Debates of March 21st, 2007

The Budget

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knows the answer to that question, which is that we made sure that corporations pay their fair share of taxes and that there is income splitting for seniors, and the Liberal Party voted against both of those things.

I must also point out that the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie said that it is a good budget. In Quebec, only the leader of the federal Liberal Party and his band of federal Liberals do not support correcting the fiscal imbalance. It is a shameful position.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government believes there are two classes of Canadians. There are those who might vote for the Conservative Party and there are those who do not count.

A prime minister is supposed to unite and not divide, and a federal government is supposed to act on behalf of all Canadians, so why is it that the people of Saskatchewan, B.C., New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador are wondering today, “Why don't we count?”

Why did the government introduce a budget that so obviously divides the country?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the deputy leader of the Liberal Party knows full well that the fiscal balance solution is based on the advice of an independent expert panel, in fact one appointed by the previous government. We modified those recommendations specifically for our platform commitments. Every province gets more money under this budget and a lot more money as the years go by, $39 billion more.

This budget rewards families, it rewards seniors, it rewards truckers, it rewards farmers, it rewards soldiers, and I could go on and on. The one thing that unites members of the Liberal Party is they are voting against all of them.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will try again in French. On Monday, the Minister of Finance announced rather arrogantly that the bickering between the provincial and federal governments was over. It is not over at all.

Why did the government not know that half of the provinces would reject its budget? Why did this government drive the provinces apart, rather than bring them together?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that this is the first question in French from the official opposition today. My answer is clear. It is this band of centralizing federal Liberals who are against correcting the fiscal imbalance. It is the centralist philosophy of a Liberal government that would collect all the money in Ottawa so that it can tell the provinces what to do. That is not our philosophy and that is not the philosophy of a good Canadian federation.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services confirmed our fears. In an interview, Senator Fortier said that nothing is ever permanent in politics and that, “Changes may occur in any program”. The minister is unable to guarantee that the money earmarked for Quebec to resolve the fiscal imbalance will be renewed year after year.

In light of the statements by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, does the Prime Minister realize that in order to truly resolve the fiscal imbalance there absolutely needs to be a permanent transfer of tax fields?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the current arrangement is a long-term arrangement for seven years. There are different ways of transferring money, but it is true that the best guarantee for transfers to the provinces, and good relations with the provinces, is a Conservative government that advocates decentralization for this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, the definition of fiscal imbalance is simple: Ottawa gets too much money for its responsibilities while Quebec does not get enough to deal with its own jurisdictions. If the government really wants to resolve the fiscal imbalance, it is clear that the tax base has to be shared in another way and not come from a decision made every year by a government that cannot predict whether it will still be here in seven, eight, nine or ten years. No one can do that, especially not in a minority situation.

Why does the government not commit to truly transferring the tax fields based on tax points, GST points, or a combination of the two? This would be clearer, simpler and would resolve the problem.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, quite simply, there are a number of ways to resolve the fiscal imbalance. We can transfer money or we can transfer tax points. The disadvantage of tax points is that they have different values for each province, while transferring a dollar to each province is transferring a dollar. That may be fairer. We are still prepared to consider the possibilities. To have such fiscal relations with the provinces, it is necessary to have a federalist government in Quebec and a government here in Ottawa that respects provincial jurisdictions.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in reference to money transfers and tax point transfers to the provinces,the Prime Minister said, “In the end, the result is the same”. But that is wrong. It is not the same thing, and the Prime Minister knows it full well. In fact, he just pointed it out.

Can the Prime Minister deny that there is a huge difference between the transfer of money through tax points and the transfer of cash, which would give Quebec and the provinces permanent, reliable and independent revenues that Ottawa would not be able cut at will, as has been the case in the past?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, there are differences. One of those differences is that a tax point transfer is worth less for Quebec than a direct transfer of cash. That is one consideration. I should also point out that the reaction to the way we settled the fiscal imbalance issue is very positive in Quebec.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Will the Prime Minisiter admit that, by choosing to transfer money instead of tax fields, he wants to maintain control over Quebec and the provinces, and he wants to keep them under the control of the federal government by keeping them at the mercy of Ottawa's good will? Come to think of it, this is what the Prime Minister is saying.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely false. This government clearly respects provincial jurisdictions. It is prepared to meet with the new provincial government—which I hope will be a federalist government—to control federal spending power.

The problem for the Bloc Québécois is not a fiscal imbalance issue, but a separation issue. We have settled the issue of separation. Quebeckers do not want Quebec to separate from the rest of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative budget ignores the basic needs of families, because tax the deductions primarily benefit large corporations and the wealthy. Tax cuts do not hire nurses, reduce tuition fees, create daycare spaces, or build affordable housing.

Does the Prime Minister realize that his budget does nothing to reduce the social imbalance that is adversely affecting middle class families and the poor?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I do not accept that at all. The government has brought in a number of important initiatives for working Canadians and for the working poor, the working income tax benefit for example, the new savings plans for disabled Canadians. We have also brought in a child care credit for families and the vast majority of that will go to very modest and middle income families. These are all things NDP members claim to support.

It is about time, instead of criticizing and asking for more spending, they actually voted for some of the things that help working people.

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

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is in denial. The budget does nothing about the growing prosperity gap that is evident in the country.

To give several examples, there is nothing for affordable training that people need for the 21st century economy. New Canadians were promised that they would have their credentials recognized and we have pathetic action on that front, which will not amount to a hill of beans. What about ensuring that people have a decent wage? Why is the government not taking action to bring us a $10 minimum wage across the country, something we should have in Canada, and in Ontario, right away?

Why will the Prime Minister not act to do something that is fair for working families for a change?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, let me quote what the Vancouver Sun says about the knee-jerk opposition of the NDP:

How could the opposition have faced the nation after defeating a budget that allocated $300 million to an immunization program to protect women against cervical cancer, set aside money to help the RCMP protect children from sexual exploitation and trafficking, created a savings plan to help parents put aside money to care for disabled children, and funded the establishment of a Canadian Mental Health Commission?

NDP Leader Jack Layton explained that his party wouldn't support the budget because it left only crumbs on the kitchen table, and put the rest on the boardroom table. But he's wrong. There's a whole loaf on the kitchen table...

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Judy lives in my province of Ontario. She is a busy single mother who raises her seven year old son. Life has not been easy on her and she works as many hours as she can. It is difficult without the benefit of an affordable national child care system. She will earn about $22,000 this year working at various jobs, too much for the working income tax credit, too little for the child tax credit.

Could the Minister of Finance explain why his budget does nothing for Judy?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows, in last year's budget we introduced the $100 per month universal child tax benefit, which would be received. We have also now introduced the benefit for the—

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Spin, skate, spin, skate.

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

Does the former goaltender not want me to answer or does he want me to answer?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

We will move on. The hon. member for Don Valley East. We will have a little order, though, please.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, shame on the minister. He could have had the courtesy to answer the question.

Marie is 56 years old and an active member of her community in Cranbrook, B.C. Her late husband, Kevin, passed away three years ago and left her a pension of $40,000. She continues to live in a house where they raised their grown children. Right now she is busy volunteering her time to ensure that this year's summer festival is the best one ever.

Could the Minister of Finance explain why his budget does nothing for Marie?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the universal child benefit, there is also the benefit, costing $1.4 billion, introduced for children under the age of 18 in budget 2007. This is a major reform and a major step forward to encourage families.

Lots of families in Canada struggle. At the end of the month, they have trouble paying their bills, with the cost of gas, the cost of energy and the cost of electricity in many places in Canada. We understand that struggle by middle class families in Canada

Seventy-five per cent of the tax reductions in the budget go to people earning less than $75,000, about 50% to people earning less than $33,000—