House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was billion.

Last in Parliament September 2008, as Liberal MP for Etobicoke North (Ontario)

Won his last election, in 2006, with 62% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Economic Policy October 19th, 2000

Madam Speaker, I sat here and listened to the Progressive Conservative Party love-in over in the corner. Not only did it rewrite economic history in Canada over the last decade or so, it rewrote the economic update and economic statement presented in the House yesterday by the Minister of Finance.

I would like to go over a few points. First, the Conservatives talk about there being nothing new on health care. Is that not staggering that they can actually stand up and say that in this House when the Prime Minister negotiated and did a deal with the premiers and the territorial leaders just a couple of months ago for $23.5 billion more for health care? That is largest single investment put into health care by any federal government. If we add that to the $14 billion that was invested in health care in the last two budgets, that is a reinvestment of $37 billion. Those members know that is not even close to the cuts in the transfers to the provinces and territories.

They talk about how the Tories are responsible for all economic growth. I will tell the House what the Tories are responsible for. In 1993 they left this government saddled with a deficit of $42 billion. In three years this government eliminated the deficit. Canadians understand that before we can pay any money on the debt we have to eliminate the deficit, which we did.

By the way, there was a 5% surtax introduced by the Tories, which we have now completely eliminated as of yesterday.

Members opposite should reflect upon what they are saying because the facts do not support it.

They talk about the fuel taxes. What they proposed was a reduction in the excise tax on fuel which absolutely would have gone straight to the oil producers in Canada. It would not have gone to the consumers. It would not have hit the pockets of Canadians. Our tax measure will go straight to the pockets of low income Canadians to compensate them for increased heating costs and the increased cost of gasoline at the pumps. Low income individuals will receive $125 per individual and double that for families.

I would like to ask the member for Brandon—Souris if he would like a copy of the economic update that was presented in the House yesterday. I would gladly provide him with one, because obviously he has not read it, and perhaps with an economic history of Canada in the last couple of decades. He would be wise to read that. Would he accept such a gift? I would be glad to give it him.

Canada Health Care, Early Childhood Development And Other Social Services Funding Act October 17th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here listening to this debate. Members on the opposite side talk about the need to debate the bill, but I have not heard any substantive issues debated or any problems, proposals or constructive suggestions for the bill. It has been rhetoric.

The member for Winnipeg North Centre talked about her amendment which does not call for any additional cash compared with what is in the bill in front of us. The member for Lakeland agrees to support that. It provides no additional cash from what is in the bill as it stands.

Apart from being on television, on CPAC and whatever, what are their motivations? While Canadians are waiting for a billion dollars in a medical equipment fund that could buy needed medical equipment if the bill were passed, members opposite discuss abstract innuendo and rhetoric. I have not heard one significant critique of the bill, not one decent suggestion, not one substantive issue raised about it.

I come back to the member for Lakeland. If he is so concerned about the bill, I ask him to give us one constructive suggestion.

Canada Health Care, Early Childhood Development And Other Social Services Funding Act October 17th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if Canadians watching the debate today would be shocked to know that we are debating a bill that would put $23.5 billion back into the Canada health and social transfer to the provinces for health care and early childhood development.

If this bill passed, money in the medical equipment fund, a $1 billion fund, could flow tomorrow. We have members standing in the House denying Canadians the right to that medical equipment.

Let me give an example. In regard to the province of Saskatchewan, $33 million could be available tomorrow if its member would support this bill and get it through the House.

There is a member opposite from British Columbia, where $132 million could flow in the next few days for medical equipment such as MRIs and CAT scanners.

I have lost touch with the cost of an MRI or a CAT scanner, but if we are looking at $1 million or $2 million, Saskatchewan could have 30 of them in the next few days, and we sit here and debate this.

The bill would enact $23.5 billion in addition to $14 billion in the last two budgets that would be transferred to the provinces through the CHST for health care, post-secondary education and social programs.

How can the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle deny the residents and citizens of Saskatchewan access to this $33 million medical equipment fund?

Fiji October 16th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on an issue of great concern to many citizens around the world.

On May 19, 2000 an anti-government demonstration was held by civilian rebels in Suva, the capital of Fiji. At that time, Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry and members of his government were taken hostage and a military government was established.

Following the release of the hostages and the toppling of the military government, Fiji fell into a period of anarchy in which an interim civilian government was undemocratically established. The interim government has announced that it will not hold elections for three years. It plans to rewrite the constitution of Fiji within one year in order to place further restrictions on the basis of racial origin.

I rise today to ask members of the House to support the commonwealth ministers' action group in its desire for free elections in Fiji as soon as possible and to ensure that a new constitution is written, free of restrictions on the basis of racial origin.

Questions Passed As Orders For Returns October 6th, 2000

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Questions Passed As Orders For Returns October 6th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 84 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.

Government Response To Petitions October 6th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 11 petitions.

Debt Reduction October 6th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, the Alliance has been calling for debt reduction but as with so many other issues, like its tax policy, it keeps changing the numbers.

It originally called for an annual payment of $3 billion on the debt. It has now changed its mind and called for a debt pay-down of $6 billion annually.

It is time for the Alliance to wake up. The train has left the station and the Alliance is not on it. The government has already paid down more than $6 billion of debt per year over the last three fiscal years, for a total of $18.7 billion. By making these payments we are freeing up more than $1 billion annually in interest payments, which can be used to address the needs and priorities of Canadians.

This action on our debt is yet another dividend from the responsible fiscal management that the Liberal government continues to provide to Canadians. Under our leadership things will just keep getting better and better.

Emergency Service Volunteers October 4th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today proposes that the Income Tax Act be amended to provide all emergency service volunteers with a tax credit in the amount of $500 per year.

I thank the member for Kings—Hants for highlighting the very valuable role played by emergency services volunteers in Canadian communities. As I am certain we are all aware, many Canadians provide emergency services such as firefighting and first aid on a volunteer basis, especially in small and rural communities. These volunteers give freely of their time and expertise to their communities, often at considerable risk to themselves. They are to be commended for their dedication and effort.

The government has long recognized that small communities are often unable to maintain full-time emergency personnel, and depend on the essential services provided by these devoted volunteers.

In order to encourage the commitment of these individuals, the Income Tax Act has, for many years, allowed an exemption on the nominal amounts received from a municipality or another public authority by volunteer firefighters in the course of their duties.

This provision recognizes these volunteers often receive small amounts to help defray the expenses they incur in carrying out their duties and that taxing these amounts would be inappropriate. To offer additional support the 1998 budget increased this annual exemption from $500 to $1,000 and extended it to other emergency service volunteers, including volunteer ambulance technicians, search and rescue volunteers and others who in their capacity as volunteers are called upon to assist in emergencies or disasters.

The motion we are discussing today proposes to go beyond this existing provision. I would note that historically tax assistance for volunteers has been restricted to amounts received by eligible volunteers from public authorities. This motion in contrast would extend a tax credit to all emergency service volunteers whether or not they received any amount in the course of their volunteer duties. The intent behind this proposal is admirable in that it seeks to provide tax recognition to those emergency service volunteers who do not receive any allowance or honorarium.

But I think that passing such a tax credit would raise important questions in the context of tax policy and administration. I will, if I may, develop these points.

At the outset I would note that by implementing this proposal we would in effect be providing emergency volunteers with a fixed tax credit without regard to expenses incurred or time spent. Under such a system the dedicated year round volunteer would be receiving the same tax assistance as an individual who is called upon only once or twice during the course of the year. This would be difficult to justify especially as a dedicated volunteer is likely to incur much larger expenses than a one time volunteer.

Moreover it would be very difficult to explain why such a generous provision was limited to emergency service volunteers only. Other volunteers such as hospital workers and coaches for sports teams who contribute to their communities in different ways would be very likely to ask why this credit was not extended to them given that it appears to reward volunteer activity in itself and is unrelated either to effort or expense. I am not sure that I would able to offer a convincing answer to this question.

While extending the credit to all volunteers would resolve this issue, it would also be extremely costly for the government. It would be important to keep in mind that volunteer service is performed at an individual's discretion and without expectation of personal financial benefit. To provide a general tax credit for volunteers would be to ignore this very crucial point.

Furthermore, even if this tax credit were limited strictly to emergency service volunteers, it would be very difficult to ensure that it was claimed only by actual volunteers. This is because tax assistance would no longer be limited to the amounts paid by the municipality for which the taxpayer does the volunteer work.

As a result, there would be fewer incentives for public authorities to ensure that the credit was being claimed only by actual volunteers. To prevent abuse a compliance mechanism would have to be developed possibly involving a separate form or annual certification. This would place a significant administrative burden on municipalities, volunteers and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, especially considering the large volume of claims that would likely be made.

The current treatment avoids this problem to a large extent because tax assistance is restricted to amounts actually paid up to $1,000. Clearly, municipalities have much better control over these amounts and who receives them.

In this context, the present $1,000 exemption for emergency service volunteers is the most balanced solution, because it provides tax assistance to these important volunteers in a straightforward and transparent manner.

In closing, I would like to thank again the member for Kings—Hants for bringing this issue to our attention. However I feel that the motion as it stands before us today would reduce equity in the tax system rather than enhance it and would be very complex for volunteers and municipalities to comply with. For these reasons I feel that the motion should not be supported by the House.

Division No. 1393 September 26th, 2000

Madam Speaker, the member for New Brunswick Southwest seems to have the numbers mixed up. In fact, the Prime Minister recently concluded an agreement with the provinces and territories which will invest $23.5 billion in the health care system through the Canada health and social transfer. That is in addition to the $14 billion that was put into the CHST in the two previous budgets. That is a total of $37.5 billion, which is significantly more than the figure of $4.5 billion the member quoted.

The reason for the original question from the member to the minister had to do with the CHST as a block fund. I would like to say that the CHST gives provinces greater flexibility to allocate resources according to their own priorities. As a block fund, the CHST also allows provinces to design programs and reflect their unique circumstances and needs. Maintaining artificial boundaries between social programs is not good social policy. Health, education and social assistance are all interrelated. Furthermore, these programs fall under provincial jurisdiction. Provinces know how to best tailor programs to meet the needs of their own residents.

Having said this, I should note that maintaining the CHST as a block fund does not preclude agreements on targeted investments. Indeed, at the last first ministers meeting, as I just pointed out, first ministers agreed that of the additional $21 billion invested in the CHST over five years, $2.2 billion would be earmarked for early childhood development. In 1999 all premiers made a commitment to spend the $11.5 billion in new CHST cash provided in that year's budget on health care.

In conclusion, the agreement reached at the first ministers meeting and the 1999 budget clearly demonstrate that the CHST is an effective instrument for achieving national policy objectives while at the same time providing provinces and territories with the flexibility required in a mature federation.