House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 61% of the vote.
Finance April 2nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a good question with respect to microcredit. It is something that the government has supported in a variety of initiatives and ways, both nationally and internationally. It is an excellent way in which to get money to less than credit worthy customers.
In general principles the Government of Canada supports the initiative. However, I am not in a position to comment on it with respect to her specific request.
Government Contracts April 2nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would agree with me that in any tendering process, in any procurement process, Canada should look for the best possible product at the best possible price. That is exactly what happened here. In this instance, that product will be received. When it comes to printing the money, the money will actually be printed here. I think that is a perfectly sensible, legitimate use of taxpayers' funds.
Government Contracts April 2nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, what is true about that question is that the paper will be purchased from a foreign source because after a proper tendering process, the proper paper which would be adequate for fraud purposes, et cetera, was not available in this country. However, the other part of that question is that all of the printing of the money will be done here in Canada.
Sponsorship Program April 2nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows very well all of the processes that are in place with respect to this issue. It is a very strange process involved where the opposition appears to wish to summarily dispense of an individual and his job without due process ever being exercised. If in fact we are to go without due process, then I suppose we could fire a whole bunch of people, but this makes absolutely no sense. Mr. Dingwall, like everyone else--
World Health Day April 2nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, on April 7 we will be celebrating World Health Day, which marks the establishment of the World Health Organization.
The WHO established this important day to provide a forum for discussion regarding various health challenges worldwide.
This year the focus is on road safety. The slogan “Road Safety is No Accident” was chosen to highlight the fact that road traffic injuries are preventable.
Improvements in road safety do not happen accidentally, but require deliberate efforts by various sectors of society.
On April 7, I invite all Canadians to joint us to promote road safety, to personally make a commitment to drive, ride, cycle or walk safely and to actively participate in the promotion of road safety initiatives in their communities.
Budget Implementation Act, 2004 April 1st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring this debate back to some level of reality.
It was interesting to have a Conservative member make a speech about a budget and not mention once that we are in the final year of a $100 billion tax relief package. That may have been what his party would have liked to have done had the people of Canada been so unwise to elect it as a government.
The member also neglected to mention that the threshold is up to $8,012. He neglected to mention that the brackets have been reduced to 22% for the first $35,000 and 25% for $70,000.
That was an interesting speech to make; however, there was not one word about tax relief in the entire speech.
Budget Implementation Act, 2004 April 1st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, frankly, I did not realize that this might be your last day in the chair. I as well would like to extend to you my thanks. I appreciate that it is sometimes a pretty difficult job to try to keep this place under control.
I know that the hon. gentleman appreciates the work of Roy Romanow. I would like to get his comments with regard to Mr. Romanow's remarks with respect to Ottawa's decision in the budget not to increase health care funding. I am sure he will recollect that prior to the budget the government had committed a further $2 billion. Let me quote the following:
Romanow said he agrees with the premiers that more federal funding is needed, but the provincial governments forget to mention that he recommended first making changes to ensure medicare meets the current needs of Canadians.
In other words, we cannot carry on with this unsustainable path of adding more money and adding more money to health care faster than the rate of growth of the government's revenues or faster than the rate of growth of the GDP without significant reforms to the system.
I am interested in the hon. member's response to Mr. Romanow's comments that we cannot continue to carry on in the way that we are and that the provinces will have to meet with the Prime Minister and deal with these changes to the system.
Budget Implementation Act, 2004 April 1st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here pretty well all day listening to the debate. There is a fairly consistent theme that comes from the Bloc Québécois that somehow or other Quebec in particular is unfairly treated by the Government of Canada. The Bloc members talk about the fiscal imbalance and other things such as that.
In the course of the day I have been going over the highlights of the Quebec budget. I note that the Government of Canada on a year over year basis going forward from 2002 through 2008 has been giving 8% increases on health care. I note in the provincial budget of the Government of Quebec its increase in health care was only 5%. There seems to be a discrepancy between the moneys that the Government of Canada is giving at 8% and the moneys the Quebec government is actually dispensing in its expenditures of 5%.
I also note that these funds were trust funds and that they were to be disbursed over three years. For whatever reason the Government of Quebec chose to completely cash them in in the year 2003-04.
I wonder how the hon. member arrives at the conclusion that Quebec is disadvantaged in this process given those facts.
Budget Implementation Act April 1st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I too want to add my words of best wishes to the hon. member. I know him through the weekly prayer breakfast and the national prayer breakfast. I have appreciated his contributions to both of those entities.
As members know, the work in this place is pretty stressful and, contrary to opinions, largely held by many members of the public, this is not an easy job, and it is a particularly difficult job for those members who come from out west.
I, relatively speaking, have it easy because I come from Toronto, but for members from out west who frequently have to travel on a Sunday afternoon or evening to get here for a Monday morning, it must be very difficult. I can only imagine how the burden of traveling, along with the worry for his child and the regular stress and strain of the job, have been almost overwhelming for him at times. However I think his faith, in some respects, has seen him through.
I wish my colleague all the best and thank him for his contributions over the years.
Budget Implementation Act, 2004 April 1st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I just listened to that answer and I still do not understand it. I suspect it is really a non-answer.
I heard the hon. member talk about balance. I am looking at where tax dollars went in 2002-03. What would the hon. member cut? Major transfers to persons is about $40.2 billion. That is the EI money and elderly benefits. Would he cut that back to change the balance there?
There are major transfers to provinces and territories. That is about $30 billion, which is about 17% of the government's revenues. Would he cut there?
Would he cut direct program spending, which is about 35% of the money to be spent by the government, which frankly is about the only discretionary money any finance minister has? Would he not pay the mortgage payments, which he is so fond of not paying because he thinks the roof leaks? If the roof leaks, that is the major transfers. If the kids are not going to school, that is the major transfers to persons. However, people still have to pay their mortgages even if the roof is leaking. This last year we spent $37 billion on mortgage payments, plus we paid a bit of principal of $7 billion.
In the hon. member's reorganizing of our balance, just what parts he would cut? Would he cut out EI benefits? Would he cut out the elderly? Would he cut out the military? Would he cut out the transfers for health care?