John Manley

[Health, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about our commitment to health care. Let us talk about $35 billion in increased health care funding that was provided in the last budget.

Let us talk about the increased health care funding that was included in the 2000 health accord.

Let us talk about the performance of the government year after year to increase the amount available through the CHST to the provinces for health care, for post-secondary education and for social services.

The contrast to 10 years ago is a contrast of night and day.

[The Economy, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is not our strategy to underestimate the surplus. Even if it were, it is at least an improvement over the PQ strategy of underestimating the deficit.

[The Economy, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, to repeat: that promise was conditional. The condition was that the government be able to report a surplus of $3 billion next January.

We will not be able to do that, so what does the hon. member want us to do? Say “No, we cannot pay”? Or wait until we are able to say, if there is a surplus, that the money will be transferred directly to the provinces, regardless of the amount of the surplus, provided it is at least $2 billion?

[The Economy, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, they seem to change ground quite a lot over there. I do not know whether the results are too good or too bad.

What I would say is that the issue of debt reduction remains an important priority for the government. This is not the first time that we have, at this point in the year, been faced with a contingency reserve of less than the full $3 billion. That was the case in the 2001 budget as well. As economic conditions improved we were able to fully restore, not only the contingency but the additional prudence in our statements. I expect that will be the case again.

[Financial Institutions, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter affecting an important sector in our economy, as I said to the member in committee this morning. His committee, the finance committee of the House, together with that of the Senate, have studied this matter. The government has responded. We have asked a series of additional questions on which we are receiving the input of Canadians.

We promise that we will respond in a comprehensive way to the issues that affect not just banking but the financial services sector by the end of next June, and that applications to merge institutions can be considered. In the meantime, there have been mergers in that sector, as the hon. member well knows.

[The Economy, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the views of the NDP, I believe that having a balanced budget is very important. I believe Canadians believe that.

If we want to look over the last 10 years, I ask the hon. member to think of the fact that today in Canada there are three million more Canadians working than there were in 1993. I ask him to look at the fact that 10 years ago, 5 years ago, we were the second worst in the G-7 when it came to the level of our debt in relation to our GDP. Now we are the second best. I ask him to look at the fact that year after year we have outperformed the G-7 in growth in our GDP and--

[The Economy, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that the commitment in the first place was a conditional one. It was conditional upon there being at least $3 billion in surplus determined by the month of January 2004. It is clear from the forecast today that we are going to be unable to forecast a surplus that large by January. However, I think the provinces will find that a responsible position was taken today, one to their liking, namely that if there is a surplus, they will get the first $2 billion.

[The Economy, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the member is complaining about. It seems to me that Enron got into trouble because it tried to tell shareholders that things were better off than they were and he seems to be criticizing me because I am telling Canadians that they are worse off than they are.

The truth is that these are forecasts. These are not history. They are the future. We are doing our best to give a good vision of what the future lies, but we have built in, as I explained this morning to the committee, prudent assumptions. We have tried to be cautious because unlike the Progressive Conservative government in Ontario, we are going to do as well as we promised.

[The Economy, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians are happy to realize that according to the OECD we now have the third lowest taxes in the OECD as a percentage of GDP. They are also happy with the fact that in five years we have reduced taxes by $100 billion.

Quite frankly, I think Canadians are concerned about ensuring there is a proper balance between economic policy on the one hand, including fiscal prudence, and ensuring that the level of government services remains at a high enough standard that their needs, whether they be health, education or otherwise, are met.

[The Economy, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the provinces will be quite happy because the condition on the promise, as they say, of $2 billion, was to have a federal surplus of over $3 billion.

This morning, I said that if the surplus was only $2 billion, it would go to the provinces. This is even better for the provinces than the promise made in the health accord.