Debates of Nov. 22nd, 2006

Transfer Payments

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the transfers to the provinces are $40 billion this year, increasing to $49 billion in 2011.

With respect to fiscal balance and the fiscal balance issue, yesterday we had this statement: “I recognize this is the first national government to acknowledge the fiscal imbalance and I am very pleased by that. This is a good first step.” That is from Dr. Marie Bountrogianni, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for the province of Ontario, before the Senate committee yesterday.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister forgot to say that the money comes from the former Liberal government.

In order to win the last election, the Conservatives made promises that they have not kept. The Prime Minister promised to fix the fiscal imbalance, but has not yet done anything. He promised to increase post-secondary funding, but has not given the provinces one cent. His Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec promised a Marshall plan for the Quebec regions, but has done very little.

Will the Prime Minister admit that he has not been truthful with Quebeckers and that he does not intend to keep his promises?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the party opposite can take credit for funding increases this year, next year and years up to 2011 since it is not the government.

Having said that, the party opposite reduced transfers to the provinces in the 1990s on the backs of health care for Canadians. The suffering of Canadians in health care is wholly attributable to the government of the day. That is how it purported to balance budgets in Canada: on the backs of health care for Canadians.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the economic statement, it is vital that the Prime Minister promise to put an end to the fiscal imbalance. Instead of going forward with concrete proposals to eliminate the fiscal imbalance, the Prime Minister prefers to announce targeted tax measures, the latest being income splitting on tax returns.

Why does the Prime Minister not focus on a general solution to the fiscal imbalance, as he promised to do during the last election campaign?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we increased transfers to the provinces in the last budget. We are holding consultations with the provinces and we will propose other measures in the next budget.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to resolve the fiscal imbalance. There seems to have been a shift in the Prime Minister's priorities since then. Rather than have the entire population benefit from a solution to the fiscal imbalance, the Prime Minister has decided to help the wealthy in society with targeted tax measures that do little to help the least fortunate and the middle class.

Why does he not show leadership and resolve the fiscal imbalance once and for all in the interest of the entire population?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we increased transfers to the provinces and we also cut taxes for taxpayers and for the middle class.

I want to thank the leader of the Bloc Québécois for supporting our budget.

Taxation

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance wants to give couples the option of splitting their income. He claims this will help the middle class. However, this measure, far from helping the majority of people, only benefits the wealthy.

Will the minister acknowledge that by taking this route he is trying primarily to benefit high income rather than low income earners?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the only income splitting that we have proposed is income splitting for pensioners in Canada and I thank the Bloc Québécois for supporting our motion.

Transfer Payments

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this measure may end up costing $5 billion and, in the meantime, the government is denying the fiscal imbalance and is telling Quebec and the provinces to fend for themselves when it comes to health and education.

Does the minister admit that by introducing such measures he is favouring the wealthy instead of resolving the fiscal imbalance, as he promised to do?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, this is the first national government to actually recognize the issue of fiscal imbalance moving toward fiscal balance and that is a constructive discussion that is ongoing.

With respect to income splitting, we made the decision, which was announced recently, to permit income splitting. I thank the members of the Bloc Québécois for supporting that motion which certainly helps seniors and pensioners in Canada. It will reduce the tax burden on many seniors and pensioners who are relying on one pension, or one pension plus another small pension, by thousands of dollars starting January 1, 2007.

National Defence

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although there has been no official announcement, it looks as though Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $5 billion contract to build planes for our troops. Of course, one has to wonder how come Lockheed Martin knows. Subcontractors and contractors apparently know already, but ordinary Canadians have not been told. In fact, a press conference was cancelled.

My question is for the Prime Minister. What is so secret about this deal? Why can Canadians not be told what is being done with their tax dollars when it comes to a major military purchase?

[James Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

Mr. Speaker, no deal has been signed. The RFP has yet to go out. In fact, the contract will not be awarded until August 2007. Again, the leader of the NDP is barking up an invisible tree.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for that clarification.

How about this, will the government at least commit to bringing this contract in front of the Standing Committee on National Defence so that it can be reviewed, so we can find out whether or not this is actually going to be the best plane for the Canadian Forces, and so that we can find out whether it is actually going to meet the needs?

I know the peanut gallery heckling me at the moment does not like to hear these kinds of questions. Let those members support the idea of having this sort of discussion in front of a standing committee of this House, the way they used to say it should be done when they were in opposition.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the government made clear in the last budget its intentions to re-equip our military. That will be done with the best interests of the Canadian military and Canadian taxpayers in mind.

What I find interesting is that no matter how much the NDP says it supports the military, as soon as we actually want to spend money on the military, the NDP objects. This party will give our military the best equipment.

Regional Economic Development

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last December, the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec announced with great fanfare that, if elected, he would implement a Marshall plan to kickstart Quebec's economy. He even had the gall to say that the region he was trying to win a seat in was getting nothing but crumbs from the federal government to support its economic development. Crumbs? Highway 175, the Aluminum Technology Centre, the Georges Vézina Arena, the Saint-Félicien Zoo.

But now he has changed his tune. Last weekend, he said, “I do not want to talk about a Marshall plan because it would cost billions, and I have a limited budget.”

Will the minister acknowledge that he cannot deliver the goods and that he still has a long way to go?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, I was merely being humble. General George Marshall had $14 billion and launched a massive initiative in Europe.

Compare that to the annual budget for the department responsible for regional economic development, which is $200 million. We have been creative enough to implement six new tools to support regional economic development. We started by targeting vulnerable regions. The plan has been very well received in the regions.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the Marshall plan; this is the marshmallow plan.

The minister should change his department's name. Now that he has submitted to the will of the Prime Minister's office, he should call himself the minister of regional under-development. The Prime Minister has often said that he thinks regional development policies waste money on perpetual losers and support a culture of defeatism.

Can the minister of regional development explain to his constituents why he is now breaking his word? Maybe it is because he has finally realized that André Harvey was a proper member of Parliament who delivered the goods.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a marshmallow plan at all; it is an excellent plan. Maybe the member is having some problems.

[An hon. member]

He eats too many marshmallows.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Maybe he eats too many marshmallows.

Maybe we should call this the Blackburn plan because we have created six new tools to support regional economic development. These tools have been designed to meet the specific needs of Quebec's vulnerable regions and RCMs that are having problems. I would encourage the member to read the Blackburn plan.

Transfer Payments

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in very simple language fixing the fiscal imbalance means paying more money to the provinces. It does not mean taking more money from the provinces. Yet, despite the government's promise, that is precisely what it has done to the tune of $6 billion in cancelled child care, cancelled labour-market agreements, and the cancelled Canada-Ontario agreement.

Is this $6 billion hole what the government means by fixing the fiscal imbalance?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

I hate to disappoint the member opposite, Mr. Speaker, but transfers to other levels of government, provinces, territories and municipalities, are rising from $40 billion this year to $49 billion in 2011. That is $9 billion more over that period of time. In addition, federal funding for health and social programs will rise, as part of that, from $28 billion this year to $36 billion in 2011. That is $8 billion more.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister does not understand simple numbers. The fact of the matter is that it was the Liberal government that committed $90 billion over 10 years and the numbers he is speaking about come from Liberal commitments.

I am talking about $6 billion that he cancelled. He cancelled child care. He cancelled the Canada-Ontario agreement. He cancelled labour-market agreements. That is to his credit.

Why did he cancel this? Why is he wrecking the fiscal imbalance rather than--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!