Rob Anders

[Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, April 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, another day, another ACOA scam. TAGS and ACOA dole out $310,000 to Roger Birmingham for a meat store in St. John's, Newfoundland, and he goes bankrupt. Then he reopens his doors and picks up a new partner, former Mayor Bob Whiffin. Surprise, he gets hundreds of thousands of dollars more. The same location, the same business, the same old sad story.

Was it right to use taxpayer dollars to restart this failed business? Yes or no.

[Minister For International Trade, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the trade minister is out looking for a new job. Word has it he is out getting endorsements for one of those prize patronage plums in the other place. In the good Liberal tradition, he is not looking to get elected, he is looking to get anointed. Are things getting so bad over there that cabinet ministers are looking for any way out?

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I felt some love in the Chamber when the member rose to say that he wanted to be tolerant and inclusive, but then he went ahead and accused me of being from cow town.

Let me tell him a bit about alienation, as the hon. member raised the issue. I will change subjects for a second and talk about tax and spend Liberal policies.

Let us talk about Transport Canada controlling the St. John's Port Corporation. Oceanex, a company that does 84% of its business in that particular vicinity, said “Don't go ahead and put money into a new building, put it into a port facility; put it into the actual structure so that we can do a better job with what we have”. But, no, indeed, a Liberal appointed hack, Sean Hanrahan, went ahead, tore down the old building and put up a new one.

There are only 18 employees. The building has 10,000 square feet, leaving each employee with an office bigger than that of the premier of Newfoundland. The premier has to be jealous. Deep down in his bones I know that the premier of Newfoundland is jealous.

Why did they build a new building? One could say that maybe St. John's has almost no vacant building space. As a matter of fact, the vacancy rate is higher than 20%. Yet we have a Liberal appointee who went ahead and took all that money to build a new structure to give everybody in that particular corporation an office bigger than the premier's.

That is alienation. That is Liberal tax and spend policies.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this issue touches on the idea of the abdication of responsibility and sovereignty. The hon. member is referring to the north. My speech was directly related to Newfoundland and Labrador. As far as I can talk about abdication of responsibility and sovereignty, I will try to address that question.

Where the territory does not have a responsibility how can it possibly have any control or say over what is being done? If the federal government takes responsibility and sovereignty away from a province or territory, or does not grant it in the first place, it has no local control. We have seen that in Newfoundland and Labrador.

In terms of the abdication of responsibility in Newfoundland and Labrador, I believe the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would like to see more local control. They are willing to take with that control sovereignty and responsibility for those resources. They certainly have not been managed well over the last 50 years by the federal government.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, once again the opposition has tried to address an issue, the idea of alienation, which the government does not seem able to bring before the House of Commons. The government is willing to strike committees to recruit candidates across the rest of the country, but is it willing to discuss the issue and generate debate on it in the House of Commons? No. Unfortunately that job is up to the opposition just like it was on a number of other issues.

I feel lonely in the House as many Liberals have poured out the door. I wonder if it is to go and talk with constituents in Newfoundland. Why do Newfoundland and Labrador feel alienated from the government? Since 1949 Newfoundland has been part of Canada and since 1949 the Government of Canada has mismanaged the fishery of Newfoundland.

In Alberta we have had many scuffles with the federal government over the control of natural resources. Predominantly oil and gas are the ones that come to my mind. Nonetheless we have still been able to have those fights because Alberta has some jurisdiction over those issues.

In the case of Newfoundland, because we do not have an implementation of the Law of the Sea, foreign draggers and vessels pillage the ocean depths and destroy the fishery in Newfoundland. Newfoundlanders rely on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and it does not allow the numbers to be accessed by the public. It is a secret organization that deprives fishermen of the numbers they need to sustain the fisheries in Newfoundland.

While the federal government is continuing to do this, and it must therefore accept responsibility, foreign vessels are fishing off the coast of Newfoundland, the Grand Banks and the surrounding areas. These foreign nations have quotas and are taking tens of thousands of fish. They are depriving Newfoundlanders of their jobs. The government says that it does not understand alienation and that it represents Newfoundland. That is a crying shame. It is a joke.

What does the government do? It goes ahead and tries to buy votes. It tries to hold it over people's heads. Instead of allowing the government and the people of Newfoundland to decide what happens with their fishery, the federal government lords it over them. It says that if they do not vote for the Liberals they can expect to get even worse. It threatens people. It is a shame that this is even carried over to the provincial government.

To obtain a licence in a province, whether it be for a restaurant or a liquor establishment, people basically have to beg forgiveness from provincial Liberals so that their small mom and pop operation are not shut down because they do not agree with the government in power.

Shame on the government that it does not have control over the fisheries. A number of governments over a period time have talked about the idea of Newfoundland having control over the fisheries and the resources of that province. The fisheries are not the only resource.

I will talk about some of the other resources over which the people Newfoundland and Labrador do not have control. As a result they continually have that held over their heads by this government which demands votes from them in order not to be taken advantage of any more than they are now.

Offshore oil could be a great boon for the province of Newfoundland. Once again the federal government went ahead and said that it was not within the jurisdiction of the province. I will talk later about what Pierre Elliott Trudeau did to that province in some of his early discussions with regard to jurisdictional issues.

There is also the issues of natural gas and hydro electricity which should fall under the purview of the province. Instead, because of federal intermingling on these issues, the government stripped the ability of Newfoundland to provide, to look after and to control its resources. As a result the fishery collapsed in 1992.

It is sad that when there is no control there is little or no hope. People lose hope if they cannot be expected to have an actual say and a direct impact on resources that are close to them, and if the federal government goes ahead and lords it over them, takes control of those things and does not let them run things as they should be run in order to make sure the resources are sustainable. That is exactly what has happened.

What does the federal government do? Rather than solve the problem so that 5, 10 or 20 years from now young people will not be leaving Newfoundland and seeking work elsewhere, it comes up with programs like NCARP and TAGS and keeps people beholden to those programs. It doles out its pennies and nickels. It keeps the people dependent and does not allow them local control over their resources. Shame on the government for depriving the people of Newfoundland of hope, control and opportunity.

We are talking about the whole issue of natural resources. What about the Churchill Falls travesty? The federal government could have had and should have had a responsibility to get involved in that situation. Once again it did not take Newfoundland's side. It did not step in when it was supposed to do so. As a result, Newfoundland loses $600 million in annual revenues. If that were divided by every person in Newfoundland it would be some sort of an economic benefit, but the federal government did not take any responsibility for that.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau refused to cede any jurisdiction to the province in offshore oil, claiming that it fell under the federal government's power to regulate the territorial waters of the country. As a result Newfoundland has been suffering and the fishery stocks collapsed in 1992.

Let us look at some other islands that have been able to succeed with regard to their fisheries. Iceland, for example, had a crisis with its fishery and foreign fishing. It was able to come back because it had control of its resource. It was able to make the decisions. The government and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have not even had the support of the federal government to go ahead and turf out any of the foreign fishers.

It is a crying shame that there are ships fishing offshore when the people of the Newfoundland cannot earn a living from something that had sustained them for hundreds of years. It is a crying shame that the people of Newfoundland have to put up with a federal government that alienates them in that way. It is ridiculous.

The feds have mismanaged the largest resource in the province. They had better take responsibility for the fallout when it comes, unless it is willing to give that responsibility back to the province. That is what the people of Newfoundland have been asking for and that is what they deserve.

Newfoundland recently had its 50th anniversary of joining Confederation. Some would say it was treated with some ambiguity. That is a shame. It is because of the alienation that province feels with regard to its control of natural resources and how the federal government has run roughshod over it.

Newfoundland and Labrador have a seal population to the tune of six million to eight million. According to DFO statistics each seal gobbles up 1.4 tonnes of fish per year. That alone accounts for two years of fishing on the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. They should be allowed to go ahead and look after the seals. They are not even allowed to make their own decisions in that regard.

I have talked about Churchill Falls. I could talk about Inco and the Voisey's Bay dispute. I could talk about the Innu land claims or virtually any other dispute where the federal government does not directly benefit. It shoved Newfoundland and Labrador out of the picture and did not allow them to make local decisions on these issues. They are hurting.

If the government wants to see a solving of the problem and fewer young people leaving the province, it has to look at the long term and not just at the next election. That is where the federal government has failed the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I leave it to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to decide. If they want more of the same, they can continue to vote for the Liberals who have alienated them and have not allowed them local control. They should vote for change.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. The business of this House is to discuss the important issues of the day. Therefore, I ask my hon. Liberal colleague why it was the Reform Party that initiated the discussion on hepatitis C compensation? Why was it the Reform Party that initiated the discussion on child pornography and the Young Offenders Act? Why was it the Reform Party that initiated the discussion on tax relief when it did not come, despite election promises? Why was it the Reform Party that initiated the discussion on APEC and whether or not students were going to be able to have access to funding and what was going to happen with the suppression of freedom of speech?

I wonder why it is the Reform Party that is talking about those issues. I wonder why it is the Reform Party that is asking for a debate and a vote on whether or not we send troops into Kosovo.

[Transport, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we have yet another example of Liberal interference with tax dollars at the St. John's Port Corporation.

The Liberal appointed CEO, Sean Hanrahan, tore down the old building and is spending millions to put up a new one with offices bigger than the premier's. He ignored the request of clients to invest in dock improvements, he ignored the request of the mayor and increased the already high vacancy rates in St. John's.

Why was this transport money not spent on docks rather than on these posh new offices? For a Liberal—

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, once again that famous question gets asked. Why are we here? What are we doing? We are here to debate Bill C-72, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Right there there has to be a problem. Every time the government has amended the Income Tax Act, take hold of your wallet because something funny is about to happen. It is about to get lighter. I can tell the House about all the ways our wallets have become lighter as a result of this government. It is wonderful at finding ways to lighten the Canadian taxpayer's wallet.

First it was life insurance premiums the government went after. It lightened our wallets to the tune of $210 million last year. That is a lot of lightening. It is not only last year, it started off with $120 million in 1994. Add it all up and there has been over $1 billion worth of wallet lightening. That is a lot of lightening.

Then it went after lifetime capital gains exemptions. It did a lot lightening there. Just this last year it lightened our wallets again by $340 million. Then it did income testing for age credits implementation. That was another $300 million. Then there were the deductions with regard to meals. It got rid of that. It changed the definition of income once again, like it is doing today with Bill C-72. It has lightened our wallets by $275 million. Forget calling it lightening of the wallet, it took $275 million.

Then corporations' tax rate increased. It took $160 million and killed some jobs in the meantime. Then it went ahead with a corporate surtax and that increased. That was another $120 million. It killed some more jobs. That is something this government is good at. It is good at lightening the wallet and killing a few jobs along the way. Then it came in with a tax on gasoline. It took another $500 million. Then there was the tax on tobacco. It cannot forget that one. That was another $65 million.

What about the pensions? The government went after that. That was another $10 million. That was just on foreign pensions. Then it went after RRSP withdrawals and took out $45 million. It changed the time when people could put into it. Then look at EI premiums, part time workers, people who cannot collect on EI because they are not full time but they are paying in. It is a tax. If they cannot collect on it and they are paying in it is called a tax. In this last year it has been $1 billion.

When we look at these numbers it is ludicrous. In 1994 it was $370 million. In 1995 it was $808 million. The year after that it went to $1.15 billion. Add all these things up cumulatively. Then look at the bracket creep. The Liberals have raised taxes by billions upon billions of dollars. Any time I see Liberals talk about amending the Income Tax Act I reach for my wallet and I hold it dearly.

I will go on to a few other things these Liberals have been up to. Let us talk about priorities. They are increasing taxes. Liberals know how to do that better than anybody. I do not doubt that. Of any of the parties in the House the Liberals know how to whack at taxes better than anybody around.

We ask ourselves what they do with all this money. They raise our taxes, these Liberals, these people with these grand priorities, these big government schemes, these tax and spenders. What do they spend it on? They discriminate against single income families. That is what they do. They give money out in corporate welfare, profitable businesses. They give out subsidies. They give out grants. They give out tax concessions. Shame on them. None of the competitors for those industries want to see them get a break and get subsidized by the government.

Then there is the waste. My goodness, I was in the human resources development committee and a departmental official came into that committee. The departmental official said there was $200 million they were not going to use in a budgetary envelope. All the Liberals across the way got glum. The Reform Party asked if the departmental officials said there was no use for the money, why not take it out of the budgetary envelope.

All the Liberals lined up like little duckies in a row. They said “It is a ministerial document. If the minister said this was okay, we will not challenge the minister. The minister is all knowing. The minister is all intelligent. The minister must know what is going on”.

The $200 million the departmental official said they would not use got used. Wow, the waste. Then I look at the patronage. When I have people come into my riding office and tell me about OAS clawbacks, when they tell me about being taxed on the money they are setting aside for their children's educations, I have to tell them the Liberals have a higher priority on patronage. Shame on the Liberals.

This is insulting. This is above and beyond. It goes beyond the pale, that they would fund a book on dumb blonde jokes. I see a couple of blonde heads across the aisle. I wonder how they feel about that. I see a couple of female MPs opposite. I wonder what they think about the dumb blonde joke books their government funds. I wonder whether they think that is a good expenditure. Shame on them, and they do not even speak up about it.

Then I look at the canoe hall of fame in the Prime Minister's riding. By what stretch of the imagination is a canoe hall of fame in the Prime Minister's riding more important than seniors pensions or more important than health care or more important than education? A person has to stretch pretty darn far to come up with that type of Liberal logic.

I look at the subsidies they give to bad governments. I am talking about some of the things they do with foreign aid around this place. What do they do? They look at people like Mobutu in Zaire. They gave money to this person who is well known for bad government, for corruption and bad policies. They help to fund weaponry and genocide and all the rest of these things.

Liberals love giving money overseas. I do not know by what logic they do that when they have taxpayers at home who are crying for tax cuts and crying for services they have been cutting back for years.

They are funding roads overseas and yet we have problems with roads in Canada. What a joke in the transportation committee. We are studying intelligent transportation systems. How about the cracks in the highways? Never mind intelligent transportation. Get the noodle working on that.

What about crown corporations? We are giving money to CBC TV. Why? The unions are killing it anyway. What are we doing? The unions will finish off that company.

Then I look at Canada Post competing in e-mail with the private sector, competing in couriers with companies like FedEx and UPS, cutting out from competition companies like T2P overnight in Calgary.

What are we doing taking taxpayer dollars to subsidize businesses to put other people out of the play in the marketplace? Shame on the Liberals.

The Liberals are funding Senate budget increases, an unelected, unaccountable body with people who do not show up for work, with criminal records, violating the law and the Constitution. Yet they are giving them budget increases of 16% over two years. That is where our hard earned tax dollars are going, to the Senate.

I look at section 745. Each appeal under section 745 is costing us on average $500,000. Clifford Olson's appeal cost us over $1 million. That is where the money is going.

With all those tax increases the Liberals are bringing down, every time they feel people's wallets and bring in amendments and redefine what income means, watch out because this is the type of stuff they are spending it on. That is a crying shame.

It would be better to burn that money than give it to the Liberals. They use it against taxpayers. They fund the competition. They put in worse legislation that works against people. That is what they are doing. It would be better to take that money and burn it than to give it to a government which mismanages it and uses it against the taxpayer. It would be better if it were buried. That is the type of thing we have going on here.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about some of the ways the government is raising funds now and some of the ways it is spending it. Does he think that corporate welfare, waste, patronage, dumb blonde joke books, the canoe hall of fame, crown corporations, Senate budget increases or section 745 appeals are a good way to spend taxpayer dollars?

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. parliamentary secretary across the way has two universities in his riding, Waterloo and Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

I visit campuses across the country and talk to students. I know his campuses are no different from the others. Students have a problem finding jobs when they get out. They face high taxes. They have student debt loads. Many of them are reconsidering whether or not they want to remain Canadians or go to the United States to find work. I know of computer programmers, doctors and nurses who are leaving this country. They get an education here but because of tax differentials they go down to the United States.

Even though the member across the way likes to brag about low unemployment in his riding, is it because so many of the young people out of his universities find employment elsewhere in that the tax advantages are so much better in the States than they are in Canada?