John Manley

[Budgetary Surplus, November 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in the annual financial report for 2001-02 as well as the economic fiscal update last week, we were very clear on exactly where the surplus for last year was allocated.

I agree that apparently the Auditor General has taken some issue with saying pay down the debt. However, the fact remains, and the Auditor General signs off on her statements, that the debt is the accumulated deficit less any surpluses that we accrue. It is as simple as that.

It is transparent in the documents. We never said that the $9 billion was used to pay down market debt. We said it was used to reduce total or net debt.

[Employment Insurance, November 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we will establish the rate for 2003 in the normal timeframe before the end of November. We will fulfill the undertaking to consult with Canadians on the appropriate mechanism for establishing the rate going forward, with the intention that mechanism should be in effect in time for establishing the rate for 2004.

[Health, November 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there are plenty of assumptions that we have to make when we go into the budget process and one of those includes future economic growth.

I want the hon. member to understand very clearly. We have committed ourselves to maintaining a positive budget surplus. We have committed ourselves to implementing the tax cuts. Unlike his cousins in Ontario who deferred their tax cuts after promising them going into an election, we intend to implement ours and we will meet the needs. We will do our part in terms of health care as we have committed to do repeatedly.

[Health, November 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we do not even have the Romanow report yet. I think the member is putting the cart before the horse. Let us get the report. Let us consult with the provinces. Then we will decide what is required and what actions need to be taken to deal with it.

As I have said repeatedly, I do not favour tax increases. I favour tax decreases. That is why we continue to implement the $100 billion tax reduction that was announced in October 2000.

[Employment Insurance, November 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say what he is thinking. He might want to make a mental note of it if he has something to write on.

A hundred billion dollars in reductions in taxes is the most in Canadian history. Who does he think pays those taxes? Does he think that contributors to the EI program do not pay taxes somehow and therefore they are getting ripped off? The reduction in taxes includes all the charges that people were paying. Canadians pay taxes. They wanted to pay less and they are paying less.

[Employment Insurance, November 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it seems like critics on that side come and go too, but it is nice to have the member for Medicine Hat asking a question about finance again. If he is having difficulty reading the public accounts we will try to help him with it. I think that the numbers with respect to employment insurance are very clear.

I have also, in response to questions last week at the time of the update, indicated that we will be setting the rate for 2003 in the normal time, by the end of November, and that we will undertake as promised to consult with Canadians on how the rate-setting mechanism should apply in future years.

[Government Contracts, November 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the package we have tabled has certainly provided every member of Parliament with the ability to go directly to the ethics commissioner, as he would be known, in order to ask for the conduct of the minister to be looked into.

The current ethics counsellor has also shown his willingness to respond to issues that were raised either in the media or in Parliament. I invite the member, if he wishes, to write his own letter to the ethics counsellor.

[Government Contracts, November 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor is free to look into any matters he wishes to look into. In the recent past he has shown that he is willing to do just that.

[Ethics, November 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the hon. member would believe that backbench MPs should have to meet the same standard of conduct as ministers. In fact, the code of conduct for public office holders is of course much more strict and contains a lot more disclosure requirements than will be the case under the proposed code for members of Parliament.

I fail to understand why he would want MPs to meet that higher standard when they have a lower obligation to the public given the role that they play.

[Hydroelectricity, November 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the way that Ontario has decided to burden its taxpayers with the debt of Ontario Hydro is to add a charge to the cost of electricity. That is how it does it. I think it is a little under a cent per kilowatt hour. That is how it is charged. It could be done other ways. It could have chosen to include it in the price of electricity.

I know the hon. member would agree with me that it would be very difficult if every business was able to disaggregate its costs in order to segregate those that have to do with--