House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 48% of the vote.
Goods And Services Tax December 10th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the member asked “who is right?”. I think it is Statistics Canada and the person who provided the data from Quebec. Quebec did not lose any money.
Moreover, Quebec did not harmonize in the same way and did not accept the same constraints as the other provinces.
Goods And Services Tax December 10th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, quite simply because Quebec did not lose any money. Compensation cannot be offered if there was no loss of money, as shown by data not only from Statistics Canada but also from the Government of Quebec.
Transfer Payments December 10th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, what federal program does the hon. member object to? Does he object to our helping the aeronautical industry in Montreal? Does he object to our helping children from broken families in Montreal? Does he object to our helping parents set money aside for their children's education? Does he object to our helping students with huge debt loads? Does he object to our investing in the future of Quebeckers and Canadians alike?
Transfer Payments December 10th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the finance ministers of all the provinces agreed that the priorities set, that is to say children, poverty and health, are both their priorities and ours.
Similarly, all the provincial finance ministers agree that lowering interest rates to their lowest level in 20 years greatly helped them reduce their debt load.
Transfer Payments December 10th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to tell the leader of the Bloc Quebecois that the cuts we were obliged to make in provincial transfer payments amount to half of the Province of Quebec's cuts in its municipalities' budgets and, second, that we gave a period of notice, a courtesy the Province of Quebec did not extend to its municipalities.
In addition, is the member saying that the provinces did not want us to help students with their debt load? He is mistaken. Is he saying that the provinces did not want us to help the children of disadvantaged families? He is mistaken.
We did exactly what Canadians from coast to coast to coast wanted us to do.
Transfer Payments December 10th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, first of all, when the country's financial situation forced us to make cuts, we made them at the federal level first, and gave the provinces a period of notice.
That having been said, as the prime minister announced in June and the Minister of Health and I confirmed two days ago, we have put $1.5 billion back into the Canada social transfer. This is one of the government's largest areas of spending. Furthermore, it shows the benefit of putting our fiscal house in order.
At the same time, my colleague in human resources development and I have invested over $850 million to help the most disadvantaged in the provinces.
Division No. 68 December 9th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, in the process of applying votes earlier I was registered as voting in favour of Bill C-9. I should be recorded as not voting on Bill C-9. In the words of the chief government whip last week, I should be “deleted”.
Ways And Means December 8th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act and certain related acts, as well as explanatory notes. I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.
The Economy December 8th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the difference between ourselves and the Reform Party does not lie in our desire versus its desire to cut taxes. It is that we are not prepared to do what Reformers are prepared to do to cut taxes. They would gut health care. They would cut it by $3.5 billion to pay for their tax cuts. They would gut equalization by $3 billion. They would gut old age pensions.
We will not do that. We will not cut taxes on the backs of the poor and seniors and those who are being hospitalized.
Canada Pension Plan December 8th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the lack of coherence of the opposition manifests itself in this case not only with the Reform Party but with the NDP. Again the member for Calgary—Nose Hill refuses to acknowledge the fact that there is a $600 billion liability.
Why the NDP did what it did, I am not quite sure, given the fact that it was the position of the NDP government that the premiums should go higher and that there should not be any reductions in benefits.