Lost his last election, in 2004, with 41% of the vote.
Supply June 7th, 1999
Madam Speaker, in this question and comment period I say to the member for Longueuil, a member from the Bloc Quebecois, that this motion is a great initiative.
As the chair of the House of Commons committee that tabled the report, it is only fair and proper for me to acknowledge on the floor of this House of Commons the fantastic contribution the member for Rimouski—Mitis made to the committee. The member, Suzanne Tremblay, was with us—
Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998 May 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence I would prefer to continue after question period with my comments and questions and possibly my remarks, if that is favourable to you.
Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998 May 10th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening attentively for the last 12 minutes to the member for Elk Island. I look at Bill C-72 and I see things which deal with supplementary personal tax credits and the homebuyers plan. I have not heard the member talk about anything pertaining to Bill C-72.
Olympic Advocates Together Honourably March 16th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, today in Lausanne, Switzerland, OATH, an organization which stands for Olympic Advocates Together Honourably, was established.
OATH is a global coalition of Olympic athletes and advocates initiated by Canadians committed to restoring and maintaining the Olympic spirit. The coalition was formed in the context of allegations of questionable practices involving the IOC. As trustees of the Olympic spirit, they believe there is a pressing need for systemic reforms.
The basic principles of OATH are that it be an ethical, accountable, transparent, inclusive and democratic organization.
We extend congratulations to Belinda Stronach, Keith Stein, Mark Tweksbury and all the other Olympic athletes and their associates. As Canadians we are proud of them and we salute their initiative.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act March 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the member's remarks.
First, I would like to correct the record. The member stated that I was an interventionist. The reality is, and I say this to all members of the Reform Party, I am a passionate interventionist. Let us make sure we get that right.
The essence of why we are in the Chamber at the national government level is to intervene. We are not here to sit back and watch those who do not have a voice or regions of the country that need help and sort of let it go, let it happen, let the municipal politicians do it, let the provincial politicians do it. No. This is what a national government is all about. This is what the bill is all about.
I have to correct another reference that the member made in terms of my remarks yesterday. He suggested that I was not clear about the Government of Canada intervention and where or how it related to western Canada. I believe the member made that statement.
I want to be very specific. By the way, I include my own province of Ontario, but seeing as the member referred to the west I want to be specific. Every western province, whether it is British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba, has benefited immensely by Government of Canada intervention.
It is time the Reform Party realized that is how we build a nation, by the national government intervening from time to time to embellish and improve the economy. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Reform Party wants to walk away from interventionism. To me, it is part and parcel of our daily responsibility in the Chamber.
Let us look at the national energy program. It is another example of where the Government of Canada intervened in terms of security of supply in energy, the Canadianization of our energy system and the conservation content of the NEP. Yet these Reform Party members were knocking it yesterday.
I could go on, but I want to make sure that when members of the Reform Party are quoting my remarks they understand exactly where I stand.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act March 10th, 1999
Shame on him for repeating my remarks.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act March 9th, 1999
I am doing my best on this side of the House but it is a heck of a lot tougher when in government to move the will of the system. Challenging the government is a core responsibility of the opposition side. I hope the speech of the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca is the beginning of a long, focused and forceful debate from the opposition on comprehensive tax reform.
He will find there are probably about 25 or 30 members on this side of the House who share the notion that what we need more than anything now is to fix the rotten tax act.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act March 9th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the remarks of the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I thought they were insightful. I especially agreed with his notion of comprehensive tax reform. There was not a sentence in the part of his speech that dealt with comprehensive tax reform with which I did not agree.
We should understand and the people of Canada should understand how the system works in terms of moving a government to change its ways. All members have been here for almost two years. In the fall as we led up to the budget preparation period we did not have one opposition day with any tight focus on comprehensive tax reform.
My remarks are intended to be constructive. I was hopeful, when a number of additional members from the Reform Party came here during the last term knowing that they had a huge commitment to comprehensive tax reform, that would be one of the centrepieces of their strategy in trying to mobilize debate and the will to take on the huge problem of changing our cumbersome tax act, which is inefficient and does not work any longer.
It is important to suggest to members in opposition that it is not enough for one, two, three or four members to speak to comprehensive tax reform as the member did. As I say I agree with every sentence in that regard, but we have to mobilize at least 100 or 140 members in here.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act March 9th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Frontenac—Mégantic for his question.
He is right in his comment about Toronto's homeless. But I made a distinction between those who are ill and those who are homeless.
I want to be very clear that I did not say all of those people who are homeless in motels. I said those people who are living and sleeping in sleeping blankets on the street. There is a dramatic difference and I want the record to show it.
I also want to say to the member that his comments are constructive. I think he is right on the money. If there is one thing I have learned to appreciate about members of the Bloc Quebecois is that they are very sensitive to issues that tend to be for those who do not have a voice.
I obviously totally disagree with the hon. member's views on trying to divide the country, but we all know that issue is coming to an end. Separatism is almost dead. But I totally respect his views on speaking out for those who do not have a voice and I will continue to fight within our team to make sure we are more sensitive.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act March 9th, 1999
Oh, no, no. The security of supply, the conservation thrust and the Canadianization of our resource related to energy. There were gangster-like tactics being used by the American oil companies to push us around and bully us. Finally Brian Mulroney came in and threw it out the door. It was absolutely scandalous. The national energy program was a jewel, a crafted jewel.
I cannot wait for the debate when we deal with making sure that we manage the sharing and caring of our national water resources in this country. I am deathly afraid that the Reform Party is going to say “Give it away”.
The final point has to do with the member's formula of distribution. I believe that was the first point. We can debate the formula, but in essence what we are saying is, let us take those provinces that are haves in terms of cash and distribute to those that are have nots. There is always room for improving the actual formula and I accept the member's point on that.