House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 54% of the vote.
The Economy June 8th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been missing in action somewhere, because we have taken those kinds of steps with $100 billion in tax cuts, the biggest in history, over five years, average tax cuts for Canadians at 27% and much higher for families with children. We are already moving in this area. We are ahead of the curve.
Where has my hon. friend been the last couple of years?
The Economy June 8th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is considering this important question. However, perhaps the hon. member can explain why he told the National Post , a few days ago, and I quote:
“I voted against the tax cut last year for a whole lot of reasons”. Why does he not explain why he voted against the tax cut and is going in the opposite direction today?
The Economy June 8th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition may find this hard to believe because he and his party cannot achieve this, but this party, this government, can speak and work in one voice for all Canadians.
The Economy June 8th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the discussions will be very fruitful and constructive. I am also sure that advice will flow in both directions.
After all, we have already introduced and put in place the largest tax cuts in Canadian history of $100 billion over five years. This is a signal to Canada and this is a signal to our provincial partners.
Religious Organizations June 5th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the government does not want to force churches into bankruptcy. We are not prolonging the process. We are doing just the opposite.
We are working with the churches and eventually the victims to try to settle the matter outside the litigation process. If the churches are defendants in these cases, it is because the victims, the former students, sued the churches directly in some 70% of the cases.
That is why we have to continue to work together to settle these matters, and I invite my hon. friend to assist me in this regard.
Patent Act June 5th, 2001
moved that Bill S-17, an act to amend the Patent Act, be read the third time and passed.
National Defence June 4th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has the situation all wrong. The helicopter that has been proposed to us by the military, and that we have accepted the statement of requirements for, will have a vigorous and robust anti-submarine capacity, but it will have that robust capacity to deal with the current threat by submarines and will not live in the past like my hon. colleague.
National Defence June 4th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is absolutely wrong. He talks about a possible contingency which is not an absolute decision that this would cost $400 million more.
When he got to his feet and asked about the helicopter scandal, I thought he was talking about the EH-101 deal he was associated with along with Mr. Mulroney.
Justice June 4th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the polls out today show that the Alliance is unacceptable to Canadians.
The message to the Alliance is not to stand in the way of Bill C-15 and good legislation like it if it wants to protect children. It should join with us in protecting our children and let the legislation come to a vote, or it will go even further down in the polls. That is the message of Canadians to the Alliance.
Justice June 4th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I challenge Alliance members to put politics aside and let the legislation come to a vote now. If they will not do that they are the ones playing politics with the safety of our children.