Yes.
Evidence of meeting #88 for Finance in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #88 for Finance in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
First of all, Mr. Chairperson, these two amendments arise from the fact that we've had repeated practice on the part of this government and the past government to lowball the surplus to the point where a huge amount of dollars are automatically put against the debt, because in fact they are beyond the scope of the parliamentary process and the timelines by which Canadians could have some say. So my preference would be of course to have this government do what it asked the last government to do, which would be to start getting into proper economic forecasting and avoid a situation where you have such a huge surplus, for which there's no directive from Parliament.
Mr. Chair, I would remind you that in fact we, by a consensus, all agree that a certain portion of the budget of the surplus should be set aside for debt reduction. We have agreed that there be at least a $3 billion contingency every year that then goes against the debt. We have never agreed, as a Parliament, nor have the Canadian people ever agreed, that we should allow this lowballing to the point where billions and billions of dollars, which could be spent on any number of important areas, are automatically put against the debt.
The members are under this illusion that suddenly all this money is going to come back into the hands of Canadians and provide Canadians with the wherewithal to counter the cutbacks that have happened in health care, the rising costs in education, the soaring transportation costs, the problems around the infrastructure deficit, and so on.
The issue here is really one of proper parliamentary oversight. It seems to me that when you have, as we've always said, a leaky roof, you are not likely to put all your money to pay off your mortgage and not fix your leaky roof, because you know that if you don't fix your leaky roof you won't have a house left.
The point of having proper economic forecasts is so we can all make proper decisions about where the priorities are and ensure that some of this money could have gone, would have gone, to deal with third world conditions on reserves, might have gone to keep our oceans from dying, might have gone to stop the manufacturing crisis--
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
No. I gave you an opportunity to put yourself on record. You have, at some length, and I am now going to tell you that I'm ruling this amendment out of order.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
Because it's out of order. It's beyond the scope of the bill and it changes the fundamental nature of the bill itself, so it's out of order.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
No. Could I just get a clarification? This actually simply says that instead of the money going to the tax-back guarantee—
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
—that it would go towards dealing with the infrastructure deficit.
Now, I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that that's not against the bill; it's just a different allocation—
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
—of the money that's available because of the lowballing—
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
—of our surplus by this government and past governments, which has added up to $100 billion.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
That's $80 billion by Liberals and $20 billion by Conservatives.