Debates of Feb. 19th, 2003

The Budget

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

Mr. Speaker, it is the sixties and seventies all over again. There are anti-war protestors in the streets, there is talk of decriminalizing marijuana, and there is a free-spending Liberal government in Ottawa. The Prime Minister must be having a flashback.

Why did the Prime Minister fail to warn the finance minister not to make the same mistakes he made when he was finance minister in the 1970s and just say no to Liberal largesse?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, no, I did not ask him not to give money to the poor children. I did not ask the Minister of Finance not to give money to the environment. I did not say to the Minister of Finance, do not invest in infrastructure that will be useful.

We have run the country very well over the last ten years. We are the only G-7 country still having a surplus and we do what we have to do. When we have money we help the poor, not the rich.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the air tax is down but it still--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I know hon. members have suggestions for the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for his question, but I think he has his own question and we will want to hear it. The hon. member has the floor.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last year the Liberals imposed the $24 air tax and admitted to doing so without doing any impact study whatsoever on the air industry. The $24 amount was picked right out of the sky without any economic background done on it. As a result, fewer Canadians are flying, communities are losing service and people have lost their jobs.

My question: Why was the new tax rate amount chosen without any new background studies done on its impact on the air industry?

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

Mr. Speaker, the rate is set based upon the costs of the additional air security measures that are being adopted. As was made clear yesterday in the budget, as well as in the documents we circulated in November, the ability to reduce the tax is based on the fact that we are moving to a full accrual accounting system, which will enable us to apportion the cost over the life of the assets being acquired.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

So, Mr. Speaker, no study was done.

Increased rail security: no rail tax. Increased port security: no port tax. Increased border security: no border tax. Increased marine security: no marine tax. For some reason, the Liberal government sees fit to tax the air industry for air security but not any other industry at all.

My question is for the transport minister. Why does the government insist on taxing, unfairly, the air industry for a security regime that it does not impose on any other industry? Why does the government insist on hammering the air industry?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will take that this is a representation by the member that he wishes us to increase the taxes in other sectors in order to pay more of those costs.

He will know that there are already user charges that apply to other transportation sectors. He knows that the additional measures that were adopted after September 11, 2001, in the aviation sector were designed directly to provide greater security to the passengers who use the service. It was appropriate in that case to have the users pay the costs of the additional security.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while 7 out of 10 provinces expect a deficit for this fiscal year, the Minister of Finance is piling surplus upon surplus, and is even managing to conceal his surplus funds. He is pocketing taxpayers' dollars to meet needs that are not really there.

Is this not the best possible proof that there is indeed fiscal imbalance, or in other words that there are provincial governments without enough money to meet their responsibilities, while the federal government has to invent expenditures in order to justify its actions?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always easy to bring up fiscal imbalance when there is a surplus. When there is a federal deficit, however, there is never any mention of it.

We know that the level of provincial indebtedness is always less than that of the federal government. We also know that, when we do have money to spend, on the École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe for instance, the hon. member may then think it is a good idea.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is forgetting that the money is not his, it is the taxpayers'. Incidentally, a large part of that money comes from Quebec.

The minister is also forgetting that there is, when it comes down to it, only the one set of taxpayers. This year, given the Minister of Finance's surplus, it would have been easy for him to reduce federal taxes so as to allow the provinces to raise theirs, and thus to be able to finance their own initiatives within their own areas of jurisdiction, namely health, education and some other areas, without squeezing money out of the one and only taxpayer, who has to bear the brunt of the federal government's bungling.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is going to act within those areas of responsibility that come under its jurisdiction. We are going to make the investments Canadians want us to make for children in families of modest means, the environment, the Canadian Forces, infrastructure, and health. This is our responsibility. At our level of government, we are going to do what needs to be done.

Ethics

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague really wanted was a complete removal of the transportation tax, totally.

I will go back to the issue of blind trusts. Canada's ethics counsellor, speaking in Australia back in February 1999, said, and I quote:

In a nutshell, you can be a personally active investor or you can be a Cabinet minister. You cannot be both.

Now that the Prime Minister knows that the former finance minister had numerous meetings with officials in his big company, does he still think that qualifies as a blind trust?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the former minister of finance was not investing. He had invested a long time before he became a minister. When we become ministers we are not asked to forget our assets and our responsibilities vis-à-vis our family. We make sure that there is no conflict of interest. The guidelines have been drafted accordingly and the former minister of finance has respected the guidelines.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess it was the same thing in Shawinigan and is the same thing with CSL.

A blind trust is supposed to prevent a cabinet minister from having personal knowledge about his companies. We now know that there were significant meetings with CSL officials.

So I ask the question again, as I did not get an answer: Does the Prime Minister still hold that that arrangement qualifies as a blind trust? Because I do not.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I explained yesterday that having personal assets is not like having shares in a bank or in a company. It was a family company, and it could not be split. He had to receive reports about only one company, and it was the company that was his. That is what arrangement was made, but the management of these assets was done by trustees, and when there was a meeting, officials in charge of that for the government were always present to make sure that there was to be no conflict of interest.

The Budget

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Last night's budget actually addressed a number of--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order. We have to be able to hear the question. The hon. member for Parkdale--High Park has the floor. I know hon. members are trying to be helpful, with other questions suggested, but I am sure she has one in mind.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while the budget last night addressed many of the major priorities of Canadians, notably absent from the finance minister's speech was a mention of any additional funding for the CBC.

Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage confirm that the CBC will receive in its 2003-04 fiscal year the additional $60 million that it has received in the last two years?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order. I know the Minister of Canadian Heritage is a popular minister. However, we have to be able to hear her answer.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, may I thank the member for Parkdale—High Park for not only an excellent question but an excellent contribution as the parliamentary secretary and one of those who worked so hard to support public broadcasting in the country. I want to thank my friend and colleague, the Minister of Finance, and the Prime Minister, for making sure that new funding to the CBC is indeed in the fiscal framework.

Canada-U.S. Border

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is constantly playing catch-up with Americans on security issues. The U.S. recently passed new regulations prohibiting non-Americans from driving commercial vehicles carrying explosive materials. This unilateral action affects hundreds of legitimate Canadian truck drivers and the government was unaware of the change until after it had been implemented.

When is the government going to take some proactive steps before more Canadians lose their jobs?