House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was fact.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Liberal MP for Richmond Hill (Ontario)

Lost his last election, in 2011, with 35% of the vote.

Statements in the House

The Budget February 19th, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague is very concerned about parks, and particularly the beautiful area of the country that he is from in the Kootenays.

I certainly know that we will always have to invest in maintenance in the parks. Our national parks are the envy of the world.

I point out to the hon. member that in fact we should be congratulated for adding new parks. We should be congratulated for preserving the pristine wilderness in our country.

I would hope that the member knows, because I know he has a great interest in this area, that we are providing the necessary dollars. We are working toward making sure that not only these new parks but our existing parks continue to be a welcoming place for Canadians, that those parks will stay in pristine condition in the wilderness.

The Budget February 19th, 2003

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of whether the roads are better than they were 10 years ago, they would not have been if his party had been in power because that party did not support the national infrastructure program. It did not support roads, sewers or bridges. That party opposed it. The answer is, if he thinks the roads are bad today, they would have been horrific had that party been in power. I also point out that communities in his riding supported the national infrastructure program at a time when, I do not know about the hon. member, but his party was saying no.

On the issue of agriculture, it is a 60-40 split. The fact is the provinces want us to give 100%. We have again announced giving over $5 billion. Agriculture is a shared responsibility, but we are coming to the plate with 60ยข on the dollar. He may want to ask his provincial minister of agriculture why the province drags its heels from time to time.

As for highway 1, I did not know that the highway system was the responsibility of the federal government alone. We have had discussions with regard to the issue of highway 1 and the Trans-Canada Highway in general. Again it takes two to come to the table. We often hear in the House about provincial jurisdiction. However it is only provincial jurisdiction when they are asking someone else to pay the bill.

On the crow rate, I have to concede to the hon. member that I am not as familiar with his particular situation. I would have to defer to people who are much more competent in the area of the crow rate than I am, but my understanding is that things have not been quite as bleak as may have been suggested. However, I would be prepared to hear further from my colleague.

The Budget February 19th, 2003

Mr. Speaker, the 2003 budget is marked by a number of milestones. It is a budget based upon continuity: maintaining a prudent and balanced approach to the fiscal needs of the nation.

The fact is that we now will have a debt to GDP ratio of 44.5%. Just five years ago we were at 71.5%. Again there has been a continuing decline in our national debt. We are the only G-7 state paying off the national debt. It reflects the resilient economy. Over 560,000 new jobs, most of them full time, were created last year. This country led the G-7 in growth last year and is expected to do the same for 2003.

Our resilient economic performance reflects strong economic fundamentals which are underpinned by the government's track record of budgetary surpluses and a commitment to maintain balanced budgets.

This is the sixth budget in a row that is balanced. Again this year we are able to deliver part of our pledge of $100 billion in tax cuts this year alone and another $20 billion over the next five years, and that is working its way through the system.

We are the only G-7 state with a balanced budget, but this prosperity could be threatened. Obviously there are concerns with the global economic and political climate. Therefore prudence is part of this budget, with strong fiscal planning and resorting back to the full contingency reserve in economic prudence, which the minister has outlined.

During the prebudget consultations, of which I and other members of the House were a part, we heard from Canadians who told us their priorities. They sought a society built on commonly held values, an economy that maximizes opportunity for everyone, and honest and transparent accounting of government efforts to achieve those goals. This has been a challenge which Canadians have brought to our attention and in this budget we have responded to the challenges.

First, this budget builds the society Canadians value by making investments in individual Canadians, their families and their communities.

Second, it builds an economy of promoting productivity and innovation in the country while staying fiscally prudent.

Third, it builds the accountability that Canadians deserve by making government spending more transparent and accountable.

Budget 2003 recognizes the critical link between social and economic policies and how an integrated approach produces policies that benefit all Canadians, and it is based upon sound financial management and responsible stewardship of our resources.

In 1995 The New York Times ran an editorial which said that we were basically an economic basket case, that we probably would have to apply to the IMF for assistance. That was in 1995. We had a $42.5 billion deficit.

Let us look at the situation today. The turnaround is unbelievable. Now we have countries coming to us and asking how we were able to do this. We are able to show, whether it is in debt reduction or in balancing the books for the sixth year in a row, that we are able to invest in Canadians and provide significant tax cuts.

Underlying any budget is the economic context of which the planning of that budget takes place. For Canada this context is one of the most solid, home grown successes in an uncertain global environment.

Canada has shown remarkable resilience in the face of two years of global economic weakness and uncertainty. In 2001 we not only avoided a recession but also posted strong gains and, most important, outperformed the United States and many of our major trading partners.

I mentioned that 560,000 new jobs were created. Sixty per cent of those jobs were full time and gains were seen in every region and every age group in this country.

Looking ahead, based upon the average of private sector forecasts, Canada's economy is forecasted to grow by 3.2% this year and 3.5% next year. This outlook could be affected by a number of factors, including economic recovery in the U.S., Europe and Japan, coupled with possible international military conflict. That is why again we have placed a contingency fund back on the table. We have that fund of $3 billion. Canada has again posted surpluses. We are the envy of the world.

This budget projects balanced budgets 2002 over the fiscal plan to 2004 and they are backed up by that $3 billion contingency fund. We are the only G-7 country expected to record a surplus.

We are moving forward and we are doing so from a position of considerable strength. There will be no return to deficits. We have heard comments about spending. The fact is that we are able to invest in Canadians because we have been prudent. Therefore we have no deficit, which is extremely important. We have a very strong fiscal anchor.

Economic success and fiscal discipline are only part of good government. The minister spoke before about having departments review their expenditures. We are going to continue to save money: the billion dollars that was announced by the minister.

However they are means to a much more important end, which is making sure that Canadian values are maintained. That is why the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health, after discussions with the premiers, are dealing with the most pressing issue on the part of Canadians, health care.

In the United States 44 million Americans have no form of health insurance. We do not want to see that in this country, where people are not covered. We have a universal medical plan, and compassion and social responsibility are part of that. Therefore we entered into negotiations with the provinces. Now we have the 2003 health care accord, agreed to by the Prime Minister and first ministers earlier this month. That of course will enhance the accountability of health care dollars into the system.

One of the things that should be pointed out is that the $34.8 billion we have agreed to over the next five years, over $5 billion is in this budget. Clearly, part of the reason for spending is in response to that accord, the $5 billion. We have a five year plan; $6 billion in a health reform fund to the provinces and territories to target primary health care, home care and catastrophic drug coverage. We have $9.5 billion in increased cash transfers to the provinces and territories, and an immediate investment of $2.5 billion through the CHST supplement to relieve existing pressures; $5.5 billion in health reform initiatives, including diagnostic and medical equipment; and $1.3 billion to support health programming for first nations. This will ensure future generations better and timely access to quality universal health care in every part of this country.

The government is taking its responsibilities seriously in supporting the provinces in terms of the transfers to those provinces for health care. Again, an agreement has come forth. We had one in 2000 where we pumped another $23.5 billion into that agreement for health care.

One of the things that I was surprised to hear from some members of the opposition was on the issue of cities. As a former president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, I can say that when the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney did not touch infrastructure in 1984, the FCM plan, which was proposed in 1983, laid dormant. When I hear some members, particularly from the fifth party, talk about infrastructure, I have to wonder where that party was during that period, because we know they did not do anything. We also know that they opposed the 1993 infrastructure program that this government brought in.

The fact is that municipal governments in this country have been complaining for years about support. The provinces have downloaded significantly, particularly the province of Ontario, and yet, constitutionally, the responsibility for cities is provincial not federal. This government stepped up to the plate and said that it would work in partnership with the provinces, with municipal governments and with the private sector in order to deal with the issue.

What happen? We had a 1993 infrastructure program which this Prime Minister renewed in 1997. We then brought in a new infrastructure program. Now, in fulfilling the Speech from the Throne commitment, we have a 10 year program. The FCM and mayors across this country have been asking for that for years. They now have it so they can plan long term for their capital projects.

We have a $2 billion strategic infrastructure fund for which the minister has announced another $2 billion. The minister announced a downpayment of $1 billion over 10 years for municipal infrastructure. If someone were to put a downpayment on a new car presumably the person would be paying more money on it. The dealership would not let the person have the car for $100 when it costs $30,000. The minister has indicated that more money will be coming. As the economy continues to move along we are looking at increasing that over the coming years.

The fact is that there is already an infrastructure program for which the municipal governments have been able to take advantage. When I hear some mayors saying that they have a $57 billion infrastructure debt, if the Conservative government had acted back in 1984 when the debt was $17 billion, they might not be in the shape they are in today. The problem is that they do not have the ability for the same type of taxation they need because some provinces restrict it. Some are more, dare I say, liberal than others in terms of allowing certain areas of revenue to be utilized.

However I would point out that it is absolute nonsense to suggest that the government is not supporting cities with regard to infrastructure. We are supporting cities with regard to affordable housing. The FCM said that it would like to see a national housing project. My colleague from Mississauga West worked very hard on the issue of affordable housing and now 40,000 new affordable units will be built in cities and towns across Canada. For anyone to suggest that we are not supporting an urban agenda is ridiculous. This amounts to $320 million over five years.

I hate to say this, but the impediment tends to be the provinces, particularly Ontario, which has the tenacity to say that it will not necessarily enter into an agreement. In fact, when it came to the money we put on the table with regard to housing, Ontario wanted to use municipal dollars rather than its own. This builds on the $680 million for housing already announced.

The RRAP program will receive $128 million per year, adding total funding to over $384 million.

For cities and the homeless, this government responded effectively through the SCPI program by working with communities across the country in order to respond.

It is not the federal government alone that can deal with these issues and therefore we worked in partnership. The national infrastructure program, housing and the homeless are partnerships. This government believes in building partnerships. However in order to be a partner responsibility has to be taken by all partners. Money has to be brought to the table and everyone must deal with these issues in a spirit of support.

We have provided in this budget $965 million in additional benefits for low income families, again assisting people in our cities and towns across the country.

The national child tax benefit, which is a most important component, has been increased to $150 per child in 2003, $185 in July 2005 and $185 in 2008. The maximum will be $3,243 by 2007. These are true investments in individuals, in children and in families.

This government worked with cities across the country and the 20% club dealing with the environment. We announced $2 billion over five years to support such things as environmental technology and partnerships. If cities want to access money for transportation in their communities there is a program through the strategic infrastructure fund.

We have allocated $40 million over two years for air quality, which will help reduce health costs for people who suffer from asthma, et cetera.

On research and development, I assume that universities and colleges are in urban communities. I assume that the $1.7 billion being invested over three years is going to help those universities and colleges across the country.

I could go on about the urban agenda. There is the urban aboriginal strategy, the film and video production services tax credit, all sorts of additional support for urban communities. These are extremely important investments to make sure that our cities continue to be healthy and strong.

I am very proud as a former president of the FCM that the government has done the kind of work it has done. Whether it be on infrastructure, the homeless or housing, it is important recognition. Unfortunately there are people who have a very short memory when it comes to the role that has been performed by the government.

On innovation, the heart of the government's agenda is the goal of achieving the highest possible standard of living and quality of life for all Canadians. The government will introduce measures that will build a Canadian advantage by investing $1.7 billion in 2002-03, over the next two years, to create a smarter and more innovative Canada.

This includes a new Canada graduate scholarships program supporting 2,000 masters and 2,000 Ph.D. students at Canadian universities. This is something that we have heard repeatedly from students and professors across the country.

It is unfortunate with respect to the Canadian millennium scholarships that provinces such as Ontario decided to claw back the $3,000. When I hear the hon. member from the Conservative Party suggest that somehow this has not been a good thing, the reality is that of course Mrs. Cunningham in the province of Ontario would say that, but at the same time Ontario is clawing it back. It is unbelievable.

There is $125 million annually beginning in 2003-4 to increase the budgets of Canada's three research granting councils. We are going to be home to the best and the brightest, attracting the best and the brightest and keeping them here.

There will be $225 million each year beginning in 2003-04 to help fund the direct costs of research at universities, colleges and research hospitals. Who could argue with that? I cannot believe anybody would argue with that, particularly when I have heard members on the other side suggesting that people were leaving the country. Here is an opportunity to invest in our best and our brightest.

There is $500 million this year for the Canada Foundation for Innovation for state of the art facilities. There is $75 million for Genome Canada for health projects. There is $15 million for the Rick Hansen Man in Motion Foundation. There is an additional $70 million over two years for the National Research Council of Canada to strengthen the industrial research assistance program.

These are investments. These investments are what makes the country great, to make sure that people are able to do the kind of things that need to be done in this country. They do that because the government balanced the books.

The government has made sure that it can provide the kind of tax relief Canadians want and need and at the same time invest in individuals and families. That is something that has been lost in the debate so far. We are investing in families. We are investing in people. We are making sure that we can provide support.

For example, there will be $60 million over two years to improve the Canada student loans program. That is another issue we heard about. The fact is skills and learning are extremely important.

At the same time we responded to the issue of small business. We looked at the capital tax and we also looked at the fact that small business said that these were issues that small business wanted the government to deal with. The government responded. From what I am reading we are providing the kind of assistance that small business has asked for. There is a $100 billion tax cut which people seem to forget is still going through the system and the fact there is no more clawback which was a major issue that the government responded to.

There are important government initiatives in the budget. They are based on strong fiscal anchors, making sure that we do not go back into a deficit while still being able to invest in health care. I have not had time to talk about our support for the military, et cetera.

In summary, this is a budget we can be proud of because it addresses the needs and aspirations of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

The Budget February 19th, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member's comments and was not sure whether he was going back to the future to the Brian Mulroney days when he was talking about mismanagement and debt.

The member and the Bloc said the same thing and I want to respond to that. He suggested that there is a fiscal imbalance. There is no evidence of a fiscal imbalance, number one. Number two, the provinces have the same ability to raise taxes as the government does. The difference is we balanced our books first before we brought in the $100 billion tax cuts. The provinces, by and large, brought in tax cuts and then expected us to pay for it. The fiscal imbalance is a myth. I would have expected more from this particular member.

The member does not talk about the fact that the government is paying down the national debt, the only G-7 country to do so, 44.5% of GDP.

If we are, as the member said, a junk bond government, how is that we are able to reduce taxes, reduce the national debt, and provide services that Canadians ask for, that they need, and that we respond to in this country.

I would like to hear what the member has to say about that because clearly the member did not talk about the financial record of this government. I would suggest that the member was perhaps reflecting on his past Conservative government and that is where the confusion lies.

The Budget February 19th, 2003

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House needs no lectures in supporting urban communities. We are the party and the government that brought in the national infrastructure program in 1993 when that side of the House opposed it.

To suggest somehow that the budget does not support cities is a travesty. I hate to hear this nonsense: I do not know what happened to the homeless; I do not know what happened to infrastructure; and I do not know what happened to families with children who live in cities. The RRAP program, air quality, all of these things have been ignored by that member and that party.

The Budget February 19th, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his presentation. There are two areas that come to mind. First, is the issue of fiscal imbalance. There is absolutely no evidence of fiscal imbalance. In fact, the province of Quebec, along with every other province, has the same ability to raise revenue as the government does.

Second, it is interesting that when it comes to the issue of tax points Quebec is demanding more tax points, but it does not recognize the tax points it already receives. Could the member explain to us how that can work? The member wants more but does not accept what is already a fact.

I am absolutely surprised to hear his comments regarding EI. This government has been reducing EI premiums for 10 years in a row. We have now announced premiums at $1.98. In fact, there is now an outline clearly indicating that we want to make it transparent and we want to ensure that EI pays for itself. The minister again announced that today in question period and the member continues to talk about how we are not doing enough with EI.

I hope the member will be part of those discussions when we will be ensuring that EI is used for the purpose for which we have talked about. I would like him to comment on that as well.

Taxation February 18th, 2003

Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue for members on this side of the House. In less than an hour, the member will get his answer.

Persons with Disabilities February 18th, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member will get her answer in about an hour and fifteen minutes.

Life Insurance Companies February 18th, 2003

Mr. Speaker, the Competition Bureau will review it. OSFI will review it. I understand from the president of the company that there may be no foreseeable job loss. In fact, jobs may go up, particularly in the City of Regina. Therefore, until all the details are on the table, at this point it looks very positive.

Finance February 17th, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I totally reject the comment about coming clean. The government in fact is the envy of the industrialized world in terms of how people are back to work now. We have had five consecutive budget surpluses or better. We are the only G-7 paying down the national debt. We are in very good financial shape.

To suggest that somehow we are playing shell games, I do not know where she is coming from but I know we are dealing with reality over here.