Debates of May 17th, 2001

The Economy

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. It is very difficult to hear the question. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor and has another question.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I will simply ask the Minister of Finance, because we are looking at $15.5 billion of overspending in the last four years, who the treasurer in Alberta was when spending was increased at the same time as the net debt was brought to zero and a single rate of taxes brought in.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Dinning.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. Now we want to hear the answer.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if it was the same person who brought in $2.3 billion in unbudgeted program spending during his three years as Alberta's finance minister.

Who was the treasurer of Alberta who brought in the largest unbudgeted spending bill of any Alberta finance minister since 1986?

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is the finance minister who has presided over the incredible shrinking surplus from $20 billion to $15 billion because of $5 billion in over budget spending. This finance minister has overspent by $15 billion in the past four years and will continue overspending if he does not take control of the demands around the cabinet table.

Will he not admit that every additional dollar in new spending is a dollar taken away from working families for tax relief and from our economic future in terms of debt repayment? Why will he not get his priorities right?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at where the bulk of the increases took place: in health care spending, following the largest transfer to the provinces; the largest increases in equalization transfers to the less well off provinces in Canada's history; and increases in old age pensions and servicing elderly Canadians.

I would simply ask the finance critic which of those he would cut.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister does not understand that it is possible to control spending instead of going back to the levels of spending set by the Prime Minister when he was finance minister which drove the country into deficit.

Many senior economists have said that we are headed for a planning deficit within four years. The finance minister has not given us an adequate response. Will he guarantee to the House today that we will not end up with a planning deficit that eats into our emergency surpluses, our emergency reserves? Will he give us a commitment now that we will not go back into deficit at any point by eating into the emergency reserves?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, if we look at the projections that were made last year, if we look at the cushions and if we look at the protection of the contingency reserve, it is patently clear to anyone who wants to understand the numbers that the cushions are there.

Let me simply say the hon. member refers to the spending that has taken place under the Prime Minister. When we took office in 1993 our program spending was $120 billion. Today, eight years later, our program spending is $120 billion.

Official Languages

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

Mr. Speaker, in the future, in Quebec, it will be the mother tongue of the majority, whether French or English, which determines whether those districts in Montreal not already bilingual will become so.

The official languages commissioner, backed by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, is proposing the criterion of language spoken at home, which would change the linguistic balance to the detriment of Quebec's francophones.

Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs admit that, by backing Dyane Adam's request, he is hindering the development of the French fact in Quebec?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am not backing anything at all. It is perhaps difficult for the leader of the Bloc Quebecois to understand, but Canada operates under the rule of law.

When the official languages commissioner asked to be heard by the court, it was up to the judge to determine whether or not her request would be granted. He decided to hear her. As for the legal value of what she has to say, it will be up to the judge, not the leader of the Bloc Quebecois or myself, to decide.

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

Mr. Speaker, before the passage of Bill 171, Quebecers who did not speak French at home were automatically considered anglophones, even if they were not. The government of Quebec merely passed legislation to eliminate this distortion, without changing the existing situation of the anglophone community.

Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs admit that, by encouraging the status quo, he is advocating that the provision of municipal services in English no longer be based on the linguistic reality in Quebec?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, since we are speaking about the rule of law, the supreme court ruled that it was legitimate to wish to promote and defend French in Quebec.

But it is also legitimate to take into account the rights of anglophones in Quebec. As Canadians, both Quebec's francophones and anglophones are entitled to the protection of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It will be up to the judge to determine whether the arguments of the official languages commissioner are legally valid or not.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us take a hard look at the situation. If we were to keep the old criterion of language spoken at home, we would find ourselves in the ridiculous situation where a Quebecer who spoke Portuguese at home would be considered an anglophone for the purpose of determining the level of services to be provided to citizens.

Is the minister prepared to admit that using the criterion of language spoken at home rather than mother tongue would mean that anyone whose mother tongue is neither French nor English would be considered an anglophone? He is the minister responsible and he should give us an answer.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Once again, Mr. Speaker, when the Premier of Quebec intervened yesterday, it was not to say that he disagreed with the official languages commissioner, but to say that she did not have the right to interfere in Quebec's jurisdiction, supposedly because Quebec is a nation.

My view is that, if the concept of nation becomes a sort of wall separating us as Quebecers from other Canadians, that is to distort the meaning of the word nation in French and in English.

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

Mr. Speaker, rather than see walls where there are none, the minister should consider that the situation in Quebec is one of great mutual respect when it comes to the linguistic rights of anglophones and the status of French as a common language.

In 1992, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs wrote that the best solution would be a unilateral devolution of powers with respect to language solely in the Quebec legislature and enforced solely in Quebec's territory.

Does he admit that Quebec's actions are entirely consistent with the proposal he himself made in 1992?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, except that since then, former Chief Justice Dickson, former Chief Justice Lamer, and the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada have said that Quebec was a distinct society and recognized as such in law in the court's decisions.

In this regard, we know that what gives Quebec society its distinct nature is that everyone is a minority in that province. Anglophones are a minority in Quebec, but a majority elsewhere in Canada and in North America as a whole. Francophones, although a majority in Quebec, are a minority in Canada and throughout North America, with the result that both communities are entitled to legal and linguistic protection, and this must be taken into account.

The Economy

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, budgets are about choices and about priorities, as are economic statements. When the finance minister chooses to apply all the bonus surplus to repaying debt and none of it to dealing with the environmental debt and the income divides that are growing daily, he is making the wrong choices.

The minister brags about the health of the nation's finances, but how does he justify ignoring the deteriorating health of real people and real communities?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will take a look at budget 2000 she will see very large spending on behalf of the Minister of the Environment and on behalf of the Minister of Natural Resources in terms of climate change and the environment. This is not one time spending but is continuing on and on.

There is no doubt about the primacy of the environment to the government. There is no doubt about the linkage between the environment and health, clean air and clean water. We did that in budget 2000 and we will continue to do that.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, for a politician who used to talk about social justice and environmental responsibility, the finance minister's tunnel vision is breathtaking and in fact for many it is heartbreaking.

The minister has chosen to ignore the deterioration of our environment. He has chosen to ignore the erosion of vital services. He has chosen to ignore the growing gap between the rich and the poor. How can these fundamental priorities have no claim on at least a healthy portion of the hefty bonus surplus?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that of course they did. Much of the $750 million that went into the Canada Foundation for Innovation will go to the environment. Much of the funding that went into Genome Canada will deal with the health of Canadians. This was all money that came out of that year end surplus.

I remind the hon. member that as a result of the paydown of $33 billion of debt, $2 billion will accrue to Canadians every year, which they can invest in health care, in education and in the environment.

I also remind the hon. member that it was Tommy Douglas who said that the state should not be beholden to the bondholders. She might well reread what Tommy Douglas had to say.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Finance Minister's advisers claim he supports parliamentary reform. No aspect of reform is more important than parliament's control over the spending and fiscal policy of the government.

Why did the minister not demonstrate his respect for parliament, his respect for members of the House and for all Canadians by tabling a budget in the House of Commons?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, if we take a look at all the spending announcements and spending commitments that have been made, they are either being covered by specific legislation in the House, which the hon. member and the others can certainly debate, or they are part of the main or supplementary estimates.

Every spending item at one point or other will be open to scrutiny by parliament.