House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 51% of the vote.
Taxation October 7th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member is so optimistic about the surplus at the federal level. I would like to tell him that on November 3 I will present this year's economic fiscal update for the government. We will see whether there is a surplus, and whether or not it is large this year.
We all know that there have been some rather difficult situations this year, affecting us not only at the provincial, but also at the federal level.
Taxation October 7th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the fact that we have had sound management at the federal level. We now have the best record among G-7 countries in terms of deficit reduction and debt reduction.
Nevertheless, I might add that I understand very well why the Quebec finance minister is asking Ottawa for more money. It is because the PQ left them with a fiscal disaster in the province of Quebec.
Member for LaSalle--Émard October 7th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, it was only recently that the hon. member was talking about feeling very amorous and now he is into neutering. I am not quite sure what happened when they met in that orchard, but these marriages can be arranged sometimes with a shotgun.
We are prepared to hear what people have to say in preparation for the next budget. The government is perfectly capable of taking that onboard and taking it into consideration as the preparation--
Member for LaSalle--Émard October 7th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I know there is very little that the member for Medicine Hat has to offer to the next budget process. That would be similar to what was offered last year by the Alliance Party.
In the meantime, the witnesses that are appearing today, and in the last few weeks and in the weeks to come before the finance committee are providing an important source of input for the government to consider in preparation of the next budget. The member for Medicine Hat dismisses their hard work, their earnest presentations and their serious ideas but I can assure him that the government does not.
Health October 6th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I know the NDP loves to spend, but the member really should be more responsible in describing the commitment that was made.
I have said this repeatedly in the House. The commitment was that we would review the stated fiscal situation of the government in the month of January 2004. This is what the health accord said. If it appeared that we would have a surplus in excess of the normal contingency reserve, then up to $2 billion would be made available to the provinces in addition to the other $34.8 billion for health care funding.
Taxation October 2nd, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that the regulation of retail prices in Canada is a responsibility of provincial governments. There is no intention on the part of this government to interfere with the marketplace with respect to prices in the retail sector.
Taxation October 2nd, 2003
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I know the member would want to be entirely accurate in what he said. If he would look at the 1995 budget, he would see that there was no commitment to eliminate the 1.5¢ per litre tax when the deficit was eliminated.
If he wanted to be fair, I think he would also acknowledge that in the 2000 budget the government brought in the most extensive set of tax reductions in the history of Canada, amounting to $100 billion over five years. That is the reward for eliminating the deficit.
Veterans Affairs October 2nd, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I have said repeatedly in the House that we will fully honour the promise. The promise is exactly as it was written in the health accord: that if in January the government has apparently a budgetary surplus in excess of the normal contingency, up to $2 billion will be made available to the provinces for their additional health care costs. It is pretty clear. It is now October. It is still not January. The determination has not yet been made. We will fulfill our obligations to the letter of the agreement.
Voyageur Colonial Pension Fund October 2nd, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I know we can never presume that a member would mislead the House, so I can only assume that the growth in the length of the member's nose is a surgical implant, because what he says is quite simply untrue.
There were two pension plans. They were overseen by OSFI in accordance with the law. They were entered into as contracts between companies and their employees and they were operated fully in accordance with the agreements and with the law.
Voyageur Colonial Pension Fund October 2nd, 2003
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate when members use the privileges of this House to say things in the depth and extent of their allegations that would clearly be actionable if said outside the House.
The member has engaged in correspondence with OSFI. He has clear responses to the questions that he has posed to OSFI. It is an overseer, and is independent from the government. It has responded fully to the questions that he has put to it.