Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is not valid.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 48% of the vote.
Seniors Benefit March 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is not valid.
Auditor General March 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, this is not about taxes. There are $7 billion worth of tax cuts over the course of the next three years. What this is really all about is that it is the Reform Party's objection to the millennium foundation and to investing in education.
The real issue before the country is in a modern age, why does the Reform Party not understand that equality of access, that modern education is essential to job creation? Where the heck are they?
Auditor General March 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, in fact what we are seeking is public scrutiny. The reason that we want to put it on the books is so that it will be open and transparent.
The real issue is why is the Reform Party against having transparency in the public statements? Why would the Reform Party support archaic accounting principles that have nothing to do with the evolution of modern accounting and in fact have nothing to do with transparency and openness in government?
Auditor General March 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly acceptable parliamentary practice for the government to respond to the auditor general when the auditor general raises an issue. It happens all the time.
It is a little difficult to understand that this member who has been a member for quite some time does not realize what is in fact the convention of this House.
Auditor General March 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge a letter from the Department of Finance to the auditor general is not an interference with the auditor general's role.
What we have done is set out the government's position. The government's position is very clear and that is that we intend to be open and transparent. We see no reason why the public sector should hide things when the private sector reveals them. We will at least be as open and transparent as any private sector company and the hon. member should support that as a position.
Pensions March 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, and a very attractive green it is.
We have made it very clear. There will be changes to the seniors benefit following upon the consultation with caucus. One thing is very clear. We are going to make sure that Canadians, regardless of their income level, have a safe and secure retirement. We do not believe it is fair that people should be in poverty in retirement. This party and this government have always stood to make sure that those who have devoted their lives to this country—
Pensions March 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, we have made it very clear that over the last two years we have consulted with Canadians. There will be changes brought down based on the principles that have been set forth.
The hon. member asks why we want to proceed. We want to proceed in order to assure Canadians of whatever age that they will have a secure and safe retirement.
Home Care March 12th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member ought to know, the Income Tax Act contains a number of measures such as the spousal credit which help parents if one of the two parents stays at home.
At the same time the hon. member will recognize there is a huge number of families in which both parents are working. The government believes it is our responsibility to help those families as well.
The Budget March 11th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, finally the truth comes out. It is not the accounting that bothers members of the Reform Party; it is the millennium fund.
They are against 100,000 Canadian students getting $3,000 a year. That is what they are against. They are against recognizing that jobs come from education. That is what they are against. They are against us spending money on the future of young Canadians. That is what they are against.
If they are against young Canadians, why do they not admit it and not hide behind a bunch of accountants?
The Budget March 11th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, why is the Reform Party advocating hiding the government's clearly committed obligations? What does the Reform Party have against transparency?
The fact is that accounting principles evolve. In the private sector if you incur an obligation you book it right away. It may be that the private sector's accounting principles evolved faster than the government's in the fact that we are always ahead.
We are with the private sector. We are with openness. We are with transparency.