billion collected in fuel taxes and only a small percentage of that is put back into the highway system. We have to do something about that.

Concerning our airports, the local municipality in the county of Lethbridge negotiated with this government to take over the operation of the airport on one condition, that the expense of the on-site fire services be taken away. That was done. The county took it over and now there is talk about putting that back in. That is a $300,000 expense that was negotiated in good faith by the local municipality with this government and now the government is turning its back on it.

The whole air transportation industry is in turmoil. We have not seen any solid answers from the government on that.

On the grain transportation system we have had the Estey report and the Kroeger report. There have been many hours of debate across the country by many organizations. The grain transportation system on the prairies has to be reformed and it has to be done immediately in order to bring some relief to our beleaguered producers. Where is that? It is tied up somewhere. The minister has not made an announcement on that.

We could go on and on. Recently programs have been announced over and over by the government such as money for the disaster in agriculture on the prairies and across Canada. Of the money that was put aside to service the disaster component of the problem that agriculture has right now, only 26% has got to the farmers. Sixty per cent of the people who applied, who felt they needed help, have been rejected. The system has failed.

We have held meetings across the country with farmers and farm groups. These are quotes from people in Unity, Saskatchewan: “AIDA created hope and then it slam-dunked us. AIDA takes your figures and then invents its own and disqualifies you”. These types of comments about a program that this government developed are coming from people who are on their last legs struggling to keep their heads afloat.

My colleague from Elk Island did say he had a small bouquet for the folks across the way. I would like to give them one on bracket creep.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce lobbied hard and we have lobbied hard for years to get the tax brackets indexed with inflation. Finally it has been done. But what the government did with that figure is it took the savings that we will realize from bracket creep because our taxes will not be going up and said it was a tax cut. That is not a tax cut. It is just money the government will not get its hands on. That has been factored into the figures it has used in this tax cut of $58 billion, or $85 billion, or whatever it is. It does not add up.

I will end my comments with that.

The Budget March 29th, 2000

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member opposite. One line in the budget of this year referred to the net public debt. We heard the Minister of Finance say during question period today that money was put toward the debt and the debt is being reduced.

The line item in the government's own documents from last year indicated that the net public debt was $576.8 billion. This year it is the same amount and next year it will be the same amount. If money is being applied to the debt, why is it not showing up in its own documents?

Supply March 22nd, 2000

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Wetaskiwin for sharing his time with me. I compliment my colleague the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley for bringing this issue forward today as a supply motion from the official opposition.

When talking about transportation, we can talk about a lot of things that affect just about everyone with whom we come into contact on a daily basis. We can talk about rail line abandonment. That is quite an issue in a lot of parts of the country. I am sure my colleague from Cypress—Grasslands will talk about that later. In my neck of the woods the rail line was abandoned and now it is used for storage. It has caused quite a lot of grief.

Railway efficiency is another issue that needs to be looked at. It is a huge concern in Canada. We are still going through the huge restructuring of the air industry. We have some pains there that need to be looked at. There is an airport in my riding which the municipality took over and now the government is going to change the rules and there is fear of what that could do.

We need a continental road system as the member for Wetaskiwin mentioned. We need to be able to trade east and west and north and south in North America to get our products to market. We need new and more efficient border points which are part of the whole scheme of this continental system.

On the infrastructure program that has been talked about, the last time that infrastructure program was implemented I was involved in municipal politics. At that time there was a struggle for municipalities to come up with the 30 cent dollars that were worked out with the province and the federal government in splitting it three ways. Now it is going to be even tougher because some of the downloading that has happened in this country has ended up at the municipal level. The municipalities are not as well equipped to be involved on these programs as they were last time.

I am sure environmental issues will be addressed when it comes to transportation. Public transportation and urban rail transportation are part of the environmental solution. New technologies that are developing are part of the system that needs to be looked at.

I would like to reserve my comments to an issue that has been on the minds of Canadians this winter. It is the high price of fuel.

For the last several months prices have soared by up to 25% per litre in some regions. Consumers are concerned about how these prices will increase their cost of living. Trucking associations are concerned about how this will affect their ability to remain in business. Economists are concerned about the consequences of rising input costs on the entire Canadian economy.

In my own riding of Lethbridge prices have gone up anywhere from 20% to 25%. This has prompted a lot of letters, a lot of angry phone calls and a lot of action on behalf of citizens demanding some action and answers from the government. The spike in fuel prices has hit truckers especially hard. In some areas of the country the price of diesel fuel has surpassed the price of regular gasoline. That is an extremely rare occurrence.

Fuel represents about one-third of a trucking company's costs and is second only to labour. While some truckers are fortunate enough to have fuel cost adjustment clauses in their contracts, many truckers are forced to swallow that cost.

Several weeks ago Canadians woke up to the news that angry truckers had blockaded highways and border crossings in an effort to draw national attention to their plight. Truckers across the continent vented their frustration by slowing down traffic in major cities and organized protest rallies on Parliament Hill and on Capitol Hill. In Ottawa a fleet of 200 trucks shut down Wellington Street for hours demanding relief from the government.

The official opposition supports the trucking association in its call for tax relief. It recognizes the importance of this $30 billion industry in Canada. Trucks move 70% of manufactured goods in Canada and almost all of the food.

As one trucker quite accurately said, the key chain controls the food chain. Every single item on the grocery store shelf that is shipped by truck could increase in price if relief is not found soon.

Through its four cent per litre excise tax on road diesel and the GST, the federal government sucked close to half a billion dollars in fuel tax revenues directly out of the pockets of truck drivers in 1998-99. Indirectly the government siphons out billions more through income taxes and user fees. The provincial governments also take their share of money out of truckers' pockets by levying an additional per litre tax of at least nine cents in addition to user fees. More regulation is not the answer.

Lately the member for Ottawa Centre has fancied himself as somewhat of an activist on gas prices and has proposed a return to what could be easily called the national energy program, words that send fear through western Canada. In the Ottawa Sun a few weeks ago he proposed that all the greedy world oil producers be completely shut out of Canadian markets to give consumers relief from fluctuating gas prices. He said that since Canada produces enough oil to be self-sustaining, the government should turn on the switch and keep the oil in Canada. This is a kind of made in Canada solution I suppose.

What the member has no doubt forgotten is that the national energy program which was aimed at promoting energy self-sufficiency increased Canadian control of the oil industry and generated more federal revenues in the energy sector. This ripped $60 billion out of the Alberta economy alone. That economic program devastated Alberta more than any other catastrophe could. Overnight the province shut down and it was just like a steel wall was put up and the province was paralyzed.

Despite the tremendous gains that we have made in Alberta by diversifying since those dark days of Pierre Trudeau, any attempt to regulate will hit the resource sector hard. The government would do well to remember this as it contemplates meeting its Kyoto commitments.

While truckers have borne the brunt of this problem, no one has escaped the sting of high gas prices. High diesel prices are a concern for farmers who will be spending hundreds of dollars in extra fuel costs to plant their crops this spring. Each year farmers use millions of gallons of fuel to run their farm equipment, work the soil, seed, raise the crops and then harvest them, not to mention the spin-off onto the cost of fertilizer and chemicals.

A report from Statistics Canada shows Canadian farmers in 1998 had net fuel expenses of $325,800,000, almost 6% of their total operating expenses. With fuel costs up 33% since January in Ontario, farmers are looking at a 10% reduction in net cash income unless the government is willing to reduce its level of taxation on fuels. Many farmers are afraid that the increase in fuel costs will completely wipe out any assistance they may receive from other areas.

High fuel prices have hit every sector of the economy. The leap in fuel prices is the largest monthly jump since Statistics Canada started collecting that information 50 years ago. It also led to a spike in inflation which bumped the inflation rate up by 2.7%. That jump was the largest month to month increase in five years. When that happens, as we know, it hurts everybody, especially people who are on fixed incomes, single parents, people who are earning minimum wage. Those are the people who are hurt the hardest. They cannot afford this. Clearly the government must do something to alleviate the pressure of high fuel prices on the economy.

The official opposition believes that the government must immediately reduce fuel taxes. Fuel taxes have increased by 600% since 1985, jumping from 1.5 cents to 10 cents per litre.

The latest increase came in 1995 when the Liberal government was still battling the Tory legacy of billion dollar deficits and the current Minister of Finance introduced a 1.5 cent per litre excise tax to reduce the federal deficit. According to the Canadian Automobile Association, this tax has pumped over $500 million annually into the government's consolidated revenue fund. There is no reason for this tax to still be in place. The government is facing multibillion dollar surpluses which leave ample room for tax relief.

Furthermore the government has collected even more tax revenue as the price of gasoline increases. The GST, another deficit fighting measure still in place, is applied to the total pump price after provincial and federal taxes are included. This compounds the problem. This is a tax on a tax and it is unfair to consumers.

The official opposition has proposed a tax solution that would further lighten the load of the taxpaying public. The 17% solution would provide substantial immediate and direct relief to overtaxed Canadians and would create greater wealth in our economy.

Reductions in corporate and small business taxes would go even further to lighten the tax load for Canadian truckers and farmers, but the government has chosen to ignore this option preferring instead to study the matter a while longer. The government has commissioned the Conference Board of Canada to study gas prices. Why? How many more reports do we need? We have had dozens of investigations into the gasoline retail industry by the Competition Bureau and still we go on.

The government wants to do a study. We know the answer. Fuel prices in the country are too high.