House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 51% of the vote.
The Budget February 19th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, it is always easy to bring up fiscal imbalance when there is a surplus. When there is a federal deficit, however, there is never any mention of it.
We know that the level of provincial indebtedness is always less than that of the federal government. We also know that, when we do have money to spend, on the École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe for instance, the hon. member may then think it is a good idea.
The Budget February 19th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I will take that this is a representation by the member that he wishes us to increase the taxes in other sectors in order to pay more of those costs.
He will know that there are already user charges that apply to other transportation sectors. He knows that the additional measures that were adopted after September 11, 2001, in the aviation sector were designed directly to provide greater security to the passengers who use the service. It was appropriate in that case to have the users pay the costs of the additional security.
The Budget February 19th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the rate is set based upon the costs of the additional air security measures that are being adopted. As was made clear yesterday in the budget, as well as in the documents we circulated in November, the ability to reduce the tax is based on the fact that we are moving to a full accrual accounting system, which will enable us to apportion the cost over the life of the assets being acquired.
The Budget February 19th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not apologize for visiting my constituents anytime.
What we have been able to do is a breakthrough in making arrangements with the provinces to increase the number of child care spaces available. No, it is not a lot of money this particular year coming up because agreements need to be reached with the provinces.
However, it is almost $1 billion over the next five years. For the first time the federal government is putting real money behind a commitment to provide child care spaces for Canadians. This is an important move forward.
The Budget February 19th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, occasionally the opposition complains that the answers we give in the House are unclear. So I want him to listen closely. No, absolutely not.
The responsibility that the provinces have for areas which are in their jurisdiction is one for which they have entirely the same capacity to raise revenue as does the federal government. Our revenue goes into the consolidated revenue fund and we make choices as to how to spend it. It is not a matter of dedicating taxes; it is a matter of meeting our responsibilities.
The Budget February 19th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, we are in the third year of a five year program to reduce overall taxes by $100 billion and choices were made as to what taxes should be reduced. Personal income taxes were sharply reduced in that process and tax rates were indexed in that process. That was the choice that was made rather than reducing taxes on fuel.
Gasoline Prices February 19th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, it seems that the hon. member is now convinced that the idea which he opposed in 2000 was a good idea. I am pleased to see that he is open to new initiatives.
Considering the fact that we reduced taxes across the whole tax system, I think that even the hon. member would agree that a reduction of $100 billion is not bad.
Gasoline Prices February 19th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, in the year 2000, we decided to reduce by $100 billion the taxes paid by all Canadians. All Canadians will benefit from this tax reduction. However, the hon. member would rather reduce one specific tax, instead of the others.
All Canadians can benefit from our tax reductions, from lower employment insurance premiums and from the other cuts made by the government.
The Budget February 19th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, next year's rate is based upon the expected costs of the program and not to generate any additional revenue. The process that we will adopt following broadly based consultations is one that will ensure that the program going forward has premiums that reflect the actual costs of the program.
The hon. member talks about a surplus. Yes, it has been used because it was included in the consolidated revenue fund of the government. It has reduced our debt and increased our spending on health care. It has increased our spending on important programs to benefit Canadians.
The Budget February 19th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the reduction for next year will be 12¢ per $100. That is the tenth consecutive reduction. Furthermore, that will reduce the premium rate to approximately the cost of the benefits being paid. Going further, the fund will be based on revenue in equal to costs of the program.