Stephen Harper

[The Budget, March 21st, 2007]

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.

[The Budget, March 21st, 2007]

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.

[The Budget, March 21st, 2007]

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.

[The Budget, March 21st, 2007]

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.

[The Budget, March 21st, 2007]

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.

[The Budget, March 21st, 2007]

Once again, Mr. Speaker, if he had read the budget he would have seen that there is a tax credit for businesses that open up new child care spaces. There are new transfers to the provinces for the creation of new child care spaces. Of course, there is also, from last year's budget, the $1,200 a year allowance for every Canadian family.

I know the Liberal Party wants to take away all these things, but once again, the Leader of the Opposition did not know what he was talking about on the security issue and he does not know what he is talking about on the budget issue. That is why he cannot get his own caucus to stand behind his positions.

[The Budget, March 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should know that is the arrangement that exists presently in the Atlantic accords, which this government has protected in their entirety. This government has adopted as well the exclusion of offshore resources as part of the general equalization formula for every province.

Once again, this is an example of why the Leader of the Opposition should have read the budget before he took a position on it. If he had done that, he might find that he does not have to kick out members of his own party who understand that this is a good budget for Canadians.

[The Budget, March 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I already answered that question. The budget protects all the benefits to Nova Scotia, as well as Newfoundland and Labrador. There is no cap whatsoever applied to the Atlantic accord, contrary to what was said by some commentators last night.

In fact, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, unlike the other provinces, actually have the choice of two different equalization formulas, although they cannot have both at the same time.

This should allow the Government of Nova Scotia to do something very different than the Government of New Brunswick. The Government of New Brunswick surprised people with tax increases and program cuts in the last budget. That should not happen in Nova Scotia or anywhere else in Atlantic Canada.

[The Budget, March 20th, 2007]

Another question is, Mr. Speaker, why does the hon. member opposite have trouble hearing the truth?

The truth is that the Saskatchewan government just got the best deal that any Saskatchewan government ever had in history from this government. On top of that the people of Saskatchewan, for agriculture, infrastructure and all kinds of major initiatives by this government, will get the best deal they have ever received.

The only party they will ever get that deal from is this party because that party would not give it to them and would take it away.

[The Budget, March 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the government, first of all, in dealing with the fiscal imbalance, took the principal recommendations made by an independent, non-partisan expert committee. We then modified those recommendations to make sure they included our commitments, including our commitment to have the full exclusion of natural resources.

Under this particular proposal under the budget, Saskatchewan will receive the largest per capita increase in equalization benefits of any province and guess what, not surprising, the member opposite from Regina is going to vote against Saskatchewan.