House of Commons Hansard #28 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was federal.

Topics

National Defence
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. Minister of National Defence.

National Defence
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

York Centre
Ontario

Liberal

Art Eggleton Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, the matter is not sitting on my desk. The matter is in full process toward a decision that will be made.

Yes, we will replace it by 2005. We have been able to streamline the procedures for procurement over and above what the Conservatives had when they were in government. We will be able, in a shorter period of time, to purchase the right replacement for the Sea King.

Taxation
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Reform

Dick Harris Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, here is another chapter in the great tax rip-off carried out by the finance minister. This is a pay stub for Jean. Jean is a pipefitter who works in Fort McMurray. His gross pay was $2,265, but by the time the finance minister got through with his paycheque, Jean took home about $1,200, a 49% tax bite.

I want to ask the finance minister a very simple question. When is he going to give people like Jean, hard working Canadians, a tax break? When is he going to do that?

Taxation
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard
Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, Reform members' performance in standing is not going to confuse Canadians about the fact that the Reform Party is not prepared to carry through with what it is saying. The issue really is that Jean has got more after-tax disposable income today as a result of what this government has done than what Reform would have delivered.

The issue is, why will the Reform Party not stand in the House to defend what it has said in the prebudget debates and, in fact, in its election campaigns? That is the issue.

Taxation
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Reform

Dick Harris Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense. Jean's family income has decreased over $4,000 since 1993. His disposable income from his cheque has decreased over $2,200 since 1993 under this finance minister's insatiable tax campaign.

Jean cannot hide his income under some offshore foreign flag. He—

Taxation
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

Taxation
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

The Speaker

Order, please. I ask the hon. member to please go directly to his question.

Taxation
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Reform

Dick Harris Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, Jean feels the full impact of this finance minister's insatiable appetite for taxes.

I want to ask the finance minister, is he really proud of what he does to Jean's family? Is he really proud of how much tax he—

Taxation
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. Minister of Finance.

Taxation
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard
Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, is every member of the government proud that we put $11.5 billion back into the health care system? Absolutely.

Is every member of the government proud of the national child tax credit? Absolutely.

Is every member of the government proud that we have taken 600,000 taxpayers off the tax rolls? Absolutely.

The fact is that we are prepared to stand in the House to defend what we have done.

Are Reform Party members proud of what they have said, that they would not cut EI premiums for employees? They are clapping. They are proud of it. Are they proud of the fact that they would not have provided any tax relief until the year 2000?

Referendums
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Roberval, QC

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I had occasion to quote the Prime Minister, who on referendum night in 1995, boasted of the merits of democracy, which gave him a 50.6% victory. Today, he is refusing to recognize 50% plus one as the rule.

Could the minister tell us where, in the supreme court opinion, he is asked to give votes different values according to their being for or against sovereignty for Quebec? In other words, where in the supreme court decision does he come up with the fact that clarity means 60,000 from Lac-Saint-Jean and 40,000 votes from Westmount?

Referendums
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Saint-Laurent—Cartierville
Québec

Liberal

Stéphane Dion President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is time for the Bloc to answer a few questions.

They were asked: Why in municipal referendums in Quebec is it not 50% plus one if 50% plus one is supposed to be the sacred rule? They were asked: If 50% plus one is a clear rule, is a clear majority, what would a majority that is not clear be? The Bloc cannot answer these questions.

What counts most is respect for Quebecers' right to be fully Canadian, until such time as they clearly give it up. As Quebecers clearly want to be Canadians, the people opposite are looking for confusion.

Referendums
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Roberval, QC

Mr. Speaker, this week the minister gave the members of this House a lesson, saying that it was wrong to mix apples and oranges. I wonder what he is doing when he talks of municipal referendums.>

Will the minister not acknowledge that the purely academic debate over a theoretical percentage, which he wants to be different from the way things are, is a desperate measure to come up with a way to avoid the constitutional obligation to negotiate the Supreme Court of Canada set for the government?

Referendums
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Saint-Laurent—Cartierville
Québec

Liberal

Stéphane Dion President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, if the simple amalgamation of municipalities requires more than 50% plus one, would such a majority be enough to break up a country? Has this ever happened somewhere in the world, outside colonial settings? Never.

There have even been cases where majorities of 60% did not lead to secession, as in the case of Western Australia and on the islands of St. Kitts and Nevis.

National Unity
Oral Question Period

November 25th, 1999 / 2:35 p.m.

Reform

Grant Hill Macleod, AB

Mr. Speaker, the only reason the Prime Minister stands alone on the national unity debate is because he is totally out to lunch. He does not even have the support of his cabinet.

This government seems to forget that Quebecers and Canadians want more than the status quo or sovereignty. Canadians want a renewal of the federation, a third route.

Why is the Prime Minister so determined to become one of the winning conditions of the sovereignists?