House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 45% of the vote.
Budget Surplus December 11th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, we have heard the Minister of Finance state on a number of occasions this week that any fiscal dividend arising from a federal budget surplus does not belong to any government, it belongs to the people of Canada.
If indeed any budget surplus belongs to all Canadians and not to any government, why is he acting as if he alone had the power to decide what use to make of it?
Transfer Payments December 10th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, even though the Minister of Finance claims to have made poverty his priority, the truth is that he cut $11 billion from education, health and social assistance.
Here is my question for the minister. If today his government wants to pour money left and right into all sorts of programs, it is only to increase the federal government's visibility. They want cheques with little maple leaves in the corner to be circulating all over the place. That is what they want.
Transfer Payments December 10th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance should be a little more reasonable. All the provinces, all the provincial finance ministers—every single one of them, including the one from Quebec—were unanimous in asking him to give back a portion of the money he had taken from them instead of squandering it.
Does he not realize that his current position is terribly isolating for him and his government?
Employment Insurance December 9th, 1997
He is nothing but a technocrat.
Poverty December 9th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, at a time when food banks cannot meet the demand during this Christmas season, the Minister of Human Resources Development, as the technocrat that he is, refuses to recognize the devastating effects of his employment insurance program.
What words will we have to use to make the government understand that there are people who will have nothing on the table at Christmas because they were excluded from employment insurance by the Minister of Human Resources Development and reduced to poverty by this government?
Poverty December 9th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, since this government came to power in 1993, its main decisions have been to cut over $11 billion in education, in health and in social assistance, and over $3 billion a year in the unemployment insurance program. These are all policies that are having a cruel effect on the poorest in our society.
My question is for the prime minister. How can this government justify its continued attack against the poor and how long does it intend to maintain this policy?
Child Poverty December 8th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister is not very familiar with what his boss is saying, because he has said over the weekend that the additional $850 million would be available on the condition that the provinces submit a plan.
Is this not just the old habit of the federal government to move into areas under provincial jurisdiction as soon as there is money available and is the government not using poor children as hostages to impose its will on the provinces?
Child Poverty December 8th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the government has made the addition of another $850 million for poor children conditional on the submission by the provinces of a reinvestment plan, for their own money, that must be approved by the federal government.
How can the federal government require the provinces to justify expenses in their own jurisdiction, and also when these $850 million are only a small part of the $11 billion that the federal government has cut since 1994 from the Canada social transfer?
Calgary Declaration December 4th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, are we to understand from the responses of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that he adopts the phoney initiative of the Reform leader as his own, that it is now government property, that they all agree to go and supposedly consult Quebeckers on an agreement on which no one else in Canada agrees?
Calgary Declaration December 4th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Reform Party invites his friends and colleagues to fight the notion of distinct society or any other related concept, while the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is trying to convince Quebeckers that what is in the Calgary declaration is the exact equivalent of distinct society. Surprisingly, both claim they approve of the Calgary declaration. Both have associated themselves with the Reform initiative.
How can the minister accuse the sovereignists of sowing confusion when he and his Reform associate—