Debates of Feb. 24th, 2005

The Budget

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Joliette.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's budget speech delivered by the Minister of Finance illustrates the Liberal government's utter arrogance and contempt for people most in need. No new financial commitment has been made for social housing and there is nothing for the homeless either.

The Minister of Finance—with the Prime Minister's blessing and applause from his henchmen, including some from Quebec—will not budge and refuses to pay back the $3 billion his government diverted from the income supplement for low-income seniors.

To add insult to injury, this government proceeded with a set of virtual measures, which will not become reality for two, three or even five years.

The fine words speak of compassion, but the Prime Minister has proven himself to be a very dangerous driver. He signals left and then turns right. A sorry business indeed!

National Defence

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the government has managed to announce it is in missile defence and not in missile defence in the very same week.

We know the government agreed to participate in ballistic missile defence through the Norad amendment earlier. That is what Frank McKenna and others have admitted. What further participation is it that the Prime Minister said no to?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, on August 5 the government was very clear that it was going to ensure that Norad, which for 30 years was responsible for monitoring any incursions into North American airspace, would be allowed to continue that in its modern evolution and to provide that information to the United States. That is exactly what we have done.

What we have now said is that we are not prepared to participate in the evolution of BMD.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, we already know the government has agreed to participate in the information sharing in the first phase.

The Prime Minister has denied repeatedly that he has had proposals. He now wants the world to know he said no to something prior to the Liberal convention. Would he tell us precisely? If he is saying no to something, do us the honour of telling us exactly what it is that he said no to.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised to hear the Leader of the Opposition now reproaching this government for doing the Norad amendment.

We have done the Norad amendment because it is an institution which for 30 years has guaranteed the North American defence security. Now the Leader of the Opposition is standing in the House and reproaching us for doing the Norad amendment, sharing information that is going to be useful to the United States and useful to us.

Indeed, we have done the Norad amendment. We said in our communiqué quite clearly that the decision on BMD would be made later. It has been made today.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of decisiveness we get. We still do not know what they have said no to over there.

The Prime Minister had already said yes to missile defence under Norad. Today he is saying no to further participation.

Is the Prime Minister prepared to confirm there will be no more negotiations or discussions? Is this no final?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, as far as missile defence is concerned, this no is final.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Lanark, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's use of the word “no” is like Bill Clinton's use of the word “it”.

Regardless of what the Prime Minister now claims, we are irrevocably part of missile defence.

Recently the minister said it was “extremely dangerous for Canada to turn its back on missile defence”. How can the minister remain in cabinet and accept the fact that he has been hung out to dry?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say as the Minister of National Defence that based on yesterday's budget, the department received the largest increase in 20 years, and those members say it has been hung out to dry. If that is drying, I want to stay really dry.

It is a great budget. It is sending a signal that we are ready. We have a foundation to build on to increase our forces to be a great ally to the United States. We can deal with all issues with the Americans because they know that we are credible and ready to go on defence matters in North America and elsewhere in the world.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Lanark, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we will see how dry he is this afternoon after I get through with the budget.

The minister prepared the groundwork for joining ballistic missile defence, both in his current position and in his previous one.

Recently he said, “I think Canada will regret it if we do not participate”. Would the minister advise how he can remain in cabinet if he thinks that the Prime Minister has made a serious mistake?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I should certainly like to answer why the minister should stay in cabinet.

One of the reasons that we have been able to put the amount of money into defence and we have been able to develop the strategy that we have is the very hard work and the vision of the minister and the new chief of defence staff, and the concept, the vision and the understanding of defence in North America and around the world that Canada must play. I congratulate him for that.

The Budget

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's finance minister was very clear yesterday. He said, “This budget is disappointing for the Government of Quebec and for Quebeckers” because it does nothing to correct the fiscal imbalance, a reality the federal government continues to ignore.

Given that Ottawa has much too much money, that the agreements on health and equalization are clearly insufficient and that the needs are in Quebec, how does the Prime Minister explain that the federal budget fails to make a serious effort to correct the fiscal imbalance?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask the hon. member to look at what has been done. Over the next 10 years, $74 billion will be transferred to the provinces. When it comes to health care and equalization, Quebec is the biggest winner. The transfer payments for this year and next year will increase by $2.8 billion, for a total of $12 billion for Quebec alone.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit funny to hear the Prime Minister of a minority government talk about transfer payments over 10 years and tell us, after his sweet deals with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, that Quebec is the big winner when it comes to equalization.

The Quebec finance minister, Michel Audet, also said that, “this leeway, instead of serving to correct the fiscal imbalance, will be used to increase the number of federal interventions of all sorts”.

Instead of intruding in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, should the government not attack the fiscal imbalance to ensure that Quebec can make its own decisions about its priorities in its own areas of jurisdiction, according to its own responsibilities?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, my office and I communicated with the new minister of finance in Quebec both before and after the budget. The indication from the Quebec minister is that while there are some issues that Quebec wishes to pursue, Quebec believes this budget represents a step forward and it is a good basis upon which to build for the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has significant financial leeway because he has taken ample advantage of the fiscal imbalance. However, what taxpayers are getting in return is completely ridiculous.

How can the Minister of Finance justify the fact that his cuts to personal income tax represent only $1.33 per month in 2006, the cost of one litre of milk? One litre of milk per month is the gift the Minister of Finance is giving Quebec taxpayers. What a disgrace.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is addressing a number of the requirements of the provinces with respect to their fiscal requirements. We are increasing health care by $41 billion over the next 10 years. We are increasing equalization by $33 billion over the next 10 years. We are increasing our support for child care. We are increasing our support for cities and communities. We are increasing our support for infrastructure. We are increasing our support in a number of realms that will be most helpful to Quebeckers and to all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, that does not answer my question directly. He should have accepted the calculator I offered him last time because he cannot count. He is ashamed of his figures.

Checking the figures in the budget shows that personal income tax will continue to increase, year after year, until 2010.

How can the Minister of Finance explain the fact that personal income tax will increase an average of 7% per year until 2010, and that he has nothing better for Quebeckers than the cost of a litre of milk per month?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is just completing one five year tax reduction program that has achieved for all Canadians a cumulative tax cut of $100 billion. That is the effect as of 2004. For the average Canadian family of two children and $60,000 income, that represents a tax reduction over the last five years of 35%.

National Defence

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Could he tell us which is the bigger fraud: telling Canadians that he supported progressive values or telling this House that the decision on star wars had not been made when clearly it had been made?

It is not good enough to run like a New Democrat and then govern like a Tory, like we are seeing here. It is also not good enough to say in the House that no decision has been made while Condoleezza Rice has already been told what Canada will do.

Which is the bigger fraud, star wars or his new Tory budget?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it has never been a question of star wars. The hon. member has had a little difficulty with this. That has never been the issue. The issue is, would Canada participate in ballistic missile defence? The answer is, no.

The Budget

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely everybody knows that if we had a majority government in the last election, we would be in star wars all the way, and the Prime Minister would be saying so. Now what we have is a halfway picture where we are halfway in and halfway out, and nobody can figure out the dithering on this one.

What about progressive values? We have a budget that the Conservatives are in the streets celebrating, yet there is nothing for education. There are broken promises on the environment and on foreign aid.

How can he tell progressive voters he shares their values when his budget clearly does not?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if I may simply quote, “This budget represents a substantial shift in the government's approach to climate change. It's more forward looking. It's more directed toward tangible targets”. The hon. member asks how I will tell progressive members of the community what the government has done. I guess what I will do is cite Elizabeth May, the head of the Sierra Club of Canada.

National Defence

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our ambassador to be, Mr. McKenna, a capable man, is now nowhere to be found, somewhere in isolation, somewhere in the government's witness protection program, all because he told the truth; that we already are in the missile defence program.

Why would the Prime Minister undermine his would-be ambassador this way simply for telling the truth?