Debates of May 1st, 2007

Opposition Motion--Indian Residential Schools

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #167

Business of Supply

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from April 30 consideration of the motion.

Status of Women

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the 16th report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the motion presently before the House, with Conservative members present this evening voting opposed.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal members will be voting in favour of this motion. However, I would like to point out that the member for Scarborough Southwest has left the chamber.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this motion.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP will vote in favour of this motion.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against this motion.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in favour of this motion.

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I vote no to the motion.

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #168

Committees of the House

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I declare the motion carried.

Is there unanimous consent to see the clock as 6:30 p.m. so we can proceed with the adjournment debate immediately, and therefore adjourn the House earlier than we otherwise might?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the House I asked a question of the Prime Minister, who had spoken so very eloquently about his budget being one that would bring peace to the provinces forever. That was not even close to the truth.

We have seen since then that many provinces do not agree with the budget, that many provinces have in fact spoken out very vocally against the budget. In terms of this peace forever more budget, four provinces are opposed to it and one province has even threatened to take the government to court on the budget.

I was a bit concerned about the flippancy with which my original question had been greeted. I wanted to ask the questions because the response from the finance minister about the lack of enthusiasm for his budget was a non-answer.

I and my fellow MPs in the Liberal Party are not the only ones who lack enthusiasm for this budget. On the very day the peace among the provinces budget was announced, many premiers let their anger at its unfairness be known. The Premier of B.C. accused the government of breaking promises with regard to the Pacific Gateway, for the pine beetle infestation and child care.

B.C. was so badly treated with regard to equalization payments that one had to wonder whether the B.C. Conservative ministers had any input into the budget. B.C. was denied equalization payments for the first two years because the federal government added property values to the formula. B.C. is known to have the highest property values in Canada.

Property values are no indicator of the province's wealth. Unless B.C. sells all of its crown land, the wealth is an illusion. As the premier of B.C. himself said, “property values in British Columbia went up by about 24 per cent last year”.

Housing and homelessness are major problems in B.C., even though the government had nothing in its budget about housing.

The risk of flooding in the Fraser Valley is the highest in 200 years. The threat of flood could damage farms, livestock and homes, not to mention the public health risk of sewage contamination of drinking water. The province has put up $33 million and municipalities have put up what they could afford. The dikes need to be raised and the riverbed needs to be dredged enough so it does not damage salmon habitat.

The Minister of Agriculture lives in that area, but there is nothing in the budget to assist with this urgent need for his region. He might as well be blind, deaf and dumb to the urgency of the situation. Once again, the government has left the province holding the bag.

British Columbia is not the only province affected. I want to quote what the New Brunswick finance minister had to say. He said:

If (the budget) was to fix the fiscal imbalance, as far as New Brunswick is concerned, I wouldn't give it a passing mark. I am a little disappointed considering how much money the federal government did have to work with in terms of addressing the various issues. And when we talk about the equalization formula, it represents approximately $42 million more. That's far short from what we hoped to receive.

Lorne Calvert, the Saskatchewan premier, had this to say:

What we have here is a broken promise; what we have is a betrayal of a promise made to the people of Saskatchewan.

Rodney MacDonald, the Nova Scotia premier, had this to say:

It's almost as if they want to continue giving handouts to Nova Scotians rather than us keeping our offshore accord, and that to me is fundamentally unfair.

I am asking a question about the fact that this budget was supposed to be the end of fighting among premiers. This budget has divided Canadians. It has divided provinces and—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that for electoral purposes it is the job of the opposition to try to stir up dissatisfaction with what the government does, but I think a few facts would be helpful in this situation.

It was not contemplated that every province would agree 100% with everything in the budget; that is not the way confederation works. Of course with respect to the fiscal balance and equalization, the provinces did not agree even among themselves about what should be done, but what the government did was to put the equalization program and the transfers to the provinces on a predictable, principled, sustainable, long term track that will give closure and certainty to this important aspect of confederation.

The member opposite shows a lack of understanding of the budget process when she says that certain moneys were not transferred for programs. In fact, the budget is for a two year timeframe. Some of these programs are over a longer period. These amounts that have been promised for things like fighting the pine beetle had been fully booked and will be budgeted on an ongoing basis on the life of the program.

With respect to property values, this was an important element of moving to a simplified system with a 10 province standard. It was recommended. We took the recommendations of the independent panel which was set up by the Liberals themselves.

British Columbia is the single biggest winner on the infrastructure front, which will help the province deal with issues such as the need for water and dikes and other infrastructure. The province will receive almost $5 billion over seven years to deal with these issues. In addition, our total commitment to the Pacific Gateway will be $1 billion. These are huge amounts, huge wins to deal with issues in the province of British Columbia, where my hon. friend comes from.

The budget also provides $4.7 billion, almost $5 billion, for federal support for British Columbia for things like health care and the social transfer.

Our commitment of $1 billion to fight the pine beetle is fully booked. I might add, and the hon. member knows, that her own government did absolutely nothing when this problem came to the fore. In spite of pleas and cries from British Columbia to deal with it, there was nothing from the federal government under the Liberals. We put $1 billion on the books to deal with that important issue.

British Columbia is a province that is an economic powerhouse. It has a strong economy that is getting stronger. It is a major trade route for emerging economies in the Far East and the Pacific Gateway. It will host the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games which will have economic spinoffs.

People throughout British Columbia should be proud of their province, proud of this great country, proud of the fact that we are working together with British Columbia to strengthen its economy and contribute to its future. This is something to celebrate, not to decry and to try to cast a negative light on, because under our government, British Columbia has prospered and will continue to prosper.

I might point out that under the leadership of one of the member's colleagues, the member for Vancouver South, in fact for the province of British Columbia, times were not good under that leadership. The province had to rely on equalization--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. member for Vancouver Centre.