House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 65% of the vote.
Immigration February 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. In light of his answer can the minister prove, by laying before the House a detailed cost benefit analysis or other evidence, that maintaining immigration at the level of 250,000 immigrants per year is a net economic benefit to Canada?
Immigration February 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
None of us in the House question the value and importance of immigration, but legitimate questions exist concerning the appropriate levels of immigration. As the minister knows, 2.3 million Canadians are either unemployed or underemployed, the welfare rolls are bulging and governments cannot finance the current level of social services.
Under these circumstances is the minister absolutely convinced in his own mind that maintaining immigration levels at the current level of 250,000 per year is in the national interest?
Taxation February 2nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I have one further supplementary question.
Thousands of customers, investors and workers involved in the production, distribution and consumption of fossil fuels wish to make direct and effect representation to the government to dissuade it from instituting a carbon tax.
Is the government willing to receive and respond to these representations prior to finalizing its 1994-95 budget?
Taxation February 2nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
Thousands of participants in RRSPs-contributors, financial institutions and recipients-wish to make direct and effective representation to the government to dissuade it from reducing contribution levels.
Is the government willing to receive and respond to these representations prior to finalizing the 1994-95 budget?
Taxation February 2nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Would the Prime Minister tell the House whether he believes his government has a clear mandate from the public to expand the tax base and the total tax bill paid by Canadians?
The Budget February 1st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. I think this will be helpful to all members on both sides of the House.
It is difficult for members of the House and for the public to participate in productive pre-budget consultations on the budget without seeking pertinent information on the budget itself. This will be helpful to members opposite as well.
Could the minister clarify for the House what subject matters and lines of questioning he considers appropriate for a pre-budget consultation and what subject matters and lines of questioning he considers inappropriate and off limits?
The Budget February 1st, 1994
I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. We are asking serious questions. If the minister would give us a straight answer we would like to hear it.
Along the same lines as my previous question, the government's speech from the throne promised the goods and services tax would be replaced. Is it the government's position that any replacement of the GST, while it may be fairer and more efficient, will not impose any additional tax burden on Canadians? In other words, is its proposal for the replacement of the GST revenue neutral?
The Budget February 1st, 1994
Just briefly in response to the hon. member, everything I said this morning reflects very accurately the views that were expressed to me by my constituents during the last election and by many other Canadians across the country.
I also should clarify that when I talk about a tax revolt I am talking about what other Canadians are going to do. I made very clear that what I mean is something that is perfectly within the law and by legal means.
The Budget February 1st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to respond to questions when the government puts them to us. I gather that is procedurally acceptable to you.
The Budget February 1st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, in keeping with the pre-consultation with members of the House on the budget.
The Prime Minister has been quoted in the past as saying there will be no new taxes. Is it therefore the position of the government in principle that any new revenues must come from increasing current taxes and reducing tax exemptions but not from implementing new taxes?