House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 71% of the vote.
Employment Insurance Fund September 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has made it open season on anybody who disagrees with it, including students at APEC or public actuaries.
The finance minister says that the CPP actuary, Bernard Dussault, was fired for management differences. Since then the EI actuary, Michel Bédard, has publicly disagreed with the minister's plans to raise the EI fund.
Will Michel Bédard's management differences with the minister result in his being fired?
Employment Insurance Fund September 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the EI fund is wholly funded by workers and employers. The government has a legal and a moral obligation to give the surplus back to those workers in the form of lower premiums.
The minister has said that breaking the law and raiding the EI fund is simply a matter of choice, a matter of political priorities.
Will the minister do the right thing today and simply lower EI premiums, or will he pillage the fund like Genghis Khan the finance minister and his marauding hordes of Liberal backbenchers?
Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1998 September 24th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, this bill lets Canada ratify income tax treaties with Vietnam, Croatia and Chile. It is all part of a very important process that is consistent with our position as a nation in embracing the global opportunities that we have. It also addresses the challenges we have dealing with a world whereby globalization and the forces of international trade are making national borders less and less relevant in terms of economic matters.
In many ways, it is extraordinarily important that we move quickly to ratify these types of tax conventions to ensure that we are not allowing companies, particularly in a global context, to escape paying fair taxes and by the same token that we are not duplicating taxes. In light of the declining role of the nation-state in terms of its ability in many ways to effect taxes, this type of treaty is very important.
As a background on the whole issue of trade, many of the people in the House today will remember that in 1988 our party, the Progressive Conservative Party and the government of Brian Mulroney spearheaded the free trade efforts in Canada and fought a general election openly with the Canadian public. We engaged in a dialogue with the Canadian public in the most open sense. That battle was won by the Progressive Conservatives. Canada has won since then by engaging in open trading relationships with countries around the world.
We cannot as a fairly small country in terms of our population which numbers fewer than 30 million people, prosper and grow our economy and employ more Canadians unless we are willing to embrace the opportunities of free and unfettered trade. It is that path I am proud to say our party put Canada on. As such, we are supportive of Bill S-16.
I would also like to reference the fact that this bill was introduced in the other place. I know there has been significant discussion on that issue in that the other place is introducing legislation like Bill S-16.
I would like to commend the other place and recognize the tremendous pool of talent that we have in the other place, particularly on the extremely technical tax treaty type of legislation. Frankly, it would be an affront to the Canadian taxpayer if we were not to utilize the other place by engaging them in the very important work they are capable of. In the Senate we have a significant pool of talent and abilities that it would be absolutely wrong for us not to utilize.
As a trading nation, our exports last year totalled some $344 billion and our imports totalled some $329 billion. The majority of our trade is with the United States. Naturally, it is very important that we continue our focus on improving our trading relationships with our largest partner, the U.S. That being the case, it is extraordinarily important that we continue to work and build relationships with other countries, Vietnam, Croatia and Chile.
It is interesting that we now have more trade barriers within Canada due to interprovincial trade barriers between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia than we do between Nova Scotia and Chile. This points out the fundamental flaw of the whole policy of interprovincial trade barriers which again serve to deny Canadians an opportunity to build a comparative advantage right here at home, but that is another issue.
The issue of trade has been a significant one as of late particularly in light of the global currency markets and the tumult that the currency markets have seen recently. It has been very convenient for the government to blame commodity prices and the “Asian crisis” for the weakness of the Canadian dollar but it is far greater than that.
We have to recognize that there has been a secular decline in the Canadian dollar for the past 30 years and that structural issues need to be addressed within Canada. These include productivity related issues like the interprovincial trade barriers, like the fact that we have the highest rate of income taxes of the G-7 countries, like the fact that we have a regulatory burden that exceeds that of many of our largest trading partners.
Those types of issues will become more and more relevant in the future. As we sign tax conventions in the future it will be important to recognize not only that we should sign tax conventions but that our rates of taxes within Canada not exceed the rates of taxation of our partners. We are handcuffing Canadian producers and Canadian companies and individuals. We are preventing them from producing and performing to their utmost ability in competing globally, and that is not right.
In 1988 the Progressive Conservative government opened up the world to Canadians when it opened up global opportunities to Canadians. That courageous policy leap was followed by structural changes in the Canadian economy which included the elimination of the manufacturers sales tax and the deregulation of financial services and transportation industries. Those were the types of structural changes we needed then and which have proven to be successful now. I call upon the government to continue to make these structural changes, to hearken back to some of the courageous policy initiatives of the previous government and to continue on the path Canadians need to follow.
It is not enough that we open up global opportunities to Canadians. We need to ensure that our domestic economic policies provide the type of economy that produces the entrepreneurial expertise and excellence that are necessary not only to compete but to succeed in a global environment. We need to ensure domestically in terms of tax issues that both our corporate taxes and our personal taxes become fairer and flatter.
The Mintz report on business taxation which was introduced some months ago was an extraordinarily well written document. It dealt with the complex issue of corporate taxation in a holistic and rational way. I hope the government will give a significant amount of attention to the Mintz report and will move to simplify and reduce both corporate and personal income taxes within Canada.
Canadians cannot compete and succeed if we handcuff them to the past, if we handcuff them to high rates of taxation, regulatory burden, interprovincial trade barriers and an interventionist economy that is simply not realistic or sustainable in a modern global context. We need to continue to ensure that Canadians pay their taxes and that foreign companies doing business in Canada pay their taxes. We have to ensure those taxes are fair and not so convoluted and complex that Canadians and Canadian companies have to hire accountants simply to deal with their own government.
We will continue to push for increased access to global markets from this party. I recognize members of the Liberal government have become born again free traders. Many of the members opposite fought vociferously against free trade agreements in 1988. However I do commend them for having learned so much from us at that juncture and in having come so far in embracing sound economic policies.
I would ask them again at this juncture to do what they have done very well over the past several years which is to take policies from Conservatives and move forward into the 21st century with the type of economically realistic and economically necessary policies that some believe only the Conservative Party can introduce.
That is why it is important periodically that a Conservative government be elected, such that those types of policies be introduced, even if they are adopted by the government after. The only thing worse than their having taken our policies so blatantly and shamelessly would have been for them not to have taken our policies because they would have substituted some of their own which would have been far worse. In fact, the Liberal government opposite has been a government of sound and original ideas but unfortunately its original ideas are seldom sound and its sound ideas are never original.
It is encouraging to see that the government has come so far, even in terms of the deficit reduction issue. That was an issue we addressed very clearly by reducing the deficit as a percentage of GDP by half during the period of time that our government was in power and by reducing program spending growth from 15% to zero.
That was the kind of courage the previous Conservative government demonstrated before fiscal responsibility became cool. Back in 1979 Joe Clark introduced a budget that was defeated because it was too fiscally responsible for the time. Today even the New Democrats talk fiscal responsibility. It has become a buzzword.
In any case, we have no problem with Bill S-16 and will be supporting it today. We just hope that in the future we will continue to see not only income tax convention legislation but also the types of structural changes made in the Canadian domestic economy that allow Canadians to compete successfully abroad and to not just compete but to succeed and to prosper in the 21st century.
Apec Summit September 24th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the finance minister said we have separated politics from the administration of the public service. Yet when the Ontario ministry of finance requested information about the CPP from Bernard Dussault, the former chief watchdog of the CPP, Bernard Dussault wrote a letter saying he could not provide that information because it had to be vetted through a new committee of the department of finance which would review the information for its political sensitivity.
Will the minister tell us why his department gagged Bernard Dussault, or is this simply another abuse of power?
Apec Summit September 24th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says it is more effective to engage dictators than to isolate them. The whole idea with engagement is that by engaging dictators in a dialogue, we can teach them something about human rights. My question for the Prime Minister is did Suharto learn about human rights while he was in Canada or did the Prime Minister take lessons from Suharto in systematic abuse of power and oppression?
The Economy June 12th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, this government's leadership is sounding very similar to the former leadership in Indonesia, blaming the guys in red suspenders for the weakness in the Canadian dollar.
I would ask this government to do what it has done over the past four years and take advice from a Conservative because this government has used Conservative policies, including free trade, the GST and the deregulation of financial services in transportation, to reduce the deficit.
I now beseech this government to again take advice from a Conservative and provide this country with the leadership it needs. We need reduced taxes and we need a commitment to lower debt to provide the strength for the Canadian dollar in the long term.
The Economy June 12th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the share value of Canada's dollar hit record lows.
Our floating exchange rate is being used by this government as a camouflage for flawed domestic economic policies. One of the forces exerting downward force on the Canadian dollar is that 20% of Canada's debt matured this year and yet this government has yet to commit to firm debt reduction targets.
When will this government commit to those firm debt reduction targets that would send out the appropriate message?
Petitions June 10th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is with great honour today that I present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of my constituents from Kings—Hants.
The petitioners are concerned about the government's failure to live up to its 1993 promise of a national child care strategy. They believe that the government should amalgamate current federal spending in the area into a national child care program and that negotiations with the provinces, the territories and with aboriginal people should be commenced to discuss the development of such an important national program.
Nuclear Testing June 1st, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I have heard of nuclear warheads but never before of a nuclear war horse.
Yesterday U.S. senator and former ambassador to India Daniel Patrick Moynihan said the world is closer to a nuclear war than we have been at any point since the Cuban missile crisis.
China, a communist totalitarian regime, is providing Pakistan with the technology to take on India, the world's largest democracy. Any meaningful Canadian intervention needs to engage China as well as India and Pakistan.
Will the Prime Minister commit to sending an envoy to India, Pakistan and China today?
Nuclear Testing June 1st, 1998
Mr. Speaker, on Saturday Pakistan detonated its sixth nuclear device, adding to the five set off by India last month. Pakistan has China to thank for making this possible.
In the past when the world looked to Canada for leadership to help reduce regional tensions, Canada was there. On Friday the Times of London called on Canada to again assert our leadership role.
Will the Prime Minister send negotiators to India, Pakistan and China to diffuse this nuclear arms race?