Debates of Feb. 19th, 2003

The Budget

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

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to draw to the hon. member's attention that the difference in tax paid by a typical two earner family of four with a combined income of $60,000 this year is a saving of $1,395, a saving of 24%. For a one earner family of four with $40,000 in income, it is a saving of 44%. Those are the ordinary Canadians. That is the tax relief they are experiencing.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, here is an example from yesterday's budget. The $8 a year in premium reductions on EI will not get an average Canadian to a movie, not one movie a year. In fact, it would not even pay for a babysitter long enough to get through the coming attractions.

Why is the Minister of Finance burdening the average Canadian and average Canadian families to pay for his spending spree?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member raised the question of employment insurance premiums.

When the Liberal government was elected in 1993 the premiums were $3.09 and scheduled to go up to $3.30. Instead, nine consecutive times we have reduced employment insurance premiums. The 10th time was yesterday when we set a premium rate for next year of $1.98. That is progress in employment insurance.

Iraq

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, the Prime Minister rejected any Canadian participation in the coalition of willing countries the United States wants to set against Iraq. Unfortunately, his director of communications rushed to alter this by stating that the government had not yet reached a decision.

Instead of backtracking, ought not the Prime Minister to be reassuring the public and announcing, once and for all, that Canada will not be participating in the coalition of willing countries the United States wants to send to war against Iraq? The public has a right to know clearly what Canada's position is.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is following the situation closely, he will realize that, only a few weeks ago, neither the Americans nor the British wanted a second UN resolution, and now they will likely be introducing one. This means that the United Nations process we have favoured since last July is being followed by all parties interested in finding a peaceful solution.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is not what I am asking. I am following the situation very closely and I have just been listening to Donald Rumsfeld.

He was asked whether the U.S. would go if the UN does not. He still reserves the right to go, and says that there are willing countries standing by. The journalists asked him to name these willing countries, but he refused.

Is it not the duty of Canada, in monitoring the situation very closely, to tell Mr. Rumsfeld, “We will not be part of that coalition. Get that idea out of your head. We will not be in any coalition with the United States and without the United Nations”?

That is what I want an answer to.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday in the House, we have not been asked to take part in any such group, nor have we offered to.

The Budget

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one wonders why the Minister of Finance is proud, when his budget consisted of handing out more than $15 billion with nothing to improve access to employment insurance, nothing for the cost of gas and heating oil and nothing for softwood lumber.

Since he has the money, how can the Minister of Finance explain that his budget contains not one word on the issues that are having a terrible impact on thousands of Canadians and Quebeckers?

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

Mr. Speaker, I consulted with people across Canada, in every region.

And what I heard from these Canadians were the priorities that we chose: health care, children, especially in low-income families, the environment and climate change. These are the investments that we made, an innovation. And we responded directly to what the public wanted.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, this budget contains nothing for softwood lumber, a human economic crisis that has hit thousands of workers and their communities in addition to hundreds of businesses. The assistance plan provided for a second phase. We are still waiting for it.

Can the minister deny that his budget contains absolutely nothing for the victims of the softwood lumber conflict?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, we have programs that are working very well in the area of softwood lumber. The industry in Saint-Fulgence, in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, just reopened, with 150 jobs.

Human Resources Development Canada and Natural Resources Canada have programs and the negotiations in Washington are going very well. Our government is doing its job.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one wonders sometimes what the Liberals would do without the Canadian Alliance. The Liberals pretend to spend and the Canadian Alliance pretends that it is true when in fact the reality is something quite otherwise.

The mayor of Winnipeg calls the infrastructure program a joke. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities calls it a doomsday budget. This patchwork budget completely ignored the needs of communities.

With the absolute pittance devoted to infrastructure this year, can the Minister of Finance tell us which community gets to buy half a water treatment plant?

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

Mr. Speaker, only the NDP pretends that $3 billion is a pittance. Not only that, it is an investment on top of the $5 billion that was in the last two budgets for infrastructure, all of which is not yet spent. It is on top of the money that we have put into housing, increased in this budget. It is on top of the money that we have put into children living in poor families, most of whom live in cities. It is on top of the money that we have made available for projects related to climate change, much of which will benefit people living in cities and there is more.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance knows that money is spread so far and so thin into the future that it reminds me of the minister's answer.

The money announced yesterday does not buy a kilometre of subway in Toronto. It is half the money for Halifax harbour. There is a $57 billion infrastructure deficit in this country.

What does the minister think Vancouver should do with its share of the infrastructure budget, its $50,000? That is what each community gets. What should Vancouver do with its 50 grand?

[The Speaker]

I am not sure that the question has to do with the administrative responsibilities of the government, but since the member has asked the minister to speculate, perhaps we can allow the question in the circumstances.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think once again the hon. member has a strange view of the Canadian Constitution.

What we have done is we have established over the last nine years a practice of investing in municipal infrastructure with the cooperation of the provinces and municipalities. In doing that, we have set the bar for provinces to make the necessary investments that they should be making in the case of municipalities which are clearly within their jurisdiction.

What we have seen in each province is a response to that, which has seen the money we have put in leveraged again and again into increased projects that would otherwise--

[The Speaker]

The right hon. member for Calgary Centre.

Ethics

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Until 1994 the rules on blind trusts prohibited absolutely cabinet ministers from personally intervening in any discussion or decision making that may affect assets held in that blind trust.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that he changed those rules to allow personal interventions by ministers and will he tell the House why he changed those rules?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would like first to take the compliment on behalf of the Minister of Finance that the leader of the fifth party had no question on the budget.

I gave the explanation yesterday. There are circumstances like that. The arrangement made was to make sure that the former Minister of Finance could do his job as Minister of Finance and have the trustee run his company and to make sure that he would be briefed from time to time, as is normal when we have some assets. He was not managing the assets. The assets were managed by the trustee.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, so he can run the Department of Finance and CSL at the same time.

Yesterday the Prime Minister referred to the code of conduct guide for ministers. The code says, “Ministers and Secretaries of State are held accountable by the Prime Minister for their adherence to the code's provisions”.

Is it the Prime Minister's position that he has been fully briefed on all the relevant details of his former finance minister's dealings with Canada Steamship Lines? Will the Prime Minister guarantee personally that the letter and the spirit of the code of conduct were followed at all times in--

[The Speaker]

The right hon. Prime Minister.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, blind management is blind for the person who is the minister. It is blind for me and it is blind for the people. When it is to be protected to not affect the operation of the government, it would not have been wise for me to be briefed on the operation of CSL. It was not my business. It was a family business run by trustees in the interest of the company and the Minister of Finance of the day who was doing his job properly without any conflict of interest.

The Budget

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in nine years the former finance minister ripped a cumulative $29 billion in 2002 dollars from the defence budget. To fix the problem the House of Commons committee recommended putting back $5 billion per year by 2005.

We are talking about the safety of Canadian citizens and the security of our nation, yet the government committed less than 20% of what the House of Commons committee said we would need. Why?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, early in my days as defence minister I received advice from the current military leadership, as opposed to retired military people, that there was a budget shortfall of $936 million. Little did I know at the time but the government had the wisdom to wipe out this gap with a stroke of the pen in a single year. There is no more gap.

Now that the objective has been achieved, we are on a path of reallocation and making difficult choices to build the military of the future.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at least today the defence minister is acknowledging that $29 billion is the right figure. That is some progress, but the Canadian Alliance has called for $2 billion to be added this year to the defence budget base.

The House of Commons committee and the Senate committee have asked for substantial increases in defence spending and yet the government continues to add just a small portion of what the parliamentary committees have called for.

The government has shown that defence spending is a low priority and it is not willing to commit to what the House defence committee and the Senate committee have called for. Why?