House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 35% of the vote.
Infrastructure February 21st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there was a drought and that drought was the Conservative Party when it was in office as far as cities were concerned. We are working in partnership with the provinces, territories and cities in terms of supporting infrastructure in this country.
I am amazed, as a former member of the FCM board over there, that the member would say that when he knows the great struggles we had in the 1990s and it came to fruition when this government came to power.
Infrastructure February 21st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, first of all as far as Walkerton is concerned, that was because of the privatization and the cutbacks by the province of Ontario's ministry of the environment. If members are going to raise that issue, they should at least get the facts straight over there.
Second, as far as supporting cities are concerned, the government needs to take no lessons from any of the opposition parties. None of them supported infrastructure. None of them supported supporting cities. Now it is fashionable. Now they are getting on board. The train has left the station and we are well ahead.
Infrastructure February 21st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, first of all before the New Democratic Party even discovered the national infrastructure program, it was this government in 1993 that brought it in. It lay dormant under the fifth party, under the Tories, for 10 years.
As far as the government is concerned, the Minister of Finance has indicated a 10 year program which is what municipalities have been asking for. He said that this is a down payment. I understand the down payment first and foremost is to work with our partners, the provinces and the cities. That is what we are doing.
Taxation February 21st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that it was members on this side of the House led by the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge who led the fight on the issue of gasoline pricing and competition. I would point out to him that his party, the johnny come lately party, has now discovered this.
We suggested suspending the GST and the provinces said they would not suspend the PST. Only one province had the interest to respond.
Again, we are making strategic investments in the area of roads through the strategic infrastructure fund, the municipal infrastructure fund. I would suggest to the member if he is concerned about pricing--
Taxation February 21st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that in March 2000 it was this government that proposed to suspend the GST on gasoline and we invited all the provinces to do the same on the PST. Only one province bothered to respond to the government's suggestion.
I would again suggest that they talk to their premiers because the issue of gas pricing is a provincial responsibility.
The Budget February 21st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the Houdini act is on the other side. That is the party that says to raise expenditures one day and lower taxes the next. The government is doing both in a fiscally responsible manner.
If the member remembers, which I do not think he does, there is a one time expenditure of $5.1 billion for health care. We are reducing taxes by $100 billion. We are eliminating the capital tax. This is what Canadians want. They want the investments and they want the tax cuts, and the government is delivering on both.
The Budget February 21st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, this is a government that has been able to provide substantial tax cuts and strategic investment in health care, which I believe we heard from Canadians time after time was their number one issue.
I would also to remind the member that the debt to GDP ratio is 44.5%. Five years ago it was 71.5%. Economic growth is at 3.2% this year and is forecast to be 3.5% next year. There is a surplus this year of $4 billion, forecast to be $5 billion next year. What is the problem over there?
The Budget February 21st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, first, again I would like to congratulate the Minister of Finance on an outstanding budget.
The member mentions tax cuts. There is a $100 billion tax cut over five years, and we are in the third year of that. The minister also announced that the capital tax would be eliminated over five years, again, support for small business. At the same time we were able to make strategic investments in health care, for child poverty and at the same time, no deficit.
The Budget February 21st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, budget 2003 builds the society Canadians value by making investments in individuals, families and their communities.
These include: a 10 year infrastructure program that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has been seeking for a number of years; a down payment of $1 billion plus an additional $2 billion for the Strategic Infrastructure Program that will enable our towns and cities to better plan for long range development; $1 billion to environmental priorities that directly affect our cities, including the clean up of federal contaminated sites; targeted investments in affordable housing and the homeless; a three year extension of the RRAP program with $128 million per year; $2 billion over five years to support actions such as environmental technology and partnerships in areas such as sustainable transportation; $1.7 billion invested over three years to build on previous investments in innovation and skills development; $46.6 million over two years to continue the integrated proceeds of crime initiative; and continued support to entrepreneurs and small business.
We will continue to work with our counterparts toward a sustainable future for all of our cities, towns and rural communities.
The Budget February 19th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, my colleague has raised an important point that I tried to address earlier. The fact is that the fiscal imbalance in this country is a myth. It is a myth first of all because the provinces have the same taxation authority, the ability to raise taxes, as this government has. The budget priorities, the fiscal priorities of the provinces are determined by the provinces. If some provinces want to spend money on tax cuts before they balance their budgets and expect Ottawa to pay for health care, that is a decision they make and I am sure that is a decision for which they will have to answer.
As I pointed out before, some provinces, including Quebec, say they do not recognize tax points, but then they turn around and say they want more tax points.
A classic example would be the myth that the provinces perpetrated on this country about the 14¢ that the federal government gave in health care. It is utter nonsense. The 14¢ was cash and the balance, which totalled 35¢ to 38¢, was of course tax points. Tax points do not sound like something on which we want to spend a lot of time, except that it is money this government raised and returned to the provinces. The provinces only recognize that when it suits them. In the area of health care, the 14¢ was a myth.
When it comes to the issue of fiscal imbalance, I would agree with my colleague when he says that the fiscal imbalance is probably among provinces or among regions.The fact is that if they have the same ability to collect revenues, they make those decisions. However they should not expect the federal government to be an ATM machine to help them out because they made priorities, which they are certainly allowed to do, without dealing with their books and without taking the responsible course that this government took in dealing with our own national deficit of $42.5 billion. We had to make tough choices.
At the same time I hear from colleagues on the other side that it was downloaded to the provinces. The issues are that this government made cuts in government spending. We cut in terms of members of the civil service. We had some pretty tough times.
The fact is though that Canadians understood the need to deal with the national deficit. That is why we are now at 44.5% of GDP in terms of the national debt. That is why we are able to invest in health care, invest in children, invest in communities without incurring a deficit.
To me that would seem to be the prudent approach to dealing with economic matters. Others may take a different view, but the fact is that the provinces are masters of their own financial fortunes. We are there as partners in many areas. When I hear certain members in the House talk about fiscal imbalance, not one shred of evidence has been brought forth that I have seen to suggest that there is.