A conversation with Gord Brown MP, Federal Conservative Candidate for Leeds-Grenville
April 12, 2011
What has the Economic Action Plan done for Leeds County?
EAP is more than just infrastructure. Underneath that there are different categories, Infrastructure, Stimulus Fund, and RINC, or the Recreational Infrastructure Canada Fund. There have been infrastructures in Gananoque with Brock Street rebuilt, County Roads 2 and 5, in Landsdowne there was work. A lot of infrastructure. Money to the Recreational Infrastructure Fund as well. Over a hundred million dollars in total, 20 million federal in two projects alone. (For a detailed list check https://rodcroskery.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/so-where-did-the-stimulus-funds-go-in-leeds-grenville).
Does Leeds-Grenville pay a penalty for being too politically predictable?
No. You’re assuming it is predictable. I’m not. I don’t believe it’s predictable. I think in every election people in Leeds and Grenville make up their own minds.
The G20 Summit, contempt for Parliament and the census mess make me very nervous about the future of health care in the hands of a Harper Government. What assurances can you offer the nervous progressive conservative voter?
You are concerned about health care. Our government has increased health care spending 33% since we became government in 2006. Health care, 56 billion dollars of federal transfers to the provinces. The current health accord ends in 2014. There is currently a 6% accelerator through to 2014. And our party in this election has committed to a 6% increase each year ongoing after 2014. The demands on our system, especially with an aging population, continue to grow.
That’s going to cost money.
Absolutely. It’s a priority of Canadians. I think that we have good accessibility to health care in our region and we want to keep it that way.
Our auto insurance rates are up because of theft and bogus accident claims. But the penalties for these crimes are very light.
We have been getting tough on crime, and there’s a reason for that. As you point out, costs for everyone are going up for these crimes. Our opponents believe that we shouldn’t be putting people in prison. I believe that we should get tough on those who commit criminal offenses and especially tough on those who commit violent offenses.
What’s the cost?
What’s the cost to the victims who have had their lives ruined? They have left a trail of destroyed lives in their wakes.
On the other hand, if the current crime bills go through, someone with six marijuana plants on his property will go to jail.
If you’re growing six plants, you are trafficking. Six plants is a lot of marijuana.
Kids?
If you’re trafficking, you’re selling. Six plants isn’t for personal use.
What’s the difference between a liberal and a conservative? Tom Flanagan said it’s that conservatives believe people can’t change.
I disagree with that. If you’re talking about someone who is a criminal, I believe that we can rehabilitate some criminals by providing programs that allow them to learn skills and gain employment upon their release.
But your government closed the prison farm at the Pittsburgh Institution in Joyceville.
There are many rehab programs within the penitentiary system. This farm was one of them. But only a small percentage of prisoners coming out of that program were finding employment in agriculture. In fact, I have not met any farmers who have hired men released from that program. The abattoir program is still in place. Bruce Wallace of Wallace Beef operates it out of Joyceville.
In a perfect world we would be able to rehabilitate all criminals. But if violent criminals who can’t be rehabilitated are locked up, the streets are safer.
In 1972 a CEO made forty times the average wage of his workers. NDP leader David Lewis called them “corporate welfare bums.” Today CEOs in Canada make on average 155 times the wage of the average Joe, and Stephen Harper calls them “job creators.” What’s up with that?
Let’s use for example, Proctor and Gamble. It employs a lot of people in Brockville. The CEO makes a lot of money. That’s between the shareholders and the company. Obscene CEO compensation is not fair. But who is to determine what fair is?
Why does he call them job creators?
If a company is investing in our country and creating jobs, they are job creators. Over the last 25 years with very high corporate taxes, many jobs were lost because companies left. Had we had lower corporate taxes during that period, we might have lost fewer jobs. We were competing with lower-tax jurisdictions.
People forget that not only do we have federal corporate taxes, we have provincial corporate taxes. Even though I would never support the provincial Liberal party, even finance minister Dwight Duncan agrees that lower corporate taxes are better for Ontario.
So that’s why finance minister Jim Flaherty said that Ontario is the worst possible place to invest?
Well, the provincial government shifted gears after that and reduced corporate taxes. Manufacturing is now increasing in Ontario. It’s making a bit of a recovery. We’re the only party in this election that does not want to raise taxes on job creators.
How can a Conservative government eliminate the deficit, buy jets, and build prisons without massive cuts in government programs? Most of us are worried about the future of health care and those jets seem like a waste of money.
First of all, the improving economy will generate more tax revenues. We’ll look to find efficiencies, and continue to work on the different advantages that Canada has to generate the revenue we need.
Prorogation: the view from Leeds-Grenville
January 4, 2010
For a column in the Review Mirror Rod Croskery asked candidates in the forthcoming federal election for their views on the recent prorogation of Parliament. At press time responses had arrived from MP Gord Brown and Liberal candidate Marjory Loveys.
MP Gord Brown’s office responded:
Thank you for your email.
On December 30, the Prime Minister announced that the next phase of our Economic Action Plan will be launched, following the Olympic Games, with a Throne Speech on March 3 and a Budget on March 4.
The call for a new Throne Speech to launch the 3rd Session of the current Parliament is routine. The average Parliament comprises three or four sessions (and three or four Throne Speeches) and some Parliaments have had as many as six or seven Throne Speeches.
This is the 105th time in Canada’s history that a new Throne Speech will launch a new session of an existing Parliament.
The economy remains Canadians’ top priority and our top priority and a new Throne Speech allows the government to respond to the country’s economic priorities.
The three economic themes of the new session will be: (1) completing implementation of the Economic Action Plan introduced in the last Session, (2) returning the federal budget to balance once the economy has recovered – which is a priority for Canadians – and (3) building the economy of the future.
As well, the new Parliament allows us to re-introduce important legislation. Since a Bill can not be introduced twice in any Session, a new Session is required to further a government’s mandate.
I trust this answers your questions.
And I hope you and yours had a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Mark King
Legislative Assistant
Gord Brown
Member of Parliament
—
Liberal Candidate Majory Loveys:
Rod:
Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the issue of Mr. Harper’s premature prorogation of Parliament.
There are several aspects of Mr. Harper’s decision to prorogue Parliament and close it for over two months that have been much discussed already.
First, it will enable the Conservatives to use their new-found majority in the Senate to gain more control of the Senate, including the Senate Committees. However, if this were the only objective there would be no need for a two-month Parliamentary shut-down.
Second, prorogation will delay many bills forcefully promoted by Mr. Harper as urgent and crucial, for example bills to reduce crime. His past bluster can now be seen as just that.
Third, Parliamentary scrutiny of the Afghanistan Detainee issue will cease. There has been much speculation that this was the real motive behind Mr. Harper’s decision, and I agree with this assessment.
However, in my view the impact of the duration of the closure of Parliament deserves more attention.
This two-months-plus closure will render Parliament mute until March. During this time Parliament will be unable to quickly respond to any emergency that arises, and the budget will be written with no input from the general public or our Members of Parliament.
If events create the need for Parliamentary action – for example to deal with a work stoppage that is causing hardship for Canadians – the process of recalling Parliament, electing a Speaker, etc. will slow any response. For this reason past governments have learned to prorogue Parliament just a few days before it is scheduled to be recalled. Mr. Harper did not take this precaution. He clearly does not care if Parliament is Missing In Action for months on end.
More importantly, before each budget Parliamentary Committees normally hear from a broad cross-section of Canadians and debate the ideas they hear. Their advice is given to the Minister of Finance well before the budget is written.
Mr. Harper’s stated intent is to recall Parliament on March 3 and have a budget the very next day.
Given this timetable, our elected MPs will have no opportunity to advise the Minister of Finance on actions to help us deal with the effects of the recession, deal with the deficit or improve our pensions. And the Canadian public will have no opportunity for their voices to be heard and participate in an open and transparent discussion on their proposals.
This means that Mr. Flaherty will hear the opinions of big companies who can hire lobbyists and the select few he invites to his meetings; those without an “in” with the government or big bucks to hire well-connected lobbyists will be shut out.
It is the unnecessary length of time that Parliament will be closed that will impact Canadians the most. It suggests that Mr. Harper is placing his partisan interests in shutting down uncomfortable questions about his decisions on our Afghan mission ahead of the interests of Canadians. Perhaps he even sees not having to listen to the likes of us about budget proposals as an added bonus.
In leaving Parliament unable to quickly respond to emergencies or to listen to the public and debate their concerns about the recession, the deficit and pensions, he is preventing our elected Members of Parliament from doing their work.
I can only conclude that Mr. Harper sees Parliament as an inconvenience rather than an essential voice of the Canadian people.
Note: These articles made their way to the Brockville Recorder and Times in its Friday, Janary 8, 2010 edition.
the Walnut Diary 