House of Commons Hansard #15 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
Order, please. The member for Scarborough Centre knows that he must address his comments through the Chair. I will allow the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance to respond.
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite should be proud of some of the things that were done by the former government. We did inherit a balanced budget and we are glad for that.
The fact of the matter is that the fiscal health that this country has enjoyed is largely because of free trade. The party opposite fought free trade tooth and nail. Without free trade we would not have been in such a good economic position.
The Liberal government stumbled so badly on issues it did not need to stumble on. One just has to look at the aboriginal communities that are living in the most appalling conditions. One only has to look at the lack of trust through the sponsorship scandal, the million dollar boondoggle, the wild spending that was not supposed to take place and the lack of fiscal responsibility. If the Liberals are going to be proud of the good things, they need to take responsibility for the failures.
It was a government that promised a lot of things and says that if it had not been defeated by the opposition it would have brought them in. The fact is that the Liberal government had 13 years to bring them in. What was it that had to be done in the last 13 days?
Every minority government knows very well that it can be defeated at a moment's notice. It does not have the votes to keep going. Therefore, to suddenly cry the blues because a minority government fell, a government that was hanging on by a thread, disgusting Canadians day in and day out with the corruption that was coming out in the news and the inquiries that were going on into its affairs, does not make a lot of sense.
The former government deserved to be defeated. The present government is going to begin, in a sensible way, to repair the damage that was done and to move forward to build a better Canada. That is our mandate and that is what we will do.
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, before putting my two questions to the parliamentary secretary, I would like to add something for my Liberal colleague. Of course, we defeated the Liberal government. And we realized later that the voters shared the same opinion as us, since the Liberals are now sitting on the other side of the House. The voters threw the Liberals out. We were not wrong about this.
I have two questions for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.
First, she says that her government can help families, especially those with one parent who chooses to stay at home and not send the children to day care. However, since the Conservatives did not make this $1,200 allowance into a refundable tax credit, these families will have to pay income tax on the amount they receive for each child. Furthermore, as of next year, the Conservatives will get rid of what is known as the national child benefit supplement. That will directly affect the people they wish to help. In fact, this will affect first and foremost the people who do not have to pay for child care. As soon as they have to assume these expenses, their national child benefit supplement is not reduced. Otherwise, if they have two children under six, they will lose $486 a year. The Conservatives are thus making life hard for those they wish to help.
Second, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food through his parliamentary secretary. In the redefinition of the CAIS, that is, the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program, would it be possible, to his mind, for the amounts provided for Quebec to be transferred directly to La Financière agricole du Québec? That would avoid a lot of red tape in connection with the new federal program and that would more directly help the agricultural producers who really need it.
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the universal child care benefit, it is $1,200. It will not be clawed back by the federal government. It will be taxed in the hands of the lowest income earner. Five provinces have also agreed that there will be no clawback.
Because different families are in different tax positions, there will be some differences in the net benefit, but every family will benefit from this universal child care benefit, and that is the important thing.
Also, with respect to the redefinition of stabilization, I would point out to my friend that Quebec is $850 million better off today than it was yesterday. The budget has provided additional funds in a number of areas to the province of Quebec, as well as to other provinces, and this is very important.
However, discussions will need to be ongoing as to how to address the issue of going forward. The member will know that the finance minister will be meeting with his--
Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders
Mr.Yvan Loubier
Do you have an open mind?
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Yes. The finance minister will be meeting with his finance minister counterparts from the provinces this spring. The Prime Minister will be meeting with the premiers of all the provinces in the fall and we will hold discussions about how to go forward on this.
I do not think at this point that anyone has the final answer. A major report by Mr. O'Brien will be coming out in the middle of the month on the whole area of the fiscal imbalance and equalization. Other reports have come out and will be coming forward.
These will be fruitful discussions. The important thing is that we work cooperatively for the benefit of all Canadians and a stronger country going forward into the future.
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Mr. Speaker, the big petroleum companies receive tax breaks but the fact is that families with children with autism receive no help at all.
Why should families with children with serious disabilities, especially those with autism, feel any good about the budget and yet petroleum companies, which are making record profits under the current tax regime, stand to make even more money?
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, the member will know that we have made some very significant moves to help the families that he is talking about, both with the universal child care benefit and with the increased assistance for children with specific disabilities.
As budgets unfold this would be a healthy discussion as to whether we could or should do more in different areas, but the important thing is that we have made some very strong strides to assist these families. I think the member should be complimenting the finance minister and the government on the progress that we have made.
Lui Temelkovski Liberal Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Eglinton—Lawrence.
I am pleased to speak today to the Conservative government's first budget. A budget is both a beginning and a focal point of a government's economic policy and I am very happy to have the occasion to respond.
For more than 20 years I was in the financial services industry. I have sat at the table with families struggling to make ends meet and families looking to maximize their investments. This background and awareness gives me a unique perspective on the Conservative budget.
No budget document is perfect and no budget document is all good or all bad. Unfortunately for Canada, this particular budget seems to have missed the mark in a number of important areas. This is a shame because the government has an enormous amount of potential that rides on the Liberal financial coattails.
This is an important point. This contrasts the Canadian financial picture from late 1993, after nine years of Conservative rule, with the present financial picture. Let us consider this. In the 1990s, Conservative spending was on a roller coaster. The deficit was close to $40 billion. The debt had ballooned to nearly 70% of GDP. The unemployment rate was in double digits. Consumer and business confidence was very low. There was no real economic growth. I know how bad it was. Canadians had no work or they were underemployed. People were sick with worry and uncertain about their future and the future of their families. Canadians were worried about their CPP.
Canadians lost confidence in the Mulroney and Campbell governments because of poor financial management. What a difference a decade makes. Canada's books were balanced in eight consecutive budgets. The federal debt was reduced. Taxes have been reduced by more than $100 billion since 2000. Canada's unemployment rate is at a 32 year low. Indeed, on this final point, the finance minister said in yesterday's Hansard:
Canadians have reached a level of accomplishment few other countries can rival.
I could not have said that better myself. This is the same Minister of Finance who, under Mike Harris was cutting, slashing and burning, and who is now swimming in surpluses but offers no reassuring vision for Canadians.
How are Canadians supposed to have faith in the present finance minister and his budget? The budget is not up to par and risks putting Canada in a dangerous fiscal position.
There are some positive aspects to the budget as well: tax cuts for small businesses and tax credits for workers. However much of the rest of the budget leaves much to be desired.
First, I am outraged that the government has decided to raise the lowest tax rate for Canadians from 15% to 15.5% while the Conservatives say that they are decreasing it. The basic personal exemption is decreased by $200 after the Liberals raised it. For the Conservatives to state that this is a tax cut budget is not accurate and a misrepresentation of the facts to Canadians.
The biggest losers will be low income Canadians. With such a robust economy and a projected surplus, these tax increases were not necessary. Instead, we will see a cut to the GST. I think that is a meaningful tax cut but it is not the best tax cut for most Canadians. This tax will only benefit Canadians who spend more money on goods and services. The more money we spend, the more tax we will save.
For example, for many Canadians, most of their pay cheques are spent on rent, tuition and groceries. There is no GST on these items, so how will the GST cut benefit Canadians who need it the most? Unfortunately, this is undertaken for purely political reasons. This is a flashy campaign strategy to deceive Canadians that their taxes will go down while the government puts their income taxes up at the same time. This is a political and poor policy.
The second item I wish to discuss is child care. Aristotle reminds us that the success of a nation is measured by the way it treats its most vulnerable, including the young. The Conservatives are eliminating the national child care program, substituting it with monetary gifts. In so doing, it fails to build more social policies that will benefit Canadians for generations to come.
The Conservatives are reducing the number of child care spaces, yet pledging to increase the number of spaces in prisons and correctional facilities. Rather than ensure children receive quality care in their formation years, the government will put more people behind bars later on. Why not invest in children?
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it being 6:15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 2, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motions relating to interim supply.
John Baird ConservativePresident of the Treasury Board
moved:
That this House do concur in Interim Supply as follows:
That a sum not exceeding $43,494,658,430.59 being composed of:
(1) nine twelfths ($30,619,976,223.75) of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the Proposed Schedule 1.3 and Schedule 2 of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007, which were laid upon the Table Tuesday, April 25, 2006, and except for those items below:
(2) eleven twelfths of the total of the amount of Agriculture and Agri-Food Votes 1 and 10, Fisheries and Oceans Vote 10, Foreign Affairs and International Trade (Foreign Affairs) Vote 10, Canadian International Development Agency Vote L50, Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety Vote 35, Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 10 and 25, Indian Specific Claims Commission Vote 45, Industry Vote 5, Statistics Canada Vote 95, Library of Parliament Vote 10, Office of Infrastructure of Canada Vote L70 and Treasury Board Vote 5 (Schedule 1.1), of the said Estimates, $6,303,923,163.68;
(3) ten twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Vote 20, Citizenship and Immigration Vote 5, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Vote 10, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Vote 20, Finance Vote 5, Health Vote 5, Public Health Agency of Canada Vote 40, Human Resources and Skills Development Vote 5, Indian Affairs and Northern Development Vote 1, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Vote 10, Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee Vote 75, Transport Vote 30, Office of Infrastructure of Canada Vote 60 and Veterans Affairs Votes 5 and 10 (Schedule 1.2) of the said Estimates, $6,570,759,043.16;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007.
(Motion agreed to)
John Baird ConservativePresident of the Treasury Board
moved that Bill C-8, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2007, be now read the first time.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
moved that the bill be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
Interim SupplyGovernment Orders
An hon. member
Could the President of the Treasury Board please confirm that the bill is in the usual form?
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Mr. Speaker, I can tell my friend opposite that the form of this bill is essentially the same that passed in previous supply periods. However, the supporting schedules have been modified to provide better clarity and transparency by reflecting the portion of funding that was provided through Governor General special warrants.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
Accordingly, the bill stands referred to a committee of the whole House.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee of the whole thereon, Mr. Andrew Scheer in the chair)
The Assistant Deputy Chair Conservative Andrew Scheer
(Clause 2 agreed to)
(On Clause 2.1)
The Assistant Deputy Chair Shall clause 2.1 carry?
The Assistant Deputy Chair Conservative Andrew Scheer
(Clause 2.1 agreed to)
(On Clause 2.2)
Shall clause 2.2 carry.