House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 48% of the vote.
Banking February 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a number of interesting points. I would hope in the great public debate that will follow the report of the task force and in the debates that will take place in this House of Commons that he will make those points to the Canadian public.
Banking February 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I have already replied on a couple of occasions in this House in terms of the bank mergers.
I would certainly like to express the government's great concern with the whole question of student debt. Indeed it is why the prime minister before Christmas stood up in this House and announced the scholarship millennium fund to deal directly with that issue. It is why in the 1997 budget the government brought in a series of measures to deal with the whole question of student debt. It is why this government is very much concerned to make sure that young Canadians have equal access to higher education.
Banking February 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member might simply want to do is take a look at what in fact the government has said.
The reason that we said that the government as far as the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions would not begin to look at this merger was precisely that we were not going to allow anybody to jump the queue.
The fact is that government policy will be set following a full public debate which itself will follow the task force report. Only at that point will we begin to consider this or any other similar merger.
Banking February 2nd, 1998
First of all, Mr. Speaker, it is a habit that the hon. member might want to get into.
The hon. member can be very much assured that this government is going to set policy. That is why the task force on financial institutions was set up. It is why we made it very clear that when it reports in September it will be submitted to a parliamentary committee for full parliamentary debate. It is why in fact within the government caucus itself a study group has been set up to look at it.
We would hope in fact that opposition members themselves would take this matter very seriously.
Banking February 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, some time ago in the middle of the last mandate the government put in place a process to deal with this kind of issue. That task force will report in September. Following that report there will be ample time for parliamentary committee and full public discussion.
We are going to insist that timetable be lived up to. I assure the House of one thing. Unless this deal or any other deal works Canadians it will not work at all.
Child Poverty December 11th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about the plight of Canada's children, which is why my colleagues have done so much and will continue to do so much. It is why we are now talking to the provinces about investing in the future of Canada's children. The member has raised a very important point.
The member referred to Scrooge. I look at the Leader of the Opposition and his speech yesterday. I must say that when we look at what the Reform Party would do, it would certainly scare the dickens out of you. In fact Reform would destroy Canada's great expectations. They would leave us with a tale of two unequal cities. In fact, if they were ever elected, this House would indeed be bleak.
Taxation December 11th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at those special interest groups that we speak for.
They happen to be poor Canadians, young Canadian families, aboriginal Canadians, Canadians who want to invest in research and development to build a stronger economy, Canadians who live in Atlantic Canada, Canadians who do not want to see their equalization payments cut, senior Canadians who do not want to see their pensions cut, and Canadians who believe in medicare. If that hon. member thinks those Canadians are special interest groups then, yes, we will speak for them.
Taxation December 11th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member think that talking for the national interest in the national parliament is overblown rhetoric? Does he think that talking about narrow sectoral interests or pitting one region of the country against another is what he was elected to do?
I will stand in the House and talk for those people who need the playing field levelled. I will talk for those Canadians who require help. I will talk for the people who want to invest in the future because that is what we were elected to do.
Taxation December 11th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the real issue is why the Reform Party's finance critic is saying one thing last night and another thing today. He sold out his principles for petty partisan reasons.
Let me make it very clear and tell where we draw the line with the Reform Party. The Liberal government stands for the national interest. We will speak for the national interest and for the interest of Canadians, which means we will invest where they require it. We will cut taxes and pay down the debt, but we will not sell our principles for a mess of pottage some night because some separatist premier said something.
Taxation December 11th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier of Quebec suggested that 100% of any surplus be used to reduce taxes and that none of it be used to reduce debt. We know that the Reform Party has said that 35% of the surplus should be used to reduce debt. The position I took yesterday was that some of it should go to reducing debt.
The real issue is why the Reform Party engaged in petty partisan politics, threw its principles over and last night said that it no longer should be used to reduce debt. Why did the Reform Party give up on what it believes?