Debates of Sept. 17th, 2003

Agriculture

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, we have spent $560 million between the federal government and the provincial governments since June. There are hundreds of millions of dollars available in the programs that we have for the farmers. That money can flow to the farmers in interim payments as soon as the signatures are there to allow it to flow.

The United States, Mexico and other countries have recognized the food safety system that we have in Canada. These countries have begun to open their borders. The United States is expediting the process to open its border to live cattle under 30 months of age. We will continue working with all those countries.

Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, even though the Minister of Finance acknowledged that he cannot start preparing his next budget without knowing the next Prime Minister's point of view, the Liberal members who dominate the Standing Committee on Finance objected to the member for LaSalle—Émard appearing before the committee. The minister prefers to speak to business people anyway. In his words, that is the democratic deficit.

In this context, will the Minister of Finance prefer to concoct his budget in secret with the next Prime Minister, or will he be transparent and welcome his comments as part of the pre-budget consultation process?

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

Mr. Speaker, during the meetings that began this week, the Standing Committee on Finance has already started preparing for the next budget.

Furthermore, later this fall, as usual, I will present the programs and the state of our finances. The Department of Finance will be ready to table a budget in the winter or earlier, if necessary.

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

Mr. Speaker, in anticipation of the budget, the current Prime Minister is recommending that the federal government invest heavily, especially in Quebec jurisdictions.

Will the Minister of Finance consult his future boss to find out whether he agrees with such an encroachment strategy, which has been made possible by the massive cuts imposed on Quebec and the provinces by the former Minister of Finance and next Prime Minister?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is very respectful of provincial jurisdictions. The hon. member would not be able to give a single example of encroachment.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the reign of the last finance minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, the well-known tax haven of Barbados became the third ranking destination, just behind the United States and the United Kingdom, for direct Canadian investments abroad, at over $23 billion.

Does the Minister of Finance plan to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor and allow Canadian corporations to continue to take advantage of tax shelters, like the five major banks that have thus avoided having to pay some $2 billion in taxes, or will he put an end to the use of these tax dodges so that all taxpayers are treated fairly?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well aware that we have reduced the burden on the taxpayer by $100 billion over five years. All Canadians have benefited from that decision.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the former finance minister had a lot to say about tax havens but did nothing about them. His companies, however, used them to great advantage.

Does the present finance minister plan to perpetuate this laissez-faire attitude or does he plan to side with the Auditor General, who has spoken out against the erosion of the tax base, a direct result of the use of these tax havens?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have answered this question on a number of occasions here in this House. It is clear that we have treaties with other countries that affect taxation levels. This has been studied often. Since 1993 we have introduced measures aimed at reducing taxes. We also have treaties to protect the levels of taxation on Canadian companies with connections to these other countries.

Agriculture

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there should be no greater priority in the country right now for the government than addressing the BSE crisis and getting the border open. It has been 120 days since the nightmare began. The government has been ineffective and unable to get the border open.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister if the government is willing to participate in a non-partisan effort to send a delegation to Washington with stakeholders to get the border open for Canadian cattle.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that there has been no priority of greater significance to the government.

Since the outbreak of BSE we have been trying to deal with the crisis that was created. Let us understand that it is not the Canadian border that is closed. The Canadian border is open. It is the borders of our partners in trade that are closed.

At every level of the government, the Minister of Agriculture, the Prime Minister, myself and other counter-colleagues have dealt with our counterparts again and again. We have met with some success but more is sought. We will not rest until the border is open.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, where was the Deputy Prime Minister, where was the House leader, where was the Prime Minister and where was the agriculture minister a few hours ago when farmers from the Ottawa valley gathered on the front lawn of Parliament? They wanted to hear from their representatives. They wanted to hear from the government.

What exactly is the plan? What is being done to open the border? Why were there no representatives of the Liberal Party on the steps of Parliament to answer to the people they are supposed to represent?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the Liberal Party was nor where we will be. We told that group yesterday that we would meet with them, the rural caucus and myself, this afternoon. We will meet with representatives later this afternoon. We have done that all along and we will continue.

As far as opening the border, the hon. member should recognize what our industry has done, what our food inspection agency has done and what members on all sides of the House have done. They have pointed out to the United States, and Canadians have said, that Canadian beef is safe. It is the first time in history that any non-BSE country has opened up to a product from a BSE country. I guess they forgot that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the mark of a good Minister of Agriculture is that we should be able to find a certain substance on his boots, not in what he said when he gets up in the House of Commons.

The fact is that the Minister of Agriculture was a no-show today and has been a no-show all summer for the people in the cattle industry.

Therefore I will address my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. When is the government going to get it and do something for farmers instead of just resting until the border is open?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member is saying that $300 million on top of the other support that is there for Canadian farmers is a small amount of money.

Certainly we know they would like more. There are hundreds of millions of dollars more that the government wants to move to Canadian farmers but we must have the legal authority to do so.

I have had the signing authority since April to do that for the provinces and for the producers in the provinces. Let us use that money up. We have partially opened the borders to Canada and Mexico and some other countries. Their borders are closed and they are the ones that need to open them. We have shown them the science and they are reacting.

Infrastructure

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

What we hear when we do not have a shovel, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It has to do with the advice that his boss, the Prime Minister, is giving to the future prime minister with respect to cities and the need to invest in cities.

I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister of Finance and successor to the former minister of finance whether he agrees with the advice that the Prime Minister is giving to the future prime minister and, if so, can we expect to see something from this current Minister of Finance for cities?

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

Mr. Speaker, not only do we expect to continue to support the cities in the future but we have been supporting the cities and municipalities in the past, starting with the municipal infrastructure program in 1994, building on it year after year, up to and including the last budget which included a $3 billion increase in the amount of support for municipal infrastructure in Canada; more money for housing, more money to support cities in the necessities that they face in providing services to their people on a daily basis.

Voyageur Colonial Pension Fund

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like the finance minister to think very carefully before he answers these questions.

According to OSFI, the failure of the Voyageur pension plan was “the first failure of a federally-supervised pension plan involving significant loss” in history. Hundreds of bus drivers have been shortchanged by this disaster.

I would say that the former finance minister obviously has some explaining to do but, for now, I want to ask this finance minister the following question. Why has he refused to investigate what appears to be a direct conflict of interest involving his predecessor?

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member has recently returned to the front bench as critic for finance and I welcome him there, but I hope that he can find more substantial questions than that to pose.

OSFI is an independent entity. It deals with pension plans under authority given to it by Parliament. It is never appropriate for the finance minister to comment on any individual pension plan. The duty of OSFI is to protect the interest of pensioners and it does it independently.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the finance minister that this question goes right to the integrity of the government. It goes to the integrity of the former finance minister. It is very relevant.

These are the facts. OSFI ordered an audit of the pension plan but after the former finance minister's staff met with OSFI the audit was secretly altered.

Why has the finance minister refused to investigate what has the appearance of a direct conflict of interest involving his predecessor? What is the problem?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is making groundless allegations. He is attempting to create a scandal where none exists. The fact is that the independence of OSFI is not something that is subject to the whim of a finance minister. The independence of OSFI is founded in legislation.

If he has a problem with how the superintendent of financial institutions has conducted his responsibilities, then let him take it up in the appropriate parliamentary committee.

Gasoline Tax

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, the finance minister's predecessor reduced the tax burden of oil companies by more than $250 million while, on the other hand, maintaining the 1.5¢ increase in the excise tax on gasoline, which was designed to eliminate the deficit. The fact is that since the deficit was eliminated, this tax has allowed the government to rake in at least $2.8 billion.

Now that the deficit is gone, will the Minister of Finance eliminate this tax for which there is no longer any justification, or does he plan to maintain it and go along with a strategy put in place by his predecessor?

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

First, Mr. Speaker, it should be pointed out that the public debt is made up of accumulated deficits. That still exists.

Second, in 2000, we made a decision as a government to reduce the tax burden by $100 billion. This was a very significant tax cut. At the time, it was clear that the other taxes would be maintained. So, there was a tax cut. We have to accept that.

We supported the decision to cut income taxes.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister chose to reduce the tax liabilities of oil companies instead of helping consumers, who are being hit with one gasoline price hike after another. Is the Minister of Finance going to maintain the policy developed by his predecessor, who was more concerned with the major oil companies than with consumers and the disadvantaged?

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

Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why the hon. member does not get it. A $100 billion cut over five years applies to everyone. It benefits all taxpayers. This is the most significant tax cut in the history of this country. So, everyone benefits from this tax cut.