Debates of April 22nd, 2005

Committees of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be the first to admit in a totally non-partisan way that there are some minor things in this budget plan 2005 that I would agree with, albeit, as I noted in my speech to the budget, all of them tend to be three, four, or five years down the road. That is very disconcerting and discouraging for taxpayers that are and have been waiting a long time now for tax relief.

I have pointed this out many times in this chamber. As I travel across the country, what is a surplus to a Liberal is overtaxation to a Conservative. It is pretty basic and it comes down to that.

I saw the Minister of Finance rise in his place and give an off-the-cuff, eloquent defence of his budget for 20 minutes. He talked about the changes and tax relief. Let us take a look at that, right from his own document. The basic personal amount will be increased over a five year period as follows: $100 in 2006, an additional $100 in 2007, $400 in 2008, and $600 in 2009.

I ask the Minister of Finance a simple question on behalf of overtaxed Canadians, especially those whom I am always honoured and privileged to represent in Prince George--Peace River. What would lead him to believe that we, the Canadian people, should leave this corrupt government in power for eight more days, let alone eight more months, and not give them substantial tax relief now?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the provisions that he refers to are just part of the tax relief measures that are included in the budget, but even the ones that he referred to will add up, over the five year implementation period, to tax relief for ordinary Canadians of $7.1 billion. That is not insignificant. When they are fully implemented, those tax measures will take 860,000 of the lowest income taxpayers off the tax rolls all together.

Included among those who will receive this benefit, there are 240,000 senior citizens. Those senior citizens are largely single, elderly women living alone. Therefore, there are benefits that flow from the tax measures. All of these too come on top of $100 billion in tax reductions that we have implemented over the last five years.

I am very proud to say that since we balanced the books in 1997, in every budget we have reduced the tax burden on Canadians and we intend to continue to move in that direction.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a substantive question about the direction of the government. The government promises to spend at least $5 billion on a day care bureaucracy. Experts in the field, advocates who support this plan, actually say it will cost ultimately $10 billion a year to bring in a fully institutionalized day care bureaucracy, the kind the government is ultimately promising. That is $10 billion per year which is a massive cost for Canadian parents through higher taxes.

Why will the government not have the modesty to just give those child care dollars directly to parents, so that they can make their own decisions as to what is in the best interests for their own children?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard this argument from not only other members of the opposition but other Canadians, and indeed, I have listened to that argument very carefully.

We want a system, in terms of supporting families and children, that is equitable to all concerned. That is why, when we implemented our tax cuts over the last six or seven years, we have focused on families with children. I will do the calculation between questions and come back with the exact arithmetic, but the largest portion of the benefit of those tax reductions up to now has flowed to families with children, particularly low income families.

We recognize that need to bring down that tax burden and thereby leave more flexibility in the hands of those families to make their child care decisions. However, at the same time, the national system of child care is clearly underdeveloped. We need more spaces. We need more skilled workers who are properly positioned to provide the kind of duties that they are called upon to perform.

We want a system that is high quality, universal, affordable, accessible and developmental. That is what this $5 billion is for, and it is not instead of tax reductions but in addition to tax reductions.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite talks about child care and seniors. The women's caucus of the Liberal Party worked for two years to ensure we had a good increase for seniors. The bulk of unattached seniors are women who are living in poverty, who cannot pay rent, who cannot buy medicine, and who cannot buy food. We are talking about basic survival. The GIS increase helps seniors, especially female seniors in our society.

Regarding children, we worked for a long time, for 10 years, to get provinces to agree on a child care program. In 2000 we had the early education program with $2.2 billion. Now we finally have an early education program that is national, with $700 million and then $5 billion.

Tax cuts to individuals do not build infrastructure. It is like saying, “Give me a $300 tax cut for health care”, but then who builds the hospital? Who knows? Who gets the equipment? Who knows? We need infrastructure. Early education and care is fundamental to give every child equal opportunities.

I want to ask the Minister of Finance to tell me today, what will happen to those seniors and children if this budget does not pass?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the budget that we presented on February 23 was intended to do a number of things. It was intended to reflect largely the advice of the finance committee, which it did. It was intended to reflect the consultation that I held with literally hundreds of Canadians across the country and all of the provincial governments. It was intended to reflect the priorities of Canadians as they had stated them directly to me.

Canadians have said very clearly that they want to see improvements in the support systems for senior citizens. That is why in the election last summer we made our commitment to increase the GIS to bring back the new horizons program and to establish a national seniors secretariat. All of those investments will cost $2.7 billion. It is important for those investments to be approved by this House so that program can go forward.

It is absolutely clear that our country will not have an adequate child care program unless the provisions contained in this budget are allowed to proceed. That is not just my view. I would quote ministers of social services and family services across the country, including the Hon. Joanne Crofford, from my own province of Saskatchewan, who has said the social measures in this budget are among the most progressive that she has ever seen.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had two questions, but the minister was kind enough to respond to the first question of GIS with respect to seniors.

I was elected in the greatest city of Toronto. A strong city makes for a strong province and a strong country. I know he has been speaking with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. My second question is, what are we doing with the city of Toronto and other cities, and what are the mayors saying because they need support? What has the minister done in the budget with respect to cities?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to defer to my colleague, the minister responsible for cities and communities.

We have in the last two budgets taken some very bold initiatives. We have provided a 100% rebate of the GST to all municipalities on all their purchases. That is worth $700 million per year to the municipalities of this country.

Second, we have taken the existing infrastructure programs and we have condensed them, particularly the municipal and rural program, from what used to be 10 years, down to 5 years so the money will flow more quickly.

When the budget gets passed, we will be begin to share the gas tax. That will amount to a huge new flow of long term predictable revenue to municipalities.

Let me just make two quick points. All of this is in addition to our existing infrastructure programs. Our intention is that funding will be ongoing permanently and it will be there for the municipalities of this country to rely on.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to split my time with the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl and to make a few comments on this issue.

I have to pick up on one of the things the Minister of Finance said about the gas tax money for the cities. I have to say that this is one of the most disappointing things that I can remember in public policy announcements in the last couple of years.

A little over two years ago I was in Winnipeg when the Federation of Canadian Municipalities held a meeting. The Prime Minister, who was the finance minister at the time, made an announcement about gas money for the cities. I thought it was a great idea because the municipalities could use more funding as they are underfunded and the provinces are underfunded. This was in the spring of 2003.

The spring became the summer, the summer became the fall and the government made another announcement that it would move toward giving gas tax money to the cities. However 2003 became 2004 and still no cheques were in the hands of the municipalities.

This then became part of the Liberal platform for the 2004 election. I thought we would wait to see what kind of progress would be made. The election of 2004 came and went, the summer became the fall and then we heard another announcement. My problem with all this is that we cannot eat announcements, which is all we seem to get.

I want to know where the cheques are. When will the cheques finally be put in the mail, or will this be an announcement for the next election? Let me guess.

[An hon. member]

It sounds like it.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

That is right. Part of the unveiling of the election campaign for the Liberal Party will be that it is going to give money to the municipalities. The municipalities have been waiting months and seasons and will probably have to wait years to get it. That is the problem I have with all announcements.

I remember almost 30 years ago when a former Liberal prime minister said that he wanted to do something about the marijuana laws in this country. He wanted to decriminalize or legalize marijuana. For Heaven's sake, it was 30 years ago. I disagreed with it then and I still disagree with it.

What happens is that this is announced by every Liberal government. In fact, one voter told me that he was voting for the Liberals because they were going to legalize marijuana. I told him that he would have to vote for the Liberals all his life because they just keep announcing it but nothing ever happens with it.

Quite apart from the problems that the Liberals think they are having with their agenda, that bill has moved through the system and we in the official opposition oppose it. This is part of the government's agenda. I disagree with it but it is one of the government's hallmarks, one of the centrepieces of the 38th Parliament, that it will bring in marijuana legislation and move it forward. However nothing ever quite happens.

It is like the money for the cities. The cheque never gets sent. That is the problem with all these announcements.

The minister talked about the day care provisions. We do not agree with what they are doing. I suppose the great thing about opposing it is that nothing ever happens. I was asked in the 2004 election what I thought about the Liberal day care proposal and I said that about the same as I thought about the last three or four times the Liberals put it in their platform. More money for day care goes back to 1993.

[An hon. member]

1988.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Does it go back to 1988? I stand corrected. The Liberals started promising more money in 1988 and thank goodness they did not form the government that year. However it was certainly part of their platform in 1993 and again in 1997, 2000 and 2004. Has anybody ever seen a dime?

The only expense has been setting up the press conferences and putting out the coffee and cookies for these announcements. The only thing we get are announcements on day care and other things.

The Liberals say that they are moving ahead on these things and then we wait and wait. They get buried somewhere and become part of the Liberal platform for the next election. They will have their hands full because they have a lot of explaining to do.

One of the things I want to hear them explain, which I did not hear earlier when I raised this matter, is the whole question of organization in the Liberal Party with respect to the elections in the province of Quebec. This is one of the most disgraceful things that has come to light in our democracy in a long time.

Hon. members complain and say that they want to wait for Mr. Justice Gomery's report. I want to tell the House that it is not members of the Conservative Party or the New Democratic Party making these accusations. What is fascinating about this is that it is the Liberals own organizers who are making the allegations on all of these things.

One of the things that has become very clear in all of this is the corruption that exists within the Liberal Party and specifically how it conducted the election campaign in the province of Quebec.

I want to say what is very disappointing about this. I have been involved in public life in this country for many years. People have said to me that it was too bad my party did not do better in Quebec. They would ask me why we did not elect some candidates in Quebec because it would help our party. I agreed with them.

However, after hearing the testimony that came out this past week, I have to ask what chance honest candidates in the Conservative Party have in running when the fix is in. We would be running against a corrupt political machine. The Liberals can bleat, they can blare, they can cough and they can yell but they cannot get away from it. The Liberals have put together a corrupt political machine and that is a disgrace.

The Prime Minister says that he wants the election in eight months. The Bloc Québécois and the NDP have already voted for an election. It has only been the Conservative Party that has not made a move on this. The Liberals want the election in the middle of winter in the middle of a snow storm. They would like to have it on another planet, no doubt about that. Somewhere else, some other time, is what the Liberals want. They have already told Canadians that they want the election. Members of the New Democratic Party and the Bloc have already voted against the government. They have made it plain that they want an election.

However when the election does come we will be very vigilant. The same tricks, the corruption, the misused money, the cash under the table, the cash on top of the table, those kinds of things will not work again. Our honest candidates from coast to coast will be carrying the message that this country is greater than the Liberal Party and all of its corruption. We will prevail I am quite sure of that.

I want to emphasize that this is sworn testimony, not just members of the opposition coming up with this. It is their own members, their own organizers, their own activists who have taken an oath. This is all in public. They can laugh but Canadians will have the last laugh on those people, and it may come sooner as opposed to later.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the government wants Canadians to be in a position to make a judgment on the political process and they will be able to do that with all the facts before them once Judge Gomery has been allowed to produce his report.

I would like to ask the hon. gentleman about his comments with respect to cities, communities and municipalities. I wonder what he would say to Mayor MacLean from Nova Scotia who is the president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, or Mayor Campbell from Vancouver, or Mayor Fiacco from Regina, or Mayor Miller from Toronto, or Minister Sorbara from the province of Ontario, or Minister Audet from the province of Quebec, all of whom have said that the new deal for communities is welcome, that this is not just a new deal, it is a real deal. It is in the budget. It is before the House at this very moment.

Why, on behalf of all of those municipalities, will the opposition not allow it to happen?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I would ask those mayors what they would rather have. Would they rather have a plan by a new government, a Conservative government, where they might actually see some improvement in their financial situation or would they prefer another decade of promises from the Liberals?

I have a feeling that I know the answer. The hon. Minister of Finance talks about the minister of finance from Ontario. I can tell the minister what Mr. McGuinty, the premier of Ontario, says. He says Ontario has not been getting a fair deal from this government. He says this government is out of touch and, in particular, the Prime Minister is “out of touch” with the electorate of Ontario. That is not a Conservative talking. That is not a New Democratic. That is not somebody else; that is a member of his own party.

That is the problem the Liberals have. The Liberal premier of Ontario is unhappy with what this Liberal government has done.

Why does the minister not take Mr. McGuinty up on his offer to meet and talk about this? This province of Ontario is a great province. I am very proud to be one of Ontario's members here and it concerns me when I see the comments of the premier of Ontario in which he says how out of touch this Prime Minister is. Members can check it out. It was right there on the front page of the Toronto Star . I am not the one making it up. The Toronto Star has taken these comments by the premier of Ontario and I find it very unfortunate.

I would say to the Minister of Finance to get on the phone, sit down with the premier of Ontario, see what he has to say and see if it can be worked out.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member what he will say to the mayor of Niagara Falls when he attempts to explain why, in last month's Conservative policy convention, a motion to share a portion of the gas tax for public infrastructure was voted down?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell him and all mayors and provinces that they will not get the empty rhetoric they have been hearing from this government for the last 11 years, because that will be the very first change to take place with a new Conservative government. When we put something on the table, they will know they can count on it. They will not be waiting for years checking their mail every day to see whether anything arrives. That is what has been most unfair about this government.

I know the members of the Liberal Party. Their strategists are somewhere saying, “Let's cook this up one more time. Let's trot it out for another election campaign”. But it did not sell very well last year and I do not think it is going to sell in the next election.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the member, who was part of the Mulroney fiasco for 10 years, could stand up and say that. As a former president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, I know that the government under Mulroney did nothing for infrastructure, nothing. The member says they will put in a new plan. If it is like the old plan, it will be nothing. The cupboard will be bare.

That member and his party have never, ever supported cities and communities in Canada. We have had numerous infrastructure programs. In fact, this government, and I would take it to the people, has done more for communities and cities than any government in history.

I want to ask the member this. What new plan does he have given the fact that his party voted against the gas tax and the fact that his party has never supported infrastructure? How can he stand up and say such nonsense to Canadians with a straight face ?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can say a couple of things. One of the things I want to say to the member is that despite all the noise we have heard this afternoon in the House of Commons, I would ask the hon. member this: where is last year's budget? The Liberals are still not through the last budget, never mind the new one for 2005.

That is how ridiculous it is. I would like to submit that as exhibit A that they are not serious about what they are telling the Canadian public. They do not even have last year's budget passed. Who are they going to blame for that? Why do they not call their friends down in the other place? They could ask them to step on it and get it passed, but they have not done that. I think that sums up the whole sorry mess that we are looking at across the aisle.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in what could be a very record-setting debate. It may be the last sensible debate we have in this place.

Before I get into the gist of my speech and the comments on the speech made by the Minister of Finance, I want to refer to the last speaker from the opposite side. He talked about infrastructure and infrastructure agreements and the lack of involvement by the former Conservative government under Prime Minister Mulroney.

I cannot speak for the hon. member's province of Ontario, but I can speak for my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador. During that time, when I was a member of the provincial government, we had two major funding agreements on infrastructure for the province, very substantive ones, which certainly improved the infrastructure throughout the province, particularly in relation to highways. The last one was back in the 1980s. Since then, we have not had one cent coming to our province by way of major infrastructure agreements with the federal government.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Nonsense.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South, NL]

It is true. Check your records. You were the minister. You should know, unless you are like the former minister--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Excuse me. I have to interrupt. The hon. member should make his comments through the Chair, and we will keep things quiet, I am sure.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the Minister of Finance that he should know. He is the Minister of Finance. But if he is like the former minister of finance, he probably does not know either what is going on in light of his department and the funding that flows through to provinces or to agencies or to friends.

Having said that, I note the record will show that the last major infrastructure money that went to Newfoundland and Labrador came from the Mulroney government.

In his speech, the Minister of Finance would want the people of this country to believe that should his party be put out of power, all the topics that would be covered by the budget, money for seniors, money for cities, money for homelessness, money for child care, would disappear. No one in his right mind would even think that any government, even--I will not say even--the NDP, the Bloc--

[An hon. member]

You said it.