House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 48% of the vote.
Airport Security March 18th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, first, the comparison with the United States as enunciated by the hon. member is simply not apt. The United States in fact has a series of changes that are built into its cost. In fact, the two costs are comparable.
Second, the fact is that there are extensive measures that have already been put in place and will be in place at the time the tax is implemented.
Health March 14th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, if anyone would like to take a look at the agreement that was signed a year ago for $21 billion, they will see that year after year those amounts in the base year are increasing: over $2 billion this year, over $3 billion the following year and over $4 billion by the end.
Year after year the Canadian government is increasing the transfers to the provinces for health care. In a great number of the provinces the only increases that they are putting into health care are coming from the Canadian government.
Taxation March 14th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I already answered the question. If my provincial counterparts wish to discuss any topic, I am very open to discussing their priorities.
Airport Security March 14th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that we will be very open, very transparent, on the costs and their relationship to the charge, and that we are going to revisit, review, the entire situation in the fall, once we have an exact idea of its effects.
Airport Security March 14th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must realize that the cost of all the measures for national security comes to about $7.5 billion.
Of that amount, over $5 billion has been assumed by the taxpayer. The users have been asked to pay the other $2 billion, because the users are the ones who stand to benefit the most.
Health Care March 14th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, a little over a year ago the Prime Minister signed an agreement with the provinces, $21 billion over five years plus another $2.5 billion for early childhood development. That was the largest single transfer to the provinces for health care in the history of the country. It was over a year ago. The hon. member and his party voted against it.
Health Care March 14th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, even among the provinces the issue of tax points is highly controversial for the very simple reason that tax points benefit the richer provinces to the detriment of the poorer provinces.
If the hon. member is suggesting that there should be better health care in the richer provinces as compared to the poorer provinces because of the transfer of tax points, because they are worth less, then that may well be his party's policy. However, our policy is that all Canadians should be treated fairly.
Taxation March 14th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, all our meetings are always conducted in a spirit of co-operation. As I just said, the agenda is jointly decided by the Canadian government and the provinces. If my counterparts wish to raise any issue, I am very open to discussing their priorities.
Taxation March 14th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I made it very clear that I was prepared to discuss the issues that my provincial counterparts wish to raise at our next meeting. If this is really what they want to discuss, I am certainly prepared to do so.
Taxation March 14th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the problem is not the conference board but the mandate it was given by the Séguin commission.
For example, it said, “In 20 years, no recession”. But, in the past 20 years, we have seen the 1980-81 recession, and the 1989-90 recession, with years of after-effects. It said that there would be no tax cuts. Last year marked the largest tax cuts in the history of Canada.
This shows that the problem is the mandate given by the Séguin commission.