House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 56% of the vote.
Division No. 1131 March 13th, 2000
—and for the sake of clarity so dear to our Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and distinguished university professor, the Chair could start with those opposed to the motion and then go to those in favour of the motion for the remainder of the votes.
Division No. 1131 March 13th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have been voting for thirty hours or so now. I just noticed a common practice in this House, namely that the Chair first asks those in favour of the motion to say yea or oui, and then those opposed to say nay or non.
We realize that this practice gives an undue advantage to the no side, since when we yell yea first, the no side can adjust the level of decibels according to ours.
We were wondering whether, for the sake of justice, fairness, and democracy—
Division No. 1082 March 13th, 2000
There were at least ten of them.
Division No. 1082 March 13th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I think it would be preferable to start all over again in this case. I saw at least ten Liberal members who were sitting down but whose names were called out by the clerk with those opposing the motion—
Division No. 1082 March 13th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would like you to clarify certain rules for us. Earlier, the clerk called out the names of several Liberal members who were not standing in their place. I would like you to tell us what the rule is. Do members have to rise so their votes can be recorded or does the clerk call out their names automatically even though they are sitting down? That was the case for at least seven Liberal members earlier. Can you clarify that rule for us?
Supply March 2nd, 2000
Thirty-one billion.
Supply March 2nd, 2000
Asleep.
Supplementary Estimates (B), 1999-2000 March 2nd, 2000
Let her read it.
The Budget March 1st, 2000
Madam Speaker, I have a question for my eminent colleague, who is a major wine producer. But I will not mince my words.
What does he think of the following facts, given the credibility of the Minister of Finance, for whom he says he speaks?
Barely two and a half months ago, the Minister of Finance presented forecasts in his economic statement. At that time, he told us that the surplus for 1999-2000, that is the period ending March 31 of this year, would be $5 billion.
Two and a half months later, he brings down his budget and, big surprise, the Minister of Finance—the same one, unless it was his brother or a clone, but they look very similar—is talking about a $7.5 billion surplus, a $2.5 billion increase in two and a half months. What a strange coincidence: $2.5 billion and two and a half months—2.5 and 2.5. His forecast changed by 21% in two and a half months; this is a serious problem.
In addition, the very day the budget was brought down, there was a copy of The Fiscal Monitor , a publication put out by his department, in the lock-up room. In the third point of the second column on page two, it says that for the first nine months of this fiscal—in other words, the first three quarters—the surplus was $10.9 billion.
It was $5 billion two and a half months ago, $7.5 billion in the budget and $10.9 billion for the first three quarters of 1999-2000.
Yesterday I opened the newspaper and saw another discrepancy in the minister's forecasts. This morning, he said that the tax cuts, the Canada social transfer that he forecast in his budget could change, because he had taken a very pessimistic approach, and that we were not to worry, that the figures would change.
I look at this: a forecasting error of 21% in two and a half months, of 65% the same day—according to The Fiscal Monitor on budget day—, and, tomorrow, discrepancies of perhaps 70% between what he brought down in the budget and what he will actually do.
What sort of credibility does the Minister of Finance have? How can we view the budget brought down barely two days ago as a solid foundation? How does he explain his about-face and his election-minded fancy footwork in response to opposition to his budget?
The Budget February 29th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, by not restoring the transfer payments via the Canadian social transfer to their 1993 levels, the people whom the hon. member represents will be hard hit, because it is already experiencing problems with health care funding.
With the population growth that region is undergoing, the needs are becoming more and more urgent and pressing. The Minister of Finance has decided to keep the people of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon waiting once more, as he has for the past two and a half years.
It must not be forgotten that the surplus started two and a half years ago, and the Minister of Finance has managed so far to avoid any debate on its allocation, by concealing and disguising it, as he has again this year. We must not believe that the surplus will be $5 billion, as he has announced. It will be $12 billion instead, this year.
He could, therefore, have done far more to improve the health sector in the hon. member's riding and elsewhere, but has decided not to. At best, he is going to invest $2.5 billion, but over the next five years, so that will be $500 million yearly. This figure represents about 12% of annual requirements, according to the figures given by the provincial premiers and territorial leaders.