Finance Committee on May 10th, 2006

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Certainly it's to that point. In fact, what we're talking about are important matters pertaining to the estimates for the Department of Finance that need clarification before a vote is taken. Therefore, the request to waive the 48 hours is to ensure that we hear appropriate testimony on a particular issue before we vote.

Related to that, I might add it's normal practice for the minister to appear before estimates are approved. I think we also need to waive the 48 hours to consider the motion to request the minister to appear on the estimates pursuant to Standing Order...whatever it is.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

We are debating—which I'm not even sure you can actually debate in terms of rules of procedure—a move to unanimous consent, which is not even debatable. Now we're moving to debate something else, a motion that has nothing to do with unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

So I ask again for unanimous consent. Do I have unanimous consent to move to Mr. Turner's motion?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Can you just repeat the motion? I'm scared that...there seems to be something here to avoid the finance minister's coming.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Mr. Turner, are you going to draft something right now?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I just want to make sure that's not the intent here.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

The intent is simply that this committee request the presence of stakeholders and expert witnesses with regard to vote 10. It's simply that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Okay. Do we have unanimous consent to bring that motion, first of all? Yes?

Would you like to move that, or can I just read into the record that you have so moved what you just said? Are you okay with that?

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Yes, please.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Mr. McKay, it's over to you.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you.

I want to explore the issue of so-called fiscal imbalance, particularly with respect to what this budget does or doesn't do for that issue.

Here is what I understand the budget to do: it puts up $255 million for several provinces, sets aside $3.3 billion to fund Bill C-48 obligations, makes a commitment to talk, and makes a commitment that in 2007 it will bring forward legislation in the sweet by and by. At the same time, the budget actually seems to take money, or reasonable expectations of money, away from provinces.

Can you confirm that the $3.5 billion for workplace skills and the vast bulk of the $5 billion committed for early childhood learning has in fact been removed?

[Barbara Anderson]

Let me answer the second question first. As Mr. Lapointe pointed out, some of the $7 billion reduction did include those things you have just mentioned. The child care money for 2006-07 will flow to the provinces and then those agreements will be replaced.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

If in fact we do all the toing and froing here as to what's in and what's out, is it fair to say the transfers to provinces this year will actually be lower in this budget?

[Barbara Anderson]

No, because this year the child care transfer, which is not included in our definition of the statutory programs run by the Department of Finance, was a separate contribution agreement provided through Social Development Canada, which is now HRSD. So the transfers have increased substantially from one year to the next. The early childhood development this year would be as predicted, because it will be flowed for 2006-07.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

So are the provinces actually, in absolute dollar terms, receiving more money or less money this year, in this budget?

[Barbara Anderson]

In 2006-07 they will receive substantially more through the equalization program. If you look here, the numbers have been updated. There's the 3.5% escalator on that program, so the provinces will receive more. In addition, there's a 6% escalator on health transfers, and they will receive that. There are $3.3 billion in trust funds that they will receive, and they will continue to receive the child care money for 2006-07.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

There have been some newspaper issues with respect to how Ontario's being treated. Can you confirm that the Canada-Ontario agreement will be fulfilled?

[Barbara Anderson]

The government was clear--I don't have the page number here--

[Paul-Henri Lapointe]

It's page 159.

[Barbara Anderson]

--on page 159 that the Ontario agreement will be honoured.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

So the concerns of the provincial treasurer are unfounded?

[Barbara Anderson]

It's hard for me to speak to other people's concerns. The government has been very clear that it will honour the agreement. There is perhaps a difference of opinion on the part of the Minister of Finance from Ontario as to how that will be done, but there is no difference of opinion on whether it will be honoured.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

What is the difference of opinion? What's the issue between the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada at this point?

[Barbara Anderson]

That is difficult for me to say. The Ontario minister has raised the issue of the climate change fund. You see in the budget that there is money applied against that commitment for these two years. Far be it from me to say that I do not altogether understand their concern, but their concern has been raised.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thanks, Mr. McKay.

Madam Ablonczy.