Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2008

Economic and Fiscal Statement

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

Mr. Speaker, the member hit the nail right on the head when he talked about hypocrisy because the Conservatives are hypocrites. When it comes to the Conservatives making deals with the Bloc Québécois or the NDP, that is fine. However, if it is somebody else who is making a deal, it is not fine. When it comes to accountability, it is okay for the Conservatives to be involved in scandals. I am sure people realize that 12 of Mulroney's cabinet ministers went to jail. That is okay but if it is anybody else that is not acceptable.

The Conservatives talk from both sides of their mouth. They are hypocritical and, therefore, have lost the confidence of the House. Canadians do not trust the Conservative government and have no confidence in the Conservative government.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there has been mention of some previous prime ministers, but there is another prime minister that the House should take note of today, particularly with respect to the discussion of this coalition of the separatists, and that is Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

I wonder if the member opposite would venture an opinion as to what Pierre Elliott Trudeau would think of this coalition of separatism that is going on so shamefully today with the Liberals.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe in reading anybody's mind. What I believe in is reality. The reality is that the Conservatives have not done a single thing, sous, nothing, zero, for the economy. Instead, they reduced the parliamentary processes by including nothing in the economic statement but trying to get rid of democracy.

When somebody gets rid of democracy, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, as far as I can say, would be aghast at that.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is talking about getting rid of democracy and this is a financial statement that was delivered in the House. I do not know what she is talking about.

The opposition parties claim the reason they formed this coalition of socialists, separatists and Liberals is that this government is not managing the economy properly. Let us look at the tax reductions we are offering Canadians. In this year alone, the year we are in right now, there is a $12 billion tax reduction in the GST; a personal tax reduction of $10.5 billion for this year; and a $6 billion reduction in business tax. That is $28 billion in tax reductions.

The opposition complains about a surplus of roughly $12 billion being reduced. The fact is we are running balanced budgets. That they are saying that we are in a deficit position now is simply wrong.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier this afternoon on debate I thought I heard the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood make some unparliamentary remarks at approximately 4:07 p.m.

The blues came out in the interim and I had a chance to look at them. I think upon review, Mr. Speaker, you would agree these remarks are in fact highly insensitive, inappropriate and unparliamentary.

I wonder therefore, Mr. Speaker, if you could review the blues, take the matter under advisement, and report back to the House at the appropriate time.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I thank the hon. member. I will certainly make sure that the blues are reviewed and if there is a need to come back to the House, I will do so in due course.

The hon. member for Don Valley East.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the hon. member opposite did not know what I was talking about shows his lack of economic judgment or math. When we talk about giving GST tax breaks, that is exactly what the budget officer said. The government is taking in $40 billion less in revenue. If revenue does not match expenses, then we go into a deficit. Where did he find surpluses?

If that is the type of economic--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.

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

[Bill Casey, Independent, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise on this issue.

I asked a question about what appears to be a conflict between the throne speech and the economic statement, and the piece of legislation that provides for a formula for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to have a 3.5% escalator clause every year for 15 years.

I really did not get an answer. I did get some kind of an answer, but it did not address my exact question. The minister must have misunderstood my question, but I know the parliamentary secretary will not.

I would like to point out that in the throne speech it states: “--Equalization payments also grow, but that they do not grow more quickly than our economy as a whole”.

Our economy next year is projected to grow at perhaps .3% or .8% or somewhere around that range, but the legislation for the equalization formula for Nova Scotia says that Nova Scotia will simply get a 3.5% increase every year for 15 years. There are two formulas actually, but the 2005 formula which has been enhanced with this legislation is to have a 3.5% increase every year for 15 years.

Again, the throne speech and the economic update both say that it will be capped at the rate of growth of the overall economy. That is a conflict. They cannot both be right.

I am asking the parliamentary secretary if he can shed a little light on this and help us understand. Is it the 3.5% in the legislation or is it going to be capped at the rate of overall growth of the economy?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to assure Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador with this answer.

As the member knows, both provinces can rest assured that the exceptional treatment afforded under their offshore accords is secure.

Our Conservative government's cumulative best-of guarantee is in no way affected by recent changes announced in November that put equalization on a more sustainable long-term footing. As has always been the case with equalization, the amount each receiving province gets depends on its fiscal capacity relative to other provinces.

As a rule of thumb, a province growing faster than the national average might see a decrease in equalization while a province growing less than the national average could see an increase. As a result of their offshore accords, additional offset payments are made to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador based on how much equalization they would have received if they had no offshore revenues bolstering their respective fiscal capacities. These payments will continue without change.

These provinces also benefit from our government's cumulative best-of guarantee. This ensures that they will do at least as well under the new O'Brien-based system on a cumulative basis as they would have if they had remained under the old equalization system that was in place when the 2005 accord was signed.

The cumulative best-of guarantee and the 2005 equalization accord system are not touched by the November announcement. The Minister of Finance guaranteed that no equalization receiving province's equalization payments for next year, including offshore accord offsets, would go down as a result of his November announcement. Even though Nova Scotia would normally have received less because it had been doing relatively better than other provinces, its total payments in 2009-10 will be held to the same level as 2008-09.

In addition, if total cumulative payments to Nova Scotia fall below the payments the province would have received under the 2005 equalization system, the province will receive an additional guarantee payment.

I understand the member knows all this already. Reading from the November 22, 2008, St. John's Telegram the member was “welcoming the news that the Atlantic Accord agreements will not be impacted by a recent change to the equalization program”. The member also knows that federal support to Nova Scotia has increased during our government, and will continue to grow. He knows total federal support for his province reached $2.7 billion in 2008-09, a $363 million increase over 2005-06.

The member knows Nova Scotia will receive $1.5 billion in equalization and accords offsets alone next year, a 14% increase above the Liberal government. The member also knows Nova Scotia will benefit from an initial crown share settlement payment of $234 million this year, something the previous Liberal government refused to do.

I hope the member will stand up for Canada and oppose handing our government over to the separatist-backed coalition attempting to seize power.

[Bill Casey, Independent, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that did not hurt. I have been looking for that answer for quite a while. The parliamentary secretary clearly understood my question and he gave me the exact right answer, and it is even the one I wanted.

I did acknowledge that the government was going to honour the original arrangement with the province of Nova Scotia after the throne speech because I did get assurance that it would be fixed. However, it was right back in the economic statement. I thought that I had lost it, I had it, then I lost it, but it is back again anyway tonight. I appreciate the parliamentary secretary for doing that.

I would ask one more question.

Some documents were provided to the Halifax Herald to confirm this. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would consider tabling those documents as I am sure they are exactly the same thing as he just read now. Some documents were provided to the Herald I think yesterday.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly look into whether those documents can be provided to the hon. member.

Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador's exceptional treatment afforded under their offshore accords is secure.

I would remind the member that the cumulative best-of guarantee is untouched. This means that, at a minimum, both provinces will continue to receive additional offset payments based on how much equalization they would have received if they had no offshore revenues bolstering their respective fiscal capacities. If, like Nova Scotia, they had opted into the O'Brien formula, they would continue to benefit from the cumulative best-of guarantee.

I remind my colleague of the words of the former minister of intergovernmental affairs, the new leader of the separatist-backed coalition when he said, “The federal government believes it would be ill-advised to grant such special treatment to Nova Scotia, Newfoundland or any other province”.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to address an extremely relevant issue for Canadians these days, the lack of support for Canadian families in the economic statement of the Conservatives. Credit card companies are gouging consumers and the government does not want to act to change that.

In these tough economic times, more and more Canadian families are feeling the effects in their bank accounts. More and more families are relying on credit cards to pay for day-to-day needs such as rent and groceries. With the holidays quickly approaching, it is completely heartless that families already experiencing record debt levels are faced with another 5% credit card interest rate increase. Yes, an additional 5%, bringing the astounding interest rate many families will have to pay to close to 25%.

Something needs to be done to protect consumers from what is very clearly a cash grab on the part of credit card companies. Credit card companies should not have the ability to gouge consumers and take advantage of the current economic situation for their own profitable gains. Considering the dire circumstances faced by the majority of Canadians, the government’s response to my question was to stop using these cards, or as the Minister of Finance indicated, shop around.

These are not solutions to a problem, but rather a government that sloughs off struggling Canadian families and ensures their friends, the big banks and big oil companies, make record profits. No wonder the government has lost the support of the House. It has also lost the support of Canadian people.

Just a few hours ago, I had the opportunity to meet with the Canadian Independent Petroleum Marketers Association. They spoke to me about how many of these family-owned gas stations, with many of these operations in my riding of Sudbury and throughout northern Ontario, were having to give more and more of a percentage of their credit card earnings to the banks. It is not just a family issue. It affects small businesses as well. Ultimately, business owners will ensure that those increased costs are put to the consumer. Who gets hit again? Consumers. Consumers will feel the brunt of these increasing costs.

While the costs of merchant transactions remain the same, credit card companies are charging more, up to 10,000% more in some cases to merchants. Small businesses need limits. Currently, our country has no framework in place to protect consumers or small businesses from the greed of credit card companies.

As I asked last week, Canadians were told that while the banks could count on the government’s help, consumers were on their own. That was obvious in last Thursday’s economic statement. The government does not get it. At a time when consumers and businesses are hurting, it is more interested in political games rather than acting on behalf of Canadians. When will the government acknowledge it did the wrong thing by not supporting Canadian families and small independent businesses in its economic statement?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, consumers use credit cards of their own free will. The best consumer protection framework includes competition and full fee disclosure accompanied by choice. Federal law requires credit card companies to disclose interest rates and fees prior to agreements. Further, numerous credit card products with differing interest rates are available. Consumers shop around for the best option for their individual needs.

To ensure Canadians are fully informed of their options, the federal government does play a role. Through the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, we help consumers make informed credit card choices, including publishing a semi-annual report. This free report, entitled “Credit Cards and You” provides consumers with comparison tables outlining the rates and features of more than 200 credit cards. The online version also includes an interactive web tool to aid consumers in choosing a credit card. I encourage consumers to compare packages and services offered at www.fcac.gc.ca or call toll free 866-461-3222. That is responsible government.

What is not responsible for the future of this country, however, is a Liberal-NDP-Bloc government that would bend to the whim and the desire of a separatist party whose only reason for existing is to destroy Canada. That is exactly what the member for Sudbury is shamefully trying to do.

The NDP leader has privately admitted that his party has had a secret and long-standing deal with the separatist Bloc to overthrow this government, a deal pre-dating the government's recent economic and fiscal update. That is shameful.

We will make sure that every person in Sudbury knows what their federal representative, the member opposite, is supporting. He is supporting a secret deal made in the backroom to hand over their government to a party that wants to destroy Canada.

Did the member campaign on that? Did the member's campaign material include a little blurb about betraying Canada with secret deals with separatists? I am going out on a limb to say, no, I do not think it did. I wonder what the people who voted for him are thinking right now. I wonder what his local newspaper, the Sudbury Star, thinks of the member's new best friends, the Bloc, which was described in an editorial the other day as wanting “to destroy Canada as we know it”.

Gerry Labelle, a prominent member of the greater Sudbury community, has publicly noted that many in the member's riding are outraged, stating, “I have yet to speak to anyone who is not unhappy about this”. That is in Sudbury.

I also understand that so many people are outraged that a rally may be organized in the coming days to express their opposition to handing over Canada to the separatists. I want the member to go to that rally. I want him to look his constituents and their children in the eye and say, “Selling out to separatists is in the best interests of the future of our country”.

A proud day for the NDP? Tommy Douglas is rolling over in his grave.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for talking so graciously about my riding, because yes, I have heard from constituents in droves, actually, and they are in support of the coalition. Unfortunately, as he mentioned, Mr. Labelle actually lost that election and that is why I am standing here today. I would ask the hon. member to check his figures next time.

What is shameful is that the member has not answered a question on an issue that is affecting millions of Canadian families, but rather has addressed it in the political partisan game once again. Obviously we see why the House does not support the Conservative government. The Conservatives forget about Canadian families, put their issues first and never worry about how families are being affected.

The New Democrats, the Liberals and the Bloc are putting families first. The economic statement did not do that, and so what we will do is--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if you want to check the record, you will find that I actually did answer that question, and appropriately.

Members of the NDP should hold their heads in shame for scheming and making backroom deals to sell out Canada to the separatist Bloc, damaging Canadian unity like nothing before. Do they realize what this will do for our economy, for our jobs, for investments?

Eric Lascelles of TD Securities does. He said:

The inclusion of an explicitly separatist party in the ruling coalition in the form of the Bloc Quebecois would likely cause some trepidation in financial markets, especially on the part of international investors. The turmoil generated by the uncertainty of these events in combination with the unknown of a new three-party coalition could prompt flight-to-safety flows in Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 6:46 p.m.)