House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 48% of the vote.
Taxation November 25th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, we say that we have cut taxes because in fact we have. The threshold has been increased by $675, the 3% surtax no longer exists and Canadian families are receiving, through the national child benefit, over $2 billion a year.
We have put our plan out there. It is one that is working. It is reducing taxes.
The issue is: Why do Reformers think they can stand up in this House and play smoke and mirrors with the hopes and aspirations of Canadians?
Taxation November 25th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, what I am clearly demonstrating is the total lack of credibility of the Reform tax position and its ability to criticize the government. What Reform put forward consistently was a deficit plan that did not work. We put forward a deficit plan that worked.
Reform then deliberately said that there should be no action taken on taxes until the year 2000 and no action taken on the reduction of EI premiums for employees. We did not listen to Reform.
The question really is: How does the Reform Party dare stand up and try to defend Canadian workers when its position has been totally hostile to what they want?
Taxation November 25th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, if the Reform Party wants to have a serious discussion, then it must be prepared to defend its own policies. Now, from fresh start and from the debate in the House, the fact is that Reform—we discussed it yesterday—was not prepared to cut EI premiums for employees, only for employers. Reform's basic position was that there would be no tax cuts until the year 2000.
We have brought in tax cuts in each of the last three years. The fact is that every one of those pay stubs would have a lot less money in them if the government had listened to Reform.
Taxation November 25th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, why do we not take a look at what Eddy does not see on his pay stub. He does not see the $11.5 billion that has gone into health care. He does not see the $1.7 billion that we have put into the Canadian child tax benefit. He does not see the 600,000 taxpayers who have been taken off the tax rolls and who are no longer paying taxes.
Those are things that do not appear on his pay stub and those are also things that would not have occurred if the government had listened to Reform.
Canada Social Transfer November 24th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the first thing we did after eliminating the deficit was to restore $11.5 billion over five years for health.
At the same time, during our first mandate, we initiated the infrastructure program in conjunction with the provinces, and this was a help to them. We put in excess of $2 billion into the National Child Benefit.
The question that must be asked is this: Are the provinces now going to put back what has been cut from their municipalities?
Taxation November 24th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people are entitled to an enlightened debate on the issue of taxes.
What they have heard from the Reform Party is a tax plan that would call for a $52 billion surplus in three years. That is $40 billion more than private sector economists said the country would have.
What that means is that the Reform Party is saying there will be $40 billion in cuts to our social programs. What will Anna do without a decent education system and without a decent health care system? What will Anna do when the social fabric of the country is gutted by the Reform Party? That is basic issue confronting Canadians.
Taxation November 24th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, Reformers abandoned Doreen pretty quickly. The fact is that they are also abandoning Anna because Anna would not have got anything out of the Reform Party.
Her taxes would have gone up because she would not have received tax cuts from the Reform Party. Her EI premiums would have gone up because she would not have received satisfaction from the Reform Party. She also would have lost her Canada pension plan.
That is what this is all about. We will defend our tax policies against those of Reformers any time. They have had—
Taxation November 24th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, what would have happened to Doreen if the government had followed what members of the Reform Party wanted? Doreen would have had to pay higher employment insurance premiums because they were not going to cut them for anybody except employers. Doreen would have had to pay higher personal taxes because their cuts would not have come in until the year 2000.
There is one premium that Doreen would not have had to pay if members of the Reform Party had had their way, and that is the Canada pension plan premiums because they were going destroy the Canada pension plan.
Taxation November 24th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about people who are paying too much taxes and who leave the country.
Let me give her an example. The Robarts Research Institute is one of Canada's leading research institutes which receives money and increased money from the federal government. Let us tell the House what it has found: Dr. Arthur Brown returned to London, Ontario, from the Salk Institute in California; Dr. Bosco Chan returned to London from the Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts; Dr. Maria Drangova from Stanford returned to London as a result of the money this government—
Mining Industry November 23rd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the member for Timmins—James Bay and in fact all of the members of the northern caucus are to be congratulated for their ceaseless efforts on behalf of the mining industry.
The hon. member is quite right to raise the problem of exploration in northern Canada.
I can assure the hon. member and his colleagues that the Minister of Natural Resources, myself and the government will work not only with the industry, but we will continue to work with the members of the northern caucus to ensure that the mining industry enjoys a strong 100 years ahead as it has in the past.