House of Commons Hansard #28 of the 37th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.
Monte Solberg Canadian Alliance Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, over nine years the Prime Minister put over $300 million into the national unity reserve, supposedly without even knowing it. In denying knowledge of the fund, he is saying that he lost track of a third of $1 billion.
Why would Canadians trust him to fix spending problems when, by his own admission, he was incompetent on the file?
Reg Alcock LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, it is--
The BudgetOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order. The hon. member for Medicine Hat has to be able to hear the answer. The President of the Treasury Board has the floor.
Reg Alcock Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what they are afraid of.
It is interesting to hear that party complain about transparency and openness when we still do not know who has been financing the leadership campaigns of their leader.
When it comes now to the unity fund, all of the transactions have been reported. It has been funding things like Terry Fox, Canada Day. They have been reported through the departments and reported to public accounts. I am not sure what the concern is.
Monte Solberg Canadian Alliance Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, I guess the other possibility is that the Prime Minister knew about this fund all along and just did not want to admit it. After all, a number of Liberal MPs obviously knew about it because they were accessing this fund.
Which was it? Was the Prime Minister shifty or was he dopey?
Reg Alcock LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, it was a fund that was identified in the departmental estimates. It was a fund that was distributed to departments to pay for things like Terry Fox, like the Forum of Federations, worthy public events like Canada Day. This is not a big secret.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, barely a week ago, the Prime Minister was telling us “never again”, yet he has quickly returned to old habits. His government has once again underestimated the extent of the federal surplus. As a result, the budget includes no new transfer payment for health care in Quebec.
Will the Prime Minister admit that, far from being over, the scandal of the concealed surplus funds, which he himself initiated, is still going on, at the expense of health care?
Paul Martin LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois must be aware of the commitment I made with the provincial premiers in January to hold an extraordinary meeting this summer with them, in order to discuss with the ministers of health and of finance the entire issue of health funding. It is precisely for this reason that the Minister of Finance has given us the financial leeway.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, it would be hard to say there is no financial leeway, when nothing is earmarked for health. It is hard to give less than nothing. That is why the Quebec finance minister, Mr. Séguin, tells us the $2 billion was from Jean Chrétien, not this government.
Why is the Prime Minister not putting health ahead of political gain at the expense of those in need of health care in Quebec? Why has he given nothing?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, there will be no more playing politics. We have invested $500 million in public health, which will allow us to make improvements, including in Quebec. The $2 billion figure has been confirmed. What we made absolutely clear in this responsible budget, for which I congratulate the Minister of Finance, is the presence of the financial leeway to allow us to work with the provinces on a plan for reform, with the financial resources to ensure the long term viability of our health care system.
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Quebec Minister of Finance said that this budget illustrates a different page of the museum of horrors on the fiscal imbalance. The person who made that comment is not a sovereignist: he is the Quebec Minister of Finance, a federalist and a Liberal.
How can the government continue to deny the existence of the fiscal imbalance when its negative impact on health and education is condemned not only by a federalist Liberal minister in Quebec, but by all the provinces?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, allow me to say that this wonderful surplus, the seventh one in seven consecutive budgets, is absolutely necessary and also benefits Quebec as well as all the other provinces. This surplus allows everyone to enjoy lower interest rates.
In the specific case of Quebec, I will say one thing. Mr. Séguin made five requests relating to equalization. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, reacted positively to each of these five requests concerning the equalization formula, which includes property taxes.
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Health just said is false. Quebec finance minister Séguin condemned the equalization formula as proposed unilaterally by the government opposite. The federal government is acting irresponsibly. While Ottawa is accumulating surpluses—as we were just told—the provinces and Quebec are forced to get into debt, to borrow money to provide health and education services to the public.
Can the Liberal government understand that this fiscal imbalance means that the provinces have to borrow money and get into debt, while Ottawa is lining its pockets at the expense of public health?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I can say that I am much prouder of our management of public finances than that of the PQ, which forced the Société générale de financement to get into debt, not to mention what it did to the Caisse de dépôt and Oxygène 9. These are friends of Raymond Bréard and of the people who are trying to lecture us in this House.
Mr. Séguin, Quebec's Minister of Finance, made five requests regarding the equalization program. He asked us to spread this year's shortfall over a five year period and we agreed to do that. For the first time in 15 years, we have been able to integrate the property tax equalization formula—
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, we in the NDP have always maintained that the real united right is the Liberal Party. It does not surprise us that the Leader of the Opposition is having fantasies about crossing the floor, or that the Prime Minister is welcoming him, because given the excessive conservative nature of the budget, this all makes sense.
I ask the Prime Minister, can he tell us why, given the surplus, there is no mention of the Romanow report in the budget? There is no long term health care funding improvement. There is nothing for home care. There is nothing for pharmacare. There is nothing for any of the things that Roy Romanow recommended. Could the Prime Minister tell us why he has chosen to do it this way?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, there are enormous numbers of pressures in health care that need to be dealt with. The Prime Minister has indicated he is working in a process with the premiers on sustainability that includes both extra financing and reform to the system.
I am very pleased to say that in terms of the way we are proceeding forward, we have today the endorsement of the Hon. Roy Romanow.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, my question, like my first question, is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has made a big deal about how Canadians need to get to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal before we have an election. Can he tell us why Canadians should be expected to go to the polls without the Prime Minister telling us what his long term intention is for the long term funding of health care in this country?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, as a result of the health care accord, we put in $35 billion. As a result of the commitment made last year, we added $2 billion. The total is $37 billion over the next five years. It is escalating at the rate of 8% per year, which is faster than the growth in the economy overall.
We have indicated we want to work with the provinces on the issue of sustainability. Sustainability involves both money and reform. The two need to go together. The first ministers will meet this summer to deal with exactly that issue.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, there are direct contradictions between the witness accounts over Alfonso Gagliano's time and tenure at public works: the number of times Mr. Gagliano met with Mr. Guité; their relationship; topics of discussion that took place at the meetings; who else was present; and all relevant and pertinent information that took place during that time to uncover the truth about ad scam.
Why did the Liberals veto a motion that would have allowed us to get the pertinent information that the Prime Minister promised? Is the real story that he knows the truth will lead to his door?
Mauril Bélanger LiberalDeputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, of the five motions passed by public accounts yesterday, three were from opposition members and the Liberal members supported them. The commitment from this government is steady. We will provide the pertinent information as requested by the committee, which is the master of its own destiny. We have been providing that information and we will continue to do so.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, the two motions that were voted down were from the opposition. Yesterday, the Prime Minister accused the chair of the public accounts committee of stalling tactics. The truth of the matter is, it is the Prime Minister and his members who are dragging their feet and running interference in the process. Further evidence of insincerity includes the fact that the Prime Minister's public inquiry is yet to begin, nor do we have any information about the independent counsel.
I ask the Prime Minister again, what is his fear factor? Will he unequivocally commit to getting to the bottom of ad scam before he calls an election?
Mauril Bélanger LiberalDeputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, we have a process in the House through the public accounts committee. We will respect the request for pertinent information from that committee, as we have in the past, and we will continue to do so.
Diane Ablonczy Canadian Alliance Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, it makes my blood boil to watch these underhanded Liberals betray Canadians over and over. Just yesterday the parliamentary committee was blocked from looking at Alfonso Gagliano's records of meetings and phone calls that he had with respect to the sponsorship program.
The Prime Minister pledged to Canadians to leave no stone unturned to get to the bottom of this, to get the truth, but his real agenda seems to be to hide the truth. Why did the Prime Minister betray Canadians so badly?