Debates of April 26th, 2006

The Budget

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the budget will reflect the commitments of our party during the election campaign. We cannot do everything at once, of course, but we will move forward on a number of issues.

What it will not reflect is the requirements to join the save the GST club where one has to be on both sides of the GST issue: want to abolish it in 1993 and want to save it now. It will not be on both sides of the Dingwall issue about was it voluntary or involuntary. It will not be talking about people being entitled to their entitlements.

We will have our platform commitments in the budget.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, he has confirmed that he is both incompetent and fleecing the poor.

I have a question concerning a more immediate issue with regard to the budget information just released by the member for Halton. The Minister of Finance has two choices: either he will tell the House that this information is wrong or he will admit that his budget is seriously flawed and immediately resign. Which will it be?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I have not even presented the budget yet and I am incompetent and I am supposed to resign--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. The Minister of Finance has the floor.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we will not see in the budget in 2006 are the kinds of flip-flops we saw last year where a corporate tax was supposed to be reduced, for example, in budget 2005 and then a deal was made to change that.

We take positions on issues. We do not surround and embrace issues. Our positions will not be contradictory like the positions in the save the GST club opposite.

Trusts

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House, the Minister of Finance refused to confirm that trusts have been created for part of the 2005-06 surpluses. We learn today in the newspapers that the Minister of Finance contacted his counterpart in Ontario to let him know about the trusts and the amounts transferred there, including amounts for social housing and post-secondary education.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that his government has indeed created trusts and that it transferred some of the funds provided for in the Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, to them prior to March 31, 2006?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has just said that we intend to honour our commitments in the upcoming budget. It includes a number of measures to increase certain spending in order to attain our political objectives and honour our electoral promises. The leader of the Bloc Québécois will have to wait for the budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, decisions were made by the government before March 31, 2006. That is past. We are now in April. The trusts have been created. The provincial governments have been informed and the money has been transferred. What the government has done cannot be hidden here in this House. We are not obliged to wait for the budget to find out if trusts have been created, since they have been, with money from previous budgets.

The Prime Minister should answer the question, otherwise he will prove to us that the transparency he talks about means nothing and that his much-vaunted responsibility is not particularly meaningful.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois knows that trusts have conditions. Money cannot be transferred without a budget and other clarifications. I say this again to the leader of the Bloc Québécois. A sovereignist party that has been waiting over thirty years for Quebec's independence can wait less than a week for the budget.

Child Care

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the formula the government is using for its $1,200 allowance is inequitable and could end up giving some wealthy families more money than low-income families.

Does the minister realize that there is still time to accept an amended formula such as the refundable tax credit proposed by the Bloc Québécois? In addition to being universal, it has the advantage of being much more equitable.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the House that the numbers released in the report regarding this situation were in fact inaccurate.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister should check her numbers again.Yesterday, she stated that parents would be able to use their $1,200 allowance as they choose. This would hold true for both a single-parent family earning $28,000 and a family earning $200,000.

Does the minister not realize that, with her formula, she is giving some wealthy families far more choice than low-income families? In fact, some high-income families will receive more money than families that are really in need.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, as I explained to the House yesterday, our intention for our choice in child care allowance is that it be a truly universal allowance available to all Canadians from coast to coast, regardless of their incomes, and that is not just at the gross level, that is at the net level. I have been working since my very first week in this job with my officials to ensure as many families as possible get as much money net as possible from this new program because we want it to be a universal benefit.

Oil and Gas Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, working families are getting gouged at the pumps at the same time as the oil and gas companies have record profits. Canadians are paying $1 a litre and we learned just yesterday that Petro-Canada's profits are up by over 50%.

Is the Prime Minister going to follow the same old Liberal practice of giving massive subsidies to the oil and gas sectors, the most polluting and the most profitable, or will he do what Canadians want and what George Bush is now calling for, and direct those funds to energy conservation, to efficiency and to renewable energy?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as I think the hon. member will know, as we continue to push forward and develop our environmental plans we will certainly want some of the money that is now being spent to go toward the objectives he has referred to. At the same time, in terms of the pain that consumers are experiencing, this is why the Minister of Finance has indicated that this government will go ahead with an immediate 1% reduction in the GST to reduce taxes on consumers by $5 billion. I hope we have the support of the House in doing that.

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

Mr. Speaker, actually it would be nice if the Prime Minister would stop shovelling billions of dollars into the massive profits of the oil and gas companies.

The Liberal Party subsidized the oil industry to the tune of $1.4 billion annually, double what it spent on clean water. Yesterday, George Bush asked Congress to put an end to these industry subsidies and offer tax credits for green cars. On the eve of the budget, can the Prime Minister say whether George Bush will be more progressive than him when it comes to the oil industry and the environment?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what to think of the NDP being in league with George Bush.

It is important to say that this party does not plan to give new subsidies to the oil companies. Profits are linked to the world price of gasoline. This government intends to reduce taxes on consumers by $5 billion, and I hope that the NDP and the other parties will support us.

The Budget

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last May the Prime Minister tried to make the government fall by voting against the budget.

Now, in another flip-flop by this government, the Prime Minister is trying to implement $3.8 billion from that very budget.

Will the Prime Minister admit that he has already committed most of this funding, which according to him was a pact with the devil?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the budget will announce what disposition is being made of whatever surplus there is next Tuesday. There are conditions, as the Prime Minister has indicated, to any funding that there might be under Bill C-48, including necessary levels of surplus and the allocation of those funds. That will have to wait until May 2.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this has nothing to do with the budget. Agreements have been signed with the provinces. The money has been spent. It is also worrisome that the NDP appears all the more willing to trade electoral prospects for billions in social programs.

When it comes to last year's budget, we have flip-floppers to the right and sellouts to the left. How are flip-flops, sellouts, and budgetary secrecy supposed to instill confidence in Canadians just days before the budget?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member opposite that no moneys have been spent. The moneys will be referred to in the budget on May 2 and I invite the member to await that.

In terms of what is important to Canadians who voted for change, they want lower taxes. We are committed to providing all Canadians with lower taxes, unlike the member opposite and the other members of the save the GST club who want to keep taxes high for Canadians.

Infrastructure

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's cities and communities are anxious about the upcoming budget since there was absolutely no mention by the government of public infrastructure in the throne speech. The finance minister has already said he will honour the $5 billion the previous government committed to strategic infrastructure.

Why will the finance minister not honour the previous government's commitment to renew all other existing federal infrastructure programs in the upcoming budget?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a question that we addressed during the last campaign. As everyone knows, we are committed to change. Canadians voted for change. I invite the hon. member to wait for the Minister of Finance's speech on May 2.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative proposal would deliver $3 billion less in infrastructure over the next five years. I know when it comes to transparency, the Prime Minister thinks less is more, but why is the government trying to convince Canadians that when it comes to public funding of infrastructure in their cities and communities, that somehow less is more?