Debates of June 7th, 2005

Federal-Provincial Relations

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, each level of government has access to essentially the same major tax sources. Indeed the provinces have access to some that the federal government does not. I am thinking of lottery returns, for example, which are very substantial and natural resources royalties.

Each level of government has entirely its own fiscal autonomy, to make its own spending and revenue raising decisions. The debt load carried by the Government of Canada is twice as large as the combined debt of all the provinces and the revenues flowing to provinces is larger than that to the federal government.

The Budget

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, if every provincial government taxed like the federal government, they would go bankrupt pretty quickly.

The prestigious OECD is predicting that the Prime Minister's NDP inspired spending spree will result in interest rates being hiked. That means Canadians will be paying more for their mortgages, their credit card debts and the value of their homes may drop.

Why must ordinary Canadians bear the brunt of this flaccid Prime Minster's flagrant vote buying attempts to prop up his fraudulent corrupt government?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the bitterness of the hon. gentleman is palpable for the rest of Canadians to judge. The policies of the government have resulted in low and stable inflation rates and low and stable interest rates.

We have an established policy with the Bank of Canada which keeps inflation in that band between 1% and 3%. It is solidly within that range. It will stay within that range and that means interest rates in the country will continue to be stable and low.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at what some of those experts are saying. Those experts are predicting that interest rates are going to go up.

Nesbitt Burns said that with the passage of the two budget bills, the Bank of Canada would have no choice but to raise interest rates. Marc Lévesque, a senior strategist with TD Securities, said that the lavish spending promises made by the Prime Minister to win the support of the NDP would push the Bank of Canada to raise interest rates more quickly.

Instead of punishing ordinary Canadians, will the Prime Minister put the interests of Canadians ahead of his own personal agenda to desperately cling to power?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the repetition of a fallacious premise does not make it true. The spending profile difference before and after Bill C-48 is the grand total of 1%. Within the fiscal flexibility that was built into the framework on February 23, there is ample room to cope with the new spending initiatives of, as I say, barely 1%.

The Government of Canada has delivered for over a decade now the most fiscally responsible performance in the history of our country and we will stick by it.

Office of the Prime Minister

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on May 31, in response to a question about discussions between his chief of staff and a Conservative MP, the Prime Minister stated here in the House, “—the statement is absolutely clear that no offer was made, that an offer was solicited”. That is what he said.

I am asking the Prime Minister when he learned that an MP was soliciting an offer from his chief of staff in exchange for crossing the floor of the House. Was it during the negotiations between his chief of staff and the Conservative MP, or later, meaning once those negotiations had been made public?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the leader of the Bloc Québécois is referring to altered tapes. I can tell him that we acted on the basis that no offer would be made. Unlike the opposition, we are not making accusations of malfeasance about the opposition gratuitously.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, they are not gratuitous. I will repeat what he said. The Prime Minister responded, and I quote, “—the statement is absolutely clear that no offer was made, that an offer was solicited”. Those are his words.

I am asking him if he learned of it before or after. In the first case, he should have called the RCMP; in the second, his chief of staff should have called them. When did he learn of it? I am repeating his words. It is not gratuitous. I am not accusing anyone. I am repeating his words. Now he needs to explain himself.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that he was informed the member for Newton--North Delta wanted to cross the floor. The Prime Minister said that no offer was to be made, and no offer was made.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister refuses to say when he was made aware of the offer made by the member. One thing is certain, however. He cannot claim that his chief of staff was not aware because, after he was approached, the chief of staff entered into negotiations. This, therefore, is proof that his chief of staff was aware but did not see fit to inform the RCMP.

Does the Prime Minister not think that he would be fully justified to call for the resignation of his chief of staff after this demonstration of such a flagrant lack of judgment?

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, no.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here in this House, the Deputy Prime Minister has shown us the way to approach such a matter, stating that anyone aware that a criminal act might be committed has a duty to inform the RCMP.

Does this apply to the PM's chief of staff? Since the chief of staff was obviously derelict in his duty, ought he not to resign immediately?

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the House numerous times before, the RCMP will decide whether there is anything to investigate in this matter. If the member opposite has any information, then he should provide it to the RCMP, and I would encourage him to do so.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It is Clean Air Day, but it is really a tragedy because the air in our communities is getting dirtier and dirtier and harder to breathe.

Let me just cite the Toronto Board of Health study that says that pollution is killing 822 people in Toronto, 818 people in Montreal, 368 people in Ottawa and 258 people in Windsor.

Smog is not solved by rhetoric. It is also not solved by voluntary measures. In fact, health experts agree that we need firm action.

Will the Prime Minister admit that his way is not working and that we need mandatory--

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of the Environment.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, smog is indeed a very serious problem. That is why Canada is acting so strongly in order to fight this problem. That is why, for instance, the regulations for sulphur in diesel fuel will decrease diesel emissions by 97%. For instance, by 2010 for on road vehicles, the engine emission regulations will decrease by 90%. It is true that we need to do more, but we are doing a lot of very important things for Canadians.

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

Words, Mr. Speaker, words. I would like to know what words this government has for the people who are going to emergency wards right now because their kids cannot breathe and because the seniors cannot breathe.

Let us review some of the recent environmental reports. Canadian toxic emissions are up. In the United States, they are down. Greenhouse gas emissions are going up faster than the economy is growing. By every indicator, lethal smog is getting worse, and leading environmental groups and the Globe and Mail say that the Liberal Kyoto plan is not good enough. What does it take for the Prime Minister to start enforcing the reduction of pollution by those who pollute in this country?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I will leave the words to the NDP. The Liberals will take action. For instance, we have the sulphur in gasoline regulations, the sulphur in diesel fuel regulations, the on road vehicle engine emissions regulations, the new source emissions guidelines for thermal electricity generation, the particulate matter and ozone precursor regulations, and a list of toxic substances.

We have a lot of regulations, but above all we have a vision, and that is to bring the environment and the economy together under the leadership of this Prime Minister.

The Budget

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the OECD has raised a red flag on out of control Liberal-NDP spending, which it says will hike interest rates. That means a lower standard of living for all Canadians, for all Canadian workers and all Canadian families.

How many red flags have to stick the Prime Minister right in the eye before he decides to dump his deal with the dippers?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, when the precursors of the hon. gentleman's party were in government they delivered an economic performance that resulted in the world's observers saying that Canada had become a candidate for membership in the third world. That is the Conservative legacy.

We eliminated that legacy. We balanced the budget. We have delivered eight consecutive surpluses. We have the best fiscal performance in all of the G-7 and it is going to stay that way.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, according to Don Drummond, a former deputy finance minister, Canadians have not seen a rise in their take home pay since this government took power. I think that is pretty damning.

A 2% hike in interest rates on a $200,000 mortgage would mean a $230 increase in monthly mortgage payments. That is a disaster for working Canadians. Will the Prime Minister dump his deal with the NDP so that Canadians can pay their mortgages?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I take it from the previous remarks of the hon. gentleman that he is a great fan of the fiscal policies applied by the United States of America. I would point out to the hon. gentleman that in that country interest rates are rising. In this country, interest rates are low and stable.

The Economy

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in February, the government presented its budget and announced that tax reductions were necessary to attract investment. The Liberals entered into a $4.6 billion deal with the NDP and have crossed the country announcing $26 billion in spending. The business community's concerns about our financial situation are justified.

Will the minister admit that he is prepared to pillage the public treasury in order to buy the voters' consciences?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman repeats the $26 billion figure. Again he is wrong. That is simply a figment of the imagination of the webmasters that work for the Conservative Party. It is factually incorrect.

The fact of the matter is that we are investing in post-secondary education, housing, the environment and foreign aid. I would like to know from the hon. gentleman, which one of those four does he oppose?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance should not just take our word for it. He should listen to the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and to the president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, who said that “to say that program spending is out of control would be an understatement”. He should also listen to The Economist magazine, which said that the Prime Minister “appears to have thrown fiscal restraint to the wind”.

How will he or can he reconcile with his budget this government's outrageous $26 billion in vote buying spending announcements?