Debates of Feb. 19th, 2003

The Budget

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, one of the functions of government is to make choices and we did make choices yesterday. The largest single increase in any departmental spending was in the defence department. An $800 million increase was made in a department that was receiving about $12 billion a year.

I only take from the member's intervention that he suggests that less money should be given to poor kids and more money should be given to the military. Less money should be given to the environment and more money should be given to the military. Less money should be given to health care and more money should be given to the military.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, not only is the Minister of Finance throwing billions of dollars around, but not to the unemployed who are struggling because of the gap, reduced benefits, the two-week penalty, not to mention reduced access to benefits for thousands of young people and thousands of women.

What is there in the budget for all these people? Nothing.

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, there are many things in the budget for ordinary Canadians, for children living in low income families and children with disabilities. We have developed a program to help those who must look after seriously ill parents, children or family members.

I think that Canadians will benefit greatly from the measures introduced yesterday.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with the billions of dollars available to him, is the Minister of Finance not embarrassed to keep picking the pockets of the unemployed, to the tune of $3 billion over the next year?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, there have been cuts in several tax measures. We have cut $100 billion over five years, including cuts in EI rates.

We have now reduced the EI premium rate for the tenth time. Next year and in 2005, there will be a totally transparent process for setting the rate for the following years.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the 2000 budget scheduled EI premiums to drop to $2 by 2004. That means yesterday's announcement for 2004 EI rates works out to a pathetic drop of 2¢. Thanks for very little. That works out to $8 a year. Middle class Canadians generated that surplus.

Why is the finance minister giving this $8 middle finger to the middle class?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the reduction for next year will be 12¢ per $100. That is the tenth consecutive reduction. Furthermore, that will reduce the premium rate to approximately the cost of the benefits being paid. Going further, the fund will be based on revenue in equal to costs of the program.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals keep announcing the same thing year after year. This was first announced three years ago.

Liberals have collected $45 billion more in EI taxes than they have given out to workers. The fact that they have not mentioned this in the budget is their way of saying, “Too bad. We have spent the surplus. We are going to keep EI taxes too high so that we can build up a new surplus and everyone is just going to have to trust us not to spend it again”. That is basically what they are saying.

Will the finance minister confirm that no EI surplus actually exists and that it was all a scam created by the former finance minister?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, next year's rate is based upon the expected costs of the program and not to generate any additional revenue. The process that we will adopt following broadly based consultations is one that will ensure that the program going forward has premiums that reflect the actual costs of the program.

The hon. member talks about a surplus. Yes, it has been used because it was included in the consolidated revenue fund of the government. It has reduced our debt and increased our spending on health care. It has increased our spending on important programs to benefit Canadians.

Gasoline Prices

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while gasoline prices are hitting everyone hard, the Minister of Finance, with all the money at his disposal, has let taxpayers down and has not included anything to help them.

Since one of the components of the price of gasoline is an excise tax of 1.5¢ per litre to fight the deficit, and since there is no longer a deficit, why did the Minister of Finance not remove that tax? Had he done so, he would have helped all Canadians.

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, in the year 2000, we decided to reduce by $100 billion the taxes paid by all Canadians. All Canadians will benefit from this tax reduction. However, the hon. member would rather reduce one specific tax, instead of the others.

All Canadians can benefit from our tax reductions, from lower employment insurance premiums and from the other cuts made by the government.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants to talk about the budget of 2000, we can certainly do so. In 2000, just before the general election, the government was in a panic and sent cheques to all citizens of Quebec, including some who were dead and some who were in jail, to reduce the price of the litre of heating oil, which stood at 50¢. Yesterday, the price of a litre of heating oil was 60¢.

Why did the Minister of Finance not think about helping those who are paying 60¢ for a litre of heating oil? Is it because the next election is still a long time away?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the hon. member is now convinced that the idea which he opposed in 2000 was a good idea. I am pleased to see that he is open to new initiatives.

Considering the fact that we reduced taxes across the whole tax system, I think that even the hon. member would agree that a reduction of $100 billion is not bad.

The Budget

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's budget proves the Liberals still have an unhealthy addiction to high taxes.

Each year Ottawa collects $4.5 billion in gas taxes, but only 5% of that money is returned to Canadians in the form of federal highway funding. The government is ripping off Canadians at the gas pump and not returning the benefits to them.

Why did the minister yesterday not help to ease the burden on taxpayers by reducing the federal share of the fuel tax?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we are in the third year of a five year program to reduce overall taxes by $100 billion and choices were made as to what taxes should be reduced. Personal income taxes were sharply reduced in that process and tax rates were indexed in that process. That was the choice that was made rather than reducing taxes on fuel.

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let us hope that some of the sewers that the minister's money will build can hold that kind of answer.

The current situation is completely unacceptable to all Canadians. The government has a choice to make, either it dedicates a portion of the federal fuel tax or it transfers the tax to the provinces to allow them to make the funding decisions to address their infrastructure needs.

Will the Minister of Finance consider vacating a portion of the federal tax on gas to allow the provinces room to address their infrastructure needs?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, occasionally the opposition complains that the answers we give in the House are unclear. So I want him to listen closely. No, absolutely not.

The responsibility that the provinces have for areas which are in their jurisdiction is one for which they have entirely the same capacity to raise revenue as does the federal government. Our revenue goes into the consolidated revenue fund and we make choices as to how to spend it. It is not a matter of dedicating taxes; it is a matter of meeting our responsibilities.

Post-Secondary Education

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

It is very expensive to go to college and university in most provinces in Canada. The provinces control tuition, but the federal government can help through scholarships and loan programs.

I would like to ask the minister, what is she doing to better help students through the Canada student loan program?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased that the budget allocated $60 million to the Canada student loan program to reduce barriers to post-secondary education.

We have tripled the amount students can earn while studying without affecting their student loans, we are improving debt reduction for students who experience long term difficulties with paying their loans, and we are very proud that protected persons, including convention refugees, will now be eligible to receive the Canada student loans.

I want to recognize the hon. member for his consistent work in this area as well as the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations and the Canadian Federation of Students for their advice and support.

The Budget

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

Mr. Speaker, we know the Liberals do not care about cities and communities. But it goes beyond caring about water or roads. There is nothing in the budget for public transit, freight rail or high speed rail. In fact, only $505 million this year for Kyoto and not a specific project to put it in. So much for the Kyoto plan.

Can the finance minister tell Canadians, who happen to care a lot about the environment, why he gave a tax break for coal, but not a single penny dedicated for public transit or rail?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member would read the budget and perhaps look at yesterday's televised version.

She will discover that there is an extra $3 billion in infrastructure moneys, in addition to $5 billion put aside, that can be used by municipalities for transit projects. She will see there is $2 billion of which $1.7 billion is available for municipalities if they put forward transit schemes which reduce greenhouse gases in a manner which is competitive with other proposals that come forward from municipalities and other partners.

There is plenty of opportunity for the municipalities. The challenge is for them to do something about it.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing but smoke and mirrors in the budget on Kyoto and the same happens to be true for child care.

The finance minister ought to be ashamed for putting more effort into a photo op than he did in creating child care spaces. We end up not with a day care program but with a child care lottery. He spent seven times as much scrapping the capital tax as he did on child care.

How can the finance minister give business the jackpot for capital taxes while families have to play the lottery for child care spaces?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not apologize for visiting my constituents anytime.

What we have been able to do is a breakthrough in making arrangements with the provinces to increase the number of child care spaces available. No, it is not a lot of money this particular year coming up because agreements need to be reached with the provinces.

However, it is almost $1 billion over the next five years. For the first time the federal government is putting real money behind a commitment to provide child care spaces for Canadians. This is an important move forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, the capital markets are in the tank, our biggest trading partner is in recession and the world is teetering on the brink of war.

Why did the finance minister not use his first budget to address these economic uncertainties instead of using Canadian taxpayers' money to buy Liberal backbencher support for his Liberal leadership bid?

[The Speaker]

I am not sure that question has anything to do with the administrative responsibility of the government. Perhaps the hon. member in his supplementary will ask a question that could be answered in the House.