Lost his last election, in 2006, with 38% of the vote.
The Budget February 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the opposition is generous to give us an opportunity to set the record straight.
Once again, more money will be invested, including another $70 million in addition to what was set aside this year, for a total of $195 million since last year. We will be putting another $850 million into the child tax benefit in 1998. We are giving ourselves one year because we want to do this in partnership with the provinces.
The Budget February 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie has trouble getting used to our new federalism which is not authoritarian and does not impose standards. He is surprised that we succeeded where he thought we would fail. That is what bothers the opposition.
This is a national project which we discussed with the provinces of this country, and the provinces have agreed to reinvest the money according to certain priorities we will establish together this spring. What bothers him is that modern federalism works. This is not about standards but about partnership.
The Budget February 21st, 1997
No, he was distinctly referring to both. I can confirm that the national child benefit is a permanent program, something people can rely on for the future. This is a very attractive program.
However, there are other programs in which this government will invest, so that the provinces can start pilot projects, but this will be in consultation with the provinces.
The Budget February 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for asking this question and giving me an opportunity to again confirm our government's commitment to a federal platform that will be renewed annually, for the benefit of children in low income families.
We feel this is a very attractive approach because it will be done in partnership with the provinces, which also support the objective of fighting child poverty in poor and low income families.
The Prime Minister was also referring to other programs, under the authority of the Minister of Health-
The Budget February 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP is absolutely wrong. No child in this country will receive less money this year than they received last year. That is absolutely clear.
Some people wished to be transferred from a per family to a per child situation. One child families will still receive more money, not as much as we had hoped and was promised in the earlier budget, but they will receive more money than they did last year. It is a matter of fairness to go to a per child situation instead of per family.
We are doing a good job for next year's national child benefit.
The Budget February 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, this is like comparing apples and oranges. In 1984, there was a family allowance system which went to all households. It was a universal program, one which many governments before us had questioned.
If, however, we look at the situation and the way it has developed in recent years, I think that our government's commitment to children of low income families is one that is solid, significant, and aimed at low income families, unlike the family allowance, a universal program from another era, which we revised when we did a general tidying up of Canada's public finances to the benefit, incidentally, of all the administrations and all the companies in this country.
The Budget February 20th, 1997
-we have added $70 million to the $195 million we had already committed in this fiscal year. The amount we have committed, one that is permanent and will be repeated yearly for many years, the most important national social project for decades, a project in partnership with the provinces, which will add $850 million yearly for the benefit of children in low income families, is a magnificent commitment on the part of the government.
The Budget February 20th, 1997
They can always be considered crumbs, but if you start by looking at the figures-
The Budget February 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, from-
The Budget February 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has cut some of its own programs. We have carried out two program reviews and made cuts to federal government programs. We have also reduced the number of federal public servants by 50,000.
It is easy to whine all the time and pretend to be the victim, the worst off of all the victims of the Canadian federation. I would like
to draw the attention of the opposition and of the Government of Quebec to the fact that Quebec still receives the largest federal transfer payment of any Canadian province relative to its budget.
Quebec derives considerable benefit from being in the Canadian federation, and we have no problem with that.