House of Commons Hansard #131 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois seems to see something wrong with Canada's having reduced its debt by $35 billion.
Let me say that this is a good thing for Canada. It means that we have saved $2.5 billion on the cost of servicing the debt. This is $2.5 billion that we are using for health; $2.5 billion that we are using for education; $2.5 billion that we are using to lower the taxes of Canadian workers.
It is a good thing that we have done.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is interpreting the remarks of the auditor general however he likes.
He continues to hear only what he wants. The auditor general never asked the government to have contributors to employment insurance pay for health, education and debt service. Never.
Will the Minister of Finance admit honestly that it is entirely possible to have a separate EI fund accounted for in the government's consolidated financial statements, in compliance with all aspects of the recommendation by the auditor general?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, first, I do not think it is possible, according to the accounting rules advocated by the auditor general, to have a separate account within the consolidated fund.
The member for Roberval has once again changed the position of the Bloc. This is about the 15th time.
But I do not think it is possible. It is possible, however, to follow the rule set by the auditor general in 1986, as we are doing.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is looking at every possible way to stop the Minister of Finance stealing from the unemployed. That is what we are trying to do.
Will he acknowledge that, while he stubbornly refuses to create a separate EI fund managed by companies and contributors, he can no longer stick both hands in the fund, thereby considerably improving benefits and considerably reducing contributions?
If he were to stop dipping into the fund, this would be the result.
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, we have lowered contributions. We have increased benefits. We have also increased transfers to the provinces for education and health care.
We have made more money available for infrastructure. We have made more money available for research and development. All of this is good for workers in Canada.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, the federal Liberals are in collusion with the B.C. government farm team to sell Canadian forestry workers and their jobs down the river.
These governments are preparing to surrender to the corporate dictate that our forests be privatized; either that or we adopt American timber policies as the price we must pay to gain U.S. market access.
Will the minister give the assurance today that American lumber mills will not be allowed to bid on Canadian timber and export our jobs to the United States?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister for International Trade
Mr. Speaker, in this parliament our government is very cautious to do our job and we do it in international trade negotiations, but it is the provinces that manage forestry.
We believe that the government of British Columbia has the responsibility to manage its forests. It has engaged, with a mandate from the population of British Columbia, in serious discussions with the United States to solve a long term problem. We want to find a solution for this and I commend the government of British Columbia for having been creative in working with its industry to find a solution.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, Canadian governments are giving away our raw logs and in the process Canadian forestry workers are getting a raw deal.
The American deal will break the link between timber rights and the creation of Canadian jobs. Mill towns across the country will become ghost towns. What is worse is that the government is prepared to shaft forestry workers without any guarantee whatsoever that the American lumber barons will stop harassing them.
I again ask, will the minister assure the forestry workers that no deal will be signed without timber rights being tied to the creation of Canadian jobs?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister for International Trade
Mr. Speaker, Canada has maintained a clear policy on log exports for many years. Federal export permits are required for log exports from all provinces and territories. In the case of British Columbia, logs from both private and provincial crown lands must be deemed surplus to domestic needs before a federal export permit is issued.
Companies and workers in the log and softwood lumber industries have legitimate business and trade interests that would be seriously impacted by any measures that would effectively ban exports of logs.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, yesterday's meeting between U.S. homeland security czar Tom Ridge and the foreign affairs minister made it very clear that the United States wants to place armed guards, customs and immigration agents, in Canada.
The revenue minister said this will not happen. The foreign affairs minister said we will think about it.
Is it really smart that Canadian customs officers continue to be unarmed when the Liberal government seems prepared to allow armed American customs agents on Canadian soil?
Martin Cauchon LiberalMinister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)
Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate my colleague from external affairs who signed a wonderful agreement in order to make sure that we will put in place a smart border.
We are making a lot of progress and of course what the member is referring to is the notion of what we call the customs pre-clearance.
I would like to repeat one more time in the House that we have this in place at international airports. We have been able to come to an agreement with the United States in order to make sure that their duty will be fulfilled on Canadian land without having any sidearms. We intend to keep going that way.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, it does not sound very smart or clear. The firearms provisions in Bill C-36 will permit the government to make secret orders to allow individual foreign nationals or any class of non-residents to carry guns for their employment. In effect, a minister will have the power to permit individuals to pack weapons with no guidelines and no regulations.
Why the ambivalent Liberal gun fixation? No guns for Canadian border guards, park wardens or even duck hunters, but if one is a bodyguard for a foreign dictator or a rock star, load up and come on in.
Martin Cauchon LiberalMinister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)
Mr. Speaker, first what the hon. member is talking about is the notion of reverse pre-clearance. He is referring to the question of the commercial relationship between the two countries. I am pleased to report in the House that we have made a lot of progress in reopening exit and access.
He should talk about the first step we have to undertake which is to get involved in a joint project in regard to customs self-assessment with businesses.
We on this side of the House signed the first pilot project last week. We intend to get involved in the pilot project in order to make sure that we keep a good relationship with the United States on the commercial side as well.
Monte Solberg Canadian Alliance Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, it sounds like the finance minister is a little sensitive about all the fat he is carrying around--
The BudgetOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order, please. No one is denying the popularity of the hon. member but we have to be able to hear his question.
Monte Solberg Canadian Alliance Medicine Hat, AB
Yes, Mr. Speaker, a legend in my own mind. It sounds like the finance minister is a little sensitive about all the fat he is carrying around in his budget. It took $680,000 last year to redesign federal cheques and $44,000 to plan a conference in Iqaluit that the multiculturalism department had to cancel because it did not have enough time to organize it.
How can the minister say that there is not fat in his budget when every three months the auditor general finds junk food like this hiding in his cupboards?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I used to think that I missed the member for Medicine Hat.
Paul Martin Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC
That's right, the full monty. Mr. Speaker, simply to put things straight, what the auditor general actually said was that over the past year and a half the Treasury Board and its secretariat took many important steps to improve the management of grants and contributions government wide, and particularly in setting out a new and better policy framework.
What she is saying is that there were problems. The President of the Treasury Board has acted on them and I would like to congratulate the President of the Treasury Board.
Monte Solberg Canadian Alliance Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, the auditor general just got through roasting the minister for handing money out to corpses and crooks, and I am not talking about the cabinet either. Eighty per cent of the $1.4 billion home heating rebate went to people who did not need it.
Will the minister retract his ridiculous claim that there is no fat in his $130 billion heavily marbled budget?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I went through the list that the Alliance says in fact is fat. What it is, is transfers to people with disabilities, transfers to elderly citizens, transfers from grants and contributions for skills training, transfers for education and transfers for research and development. That is what those grants are all about.
If the hon. member disagrees with those grants, he should stand up and identify quite particularly what part of our old age pension system, our cultural system and our education system he disagrees with.
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance admitted that the employment insurance fund was fictitious, since its contents had been spent on services to the population and paying down the debt.
When he was out making his campaign promises to the jobless last year, why did the Minister of Finance not tell the workers and the jobless that the EI fund was fictitious, and that he had already made the policy choice to make EI contributors foot part of the bill for services to be delivered to everyone? Why did he conceal this?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, what I said yesterday was that, three or four years ago, I do not recall exactly when, my answer in response to the member for Roberval's question was that it is not a separate fund. This is an accounting practice. The money comes in like other revenue, and goes out in the form of expenditures that help workers.
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance's choice to have EI contributors foot the bill for services to the entire population is profoundly unfair. Like millions of Canadian taxpayers, the Minister of Finance does not contribute to EI.
Is it not unfair to make salaried workers pay for universal services, on top of the government's debt, while he and millions of other high income individuals do not contribute at all, or contribute on only a small portion of their incomes, to what is mandatory for low wage earners?