Debates of March 20th, 2007

The Budget

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact is very clear that the prosperity gap is widening in this country and this budget does nothing to fix it. Every little step forward is met with two steps backward.

The big profitable corporations are getting most of the tax benefits in these Conservative budgets, just like the Liberals used to propose. The fact is the basics are not taken care of. There is no $10 minimum wage, which would have done something about poverty, a failed child care plan and nothing for housing.

Why did the Prime Minister choose the boardroom table instead of the kitchen table?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the New Democratic Party could not be more wrong.

This budget is focused on the needs of ordinary working people and their families. It is focused on helping those people, people who have children, people who have child care. It is focused on helping people like truck drivers and apprentices. It also assures that the corporations in this country will close tax havens and they will pay their fair share of taxes.

The NDP in opposing this budget is rejecting what every NDP leader in history has stood for. The leader of the NDP should be ashamed of himself.

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

Mr. Speaker—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The popularity of the hon. member notwithstanding, we have to be able to hear what he says during question period.

The hon. member for Markham—Unionville now has the floor. We will have a little order, please.

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems they get a little nervous when I rise.

Last year, despite a budget surplus of $13 billion, the government raised the lowest tax rate from 15% to 15.5%. That is an increase.

The budget presented yesterday could have remedied that injustice.

Although he is swimming in surpluses, the Minister of Finance did not give these billions of dollars back to Canadians. The minister had a choice to make. Why did he choose so poorly?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I know some members of this House get nervous when the member rises, mainly Liberal members I think.

We chose to support families in Canada. That was a definite choice. We reduced taxes by more than $7 billion in yesterday's budget, $5.73 billion in personal tax reductions, with 75% of the reductions going to people earning less than $75,000 a year in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, maybe he is nervous because yesterday I awarded him the 2007 naivety prize of the year award for his proclamation that all of a sudden after the budget there would be peace and harmony for all times in federal-provincial relations.

In any event, the reason he is all wrong comes from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation which said the fellow working on the line or anyone with a salary income and no children will receive no tax relief.

That is the problem. All Canadians deserve tax relief. Why did the minister not reverse his income tax hike and give a break not just to Conservative followers but to all hard-working Canadians?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, not only have we reduced public debt last year by $13.2 billion, but we are also going to reduce public debt this year by more than $9 billion. The total reduction in public debt in two budgets, then, will be more than $22 billion. That is a reduction of $700 for every man, woman and child in Canada.

We translate that through the tax back guarantee through a personal tax reduction for all Canadians; so that every time we reduce the interest payment on our national mortgage, individual Canadians benefit through tax reductions.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the finance minister presented his economic update last November, he told us how much money he was projecting. Now, just four months later, guess what? He was wrong and not just by a little bit. This year alone he was off by $7 billion and over three years $14 billion.

How could his numbers have been so wrong and how can Canadians trust this finance minister?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, and the reason is--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

Hear, hear!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. I know the Minister of Finance appreciates all the support and enthusiastic assistance he gets when he is giving his answer, but we have to be able to hear the answer. The Minister of Finance has been recognized by the Chair as having the floor, so we will have a little order so everyone can hear his answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous government of over 13 years, we are able to control spending. The underspending was quite significant in the past fiscal year. As a result, we have lower spending and a higher surplus than anticipated. This gives us the opportunity to make a payment on the public debt of more than $9 billion which, as I have said, results in a tax decrease for all Canadians on the personal income tax side.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite this year's surplus of $9.2 billion, there is not one word, one single mention, one iota in this 478-page budget about Canada Economic Development.

The Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec received nothing in last year's budget and commented at that time that he would get something the following year. It seems that this budget has not been good to him.

What will the minister say to workers as job losses accumulate in all regions of Quebec?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, there is a record historic allowance for infrastructure in the budget in the amount of $33 billion to help rebuild Canada. It is in the great tradition of national projects by Canadian pioneers. There is money for infrastructure for the environment to help build an east-west hydroelectric grid in Canada. These are great national projects requiring large sums of money committed over a long period of time. That has been done to the tune of $33 billion.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has stated on several occasions that the issue of the fiscal imbalance has been settled. That is not the case. Not only did he not transfer tax fields to the Government of Quebec, but he also did not balance the federal government's spending power by granting Quebec the right to opt out with full financial compensation.

Does the Prime Minister intend to heed the request of Mario Dumont and amend the Constitution in this regard?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has already indicated, we are moving increasingly toward taking care of our own jurisdiction, taking care of our own constitutional responsibilities.

For too many years under the previous government, actually 13 years to be exact, there was meddling by the federal government in areas that were clearly provincial jurisdictions.

I know the members opposite do not believe there is fiscal imbalance, but part of moving from fiscal imbalance to fiscal balance is the sorting out of responsibilities, which we are attempting to do.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, evidently the Prime Minister does not intend to respond to Mario Dumont's request and amend the Constitution in this regard.

At the very least, would he be willing to present a bill that would grant the right to opt out, with full compensation and without conditions, of any federal program in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction in order to balance the federal government's spending power? Will he table a bill in this regard?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that I have already answered this question.

I note that the Bloc Québécois is now referring to Mr. Dumont. I wonder if this means that the Bloc Québécois loyalties are beginning to shift even here.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, tabling a federal budget at the very end of an election campaign is already a touchy matter, to say the least, but if information was leaked to one of the leaders of the parties in the race, then we should be talking about unacceptable interference.

How can the Prime Minister justify giving information in advance to Jean Charest when he is in the middle of an election campaign?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we took great care, as we did in the autumn, to ensure that budget secrecy and budget confidentiality was maintained, and they were.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to believe the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the government as a whole, but while people in this House were in lock-up, and knew nothing about the nature of the budget and could therefore not talk to anyone about it, Jean Charest was posting placards and using graphs with federal budget figures one hour before the minister started reading his speech.

I would like to know why the Prime Minister allowed such a leak of information if not to benefit his friend Jean Charest.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance said that no information was leaked.

Mr. Charest assumed that this government would correct the fiscal imbalance because this government promised to do so. Mr. Charest and Quebeckers know that this government keeps its promises.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Tories foolishly call their budget “Aspire”. It sounds like a cheap perfume and it smells even worse.

What did my constituents get out of it? On the lower Churchill, goose egg; on 5 Wing Goose Bay, goose egg; Trans-Labrador Highway, goose egg; aboriginal policy, goose egg; economic development, goose egg; Marine Atlantic, goose egg; and of course equalization, the biggest Tory goose egg of all.

Can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans explain his political impotence and his utter inability to stand up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?