House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 56% of the vote.
Monetary Policy November 19th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, what a revelation!
Has the Minister of Finance, who during the 1995 referendum campaign was saying that a sovereign Quebec would be in a losing position because it would have no control over monetary policy, just admitted candidly that even he has no control over monetary policy?
Is the Minister of Finance aware that his lack of monetary policy in the last three years is hurting the unemployed in Quebec?
Monetary Policy November 19th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, although the inflation rate has dropped to 1.5%, the Governor of the Bank of Canada still fears the inflation ghost and has announced that he will increase interest rates. Yet, the mandate of the central bank is clear: it also has to look after employment, not just inflation.
My question is to the Minister of Finance. What is the minister waiting for to call Governor Thiessen to order and force him to fulfil the employment mandate provided for in the Bank of Canada Act?
The Environment November 17th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I do not know why Reformers and Liberals argue with each other. They have the same position, the same reduced Kyoto position.
The federal government drastically reduced its social transfer payments to the provinces. For each dollar cut from federal expenditures between 1994 and 1998, 54 cents, or more than half, where taken out of social transfers to the provinces, that is to say out of the health, education and social assistance budgets.
Now that he knows for sure that the budget will be balanced this year, does the Minister of Finance intend to return to the provinces at least part of what he stole from them instead of taking this money—
Supply November 6th, 1997
You do not understand a thing.
Supply November 6th, 1997
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the hon. member for Abitibi. He just told us that there were figures transmitted between Quebec and Ottawa officials, that everybody was getting along fine and that there was no problem. Where did he get that? The last figures laid on the table deal with a $2 billion claim from the Quebec government stating that the federal government has shown blatant unfairness to Quebec in the matter of GST harmonization.
He can quote any old figures he wants—and he did come up with just about any old figures—the fact remains that, when looking at the tax structure before and after harmonization, when taking into account the need for Quebec to increase corporation taxes because the federal government did not give it any compensation, one can see there has been a cost, and this cost has been assessed and duly, seriously, calculated by the Quebec government and by the officials, and also endorsed by a consensus arrived at by every Quebec participant in the economic summit of last year. It has been endorsed also by the Canadian premiers at the St. Andrews conference.
There comes a time when we have to stop talking nonsense here. There is a $2 billion claim on the table, there are formulas, there are cost assessments that have been made, and now we are asking that an objective panel review our figures and those of the finance minister. He should understand that. That is not hard to understand. If there is something simple for him to understand, it is that an objective, non partisan panel can make a serious analysis whereas he says just about anything. He should understand that.
Supply November 6th, 1997
Because it is not coming from your neck of the woods.
Supply November 6th, 1997
Madam Speaker, I would ask my colleague of Bourassa himself to stick to the subject. I listened to him and he did not say a word on the motion we moved. The only thing he tried to do was to destroy the reputation of my colleagues and of the Bloc Quebecois and he talked about everything but the motion. He should apply his remarks to himself.
Supply November 6th, 1997
You lost your majority.
Supply November 6th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I heard a different proverb from my father in my youth, one about losing sight of the forest for the trees. I think that this is what our colleague, the hon. member for Outremont and minister responsible for regional development in Quebec, is doing.
I have great respect for my colleague, but I wonder how well he knows the issue of harmonizing. If he had paid any attention to the analyses we have submitted to him, he would have realized that the GST is an issue that needs to be considered globally. A global look at what the fiscal situation was before harmonization, in 1989, and after harmonization, in 1991, shows that taxation adjustments had to made to absorb the transitional costs associated with this harmonization.
The hon. member referred to an increase in revenues. I am sorry, but these revenues do not come from the federal government. They come from the taxpayers who were forced to pay more, to pay for the transition to a harmonized system, actually. This is the reality.
So, respectfully, will he admit that the suggestion made this morning by the Bloc Quebecois is totally non-partisan? It provides that the government should appoint three experts. The first one would be appointed by the federal government, the second one by the Quebec government, and the third one jointly by the first two, so as to have an objective review that would protect Quebec's interests, which so concern the member for Outremont, because there is a lot at stake here.
So, I ask. If the hon. member is protecting Quebec's interests, might it not be a good idea to make representations to his minister and to convince him?
Supply November 6th, 1997
It is our tax money.