Ted Menzies

[March 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, let us be very clear. Recent changes to the equalization formula will ensure that transfers to provinces like Quebec will be predictable and long term.

Equalization costs have grown by 56% from 2003-04 to 2008-09. They were set to rise another 15% next year and even more over the near term, growth due to unprecedented resource price volatility and continued weakening in the Ontario economy. This would clearly not be sustainable.

In the words of the Quebec finance minister, Monique Jérôme-Forget, “I can be sympathetic that a growth of 15% a year is unsustainable.”

Indeed, our changes are reasonable and will simply ensure equalization can grow at a sustainable rate in line with the growth in the economy.

To ensure fairness, we put a floor in at the same time so the overall size of the program will not contract, and we offered transitional protection for receiving provinces. What is more, these changes will in no way reduce transfers.

For example, Quebec's equalization and overall transfers are at an all-time high and growing. In 2009-10, Quebec will receive over $8.3 billion from equalization, a massive 70% increase since 2005-06 under the former Liberal government, I might at. Moreover, at more than $17.6 billion, overall federal support for Quebec is now at an all-time high.

With respect to the question of consultation, the aforementioned changes were in fact discussed at length with all provinces on November 3, 2008, at the finance ministers' meeting. The provinces were also given at that same meeting extraordinary early notice of the 2009-10 equalization amounts to provide them further certainty in terms of future budget planning.

Furthermore, a news release and backgrounder were issued and posted online that same day to outline the changes to all Canadians. Clearly, open, early and positive consultation was demonstrated.

If the member does not want to take my word for it, I ask her to listen to the words of the provincial finance minister from Prince Edward Island, Wes Sheridan.

As stated in the Journal Pioneer newspaper on November 3:

I was pleased that [the] federal minister...was able to share next year's equalization figures with provinces in advance of the normal release...This meeting was a positive one, with everyone agreeing to work together.

Furthermore, details on these changes were also provided to provincial officials involved at the technical level on November 13, and the November 27 economic and fiscal statement outlined the nature of the changes and explained why they were necessary.

Without a doubt, that represents an adequate flow of information to the provinces. For this reason, we are standing by the changes we have made to make equalization sustainable, and we are standing by the manner in which we introduced such changes.

[March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for themselves. Budget 2009 ensured that Canada health transfers will grow by $1.4 billion in 2009-10, reaching a record high of $24 billion.

No province's health transfer is being cut. In fact, all provinces and territories' transfers have increased over 2008-09 levels. This support will continue to grow at 6% annually, reaching over $30 billion in 2013-14. In budget 2009 we also made a $500 million investment in Canada Health Infoway to support electronic health records, an investment the Canadian Medical Association praised. It said, “It will lead to better, more efficient care”.

What did the NDP do? Unfortunately, they shamefully voted against this investment.

[March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, first let us be clear that our Conservative government is protecting transfer support during these challenging economic times.

We all recall that the old Liberal government shamelessly slashed transfer payments to provinces and territories to balance their books, forcing hospitals and universities to suffer. Our Conservative government will never do that. We will ensure provinces and territories have the long-term growing support required to provide the vital health care, educational and other transfers for the social services families need.

Despite what the member suggests, there have been no cuts to Canada's health transfer. In fact, federal support for health care is at an all-time time. Indeed, in 2009-10 the Canada health transfer will rise by $1.4 billion, reaching $24 billion. What is more, that support will continue to grow at 6% annually, reaching over $30 billion in 2013-14. We are not making any cuts to this historic level of that funding, nor will we change the legislated growth path of the health transfer.

However, we are responding to a shift in the economic circumstances of some provinces, most notably in Ontario, a shift that has resulted in unfair treatment of health transfers. In budget 2009, we set out the principles that will ensure fundamental fairness of health transfers, helping facilitate the move to equal per capita cash in 2014-15.

We recognize the need for provinces to have time to adjust to this new allocation formula. We also acknowledge the provinces' desire for more consultation on how to best move forward to meet health care needs for all Canadians while maintaining fairness in the transfer program.

That is why we decided on a transitional approach to implementing the equal per capita principle. Bill C-10, the budget implementation act, will ensure fair treatment for Ontario with respect to health transfers. Without this change, Ontario would not receive its fair share of health transfers. For 2009-10 and 2010-11, fairness for Ontario will be achieved through a separate payment. This will have no impact on Canada health transfer cash for any other province.

Again, no province will see a decline in their health transfers over 2008-09 levels as a result of this change. In fact, Manitoba will receive $903 million from the Canada health transfer in 2009-10, $43 million more in 2008-09. Rest assured that provinces like Manitoba can continue to count on long-term growing support from our Conservative government during these challenging economic times.

If the member for Winnipeg North will not take my word for it, she should contact her NDP provincial cousin, the NDP finance minister for Manitoba, Greg Selinger. He said, “The federal budget is good for the province and will stimulate the slowing economy. The budget had something in it for everyone, from consumers to businesses”.

[Government Expenditures, March 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in fact we did act last fall. We acted even earlier than that, in the fall economic statement of 2007.

We cut Canadians' taxes, an act that was applauded by many Canadians. We felt then and we still feel now that the best stimulus is to leave money in Canadians' pockets. That is why we cut taxes then, so Canadians could prepare for the economic downturn that we are facing now.

[March 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, that is what I said.

However, I want to refer back once again to the expression of regret of the House. Two S. O. 31s today were read out in the House recognizing the passing of Minister Baker. As Nova Scotia's finance minister, he served in the most demanding portfolio in all of government, amazingly while courageously battling cancer. He realized Canada was facing one of the most challenging global economic periods that we have seen in recent history. Indeed, he attended the meeting of the Canadian federal, provincial and territorial finance ministers in Saskatoon this past December where he provided valuable insight and ideas that helped craft our federal budget. We thank him for that service and we thank him for his wisdom and his courage.

[March 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from the other side for his continued questions and his passion for ensuring that his province is treated the same as every other province.

I just want to mention that today is a sad day for Nova Scotia. On this day, we mark with sadness the passing of a great Nova Scotian. I would like to convey my respect and condolences to the family and friends on the passing of the Hon. Michael Baker, Minister of Finance for Nova Scotia, after a long and courageous battle with cancer. Our thoughts are with his wife, Cindy, and his sons, Matthew and Daniel, at this time.

On behalf of the Minister of Finance, I wish to read his statement on Minister Baker's passing:

I had the good fortune to work with Michael, both in cooperation with Canada's other finance ministers to address the collective challenges facing our nation, as well as directly in our efforts to secure a resolution to the long-standing Crown Share payment issue for the people of Nova Scotia.

In all cases, Michael advanced the interests of Nova Scotia and Canada with the utmost respect for his constituents and colleagues, a profound appreciation for our parliamentary traditions and a great sense of personal responsibility for securing his home province's prosperity. His passing marks a tremendous loss for his family, his friends, his province and our country.

I will now address today's question. I want to assure the member that Nova Scotia's cumulative best-of guarantee is untouched by budget 2009 equalization changes. This means that Nova Scotia will receive at least as much equalization and offset payments on a cumulative basis as it would have under the system that was in place when the 2005 accord was signed.

On top of that, it will receive $1.5 billion of equalization and offset payments combined for 2009-10, along with a $74 million transitional adjustment payment, ensuring payments to the province are the same as 2008-09, despite the fact that Nova Scotia's fiscal capacity has grown significantly. This payment is legislated through Bill C-10, the budget 2009 implementation act. It is referenced on page 335 of that document.

In subsequent years, total equalization payments under the new O'Brien based system will grow in line with GDP on a three year moving average. The amount each province gets will depend on its fiscal capacity.

For example, a province growing faster than the national average might see a decrease, while a province growing less than the national average could see an increase. However, Nova Scotia was provided with what has become known as the cumulative best-of guarantee. This guarantee ensures that Nova Scotia will do at least as well under the new O'Brien based system, which Nova Scotia has opted into on a cumulative basis, as it would have if it had remained under the old system that was in place when the 2005 accord was signed.

The cumulative best-of guarantee and the 2005 equalization and accord system are not touched by the equalization changes in budget 2009.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the Okanagan, a beautiful part of this country. I envy where he lives. I thank him for his support.

In answer to the first question, when we talk about dollars going out, the important thing is that the five week extension to EI will be available to people the moment the budget passes this House.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear because once again I have been accused of lying in the House. I find that absolutely repugnant, besides the fact that I have slurred no one here, Mr. Speaker, and you very well know that.

I do not appreciate the hon. member saying that I lied when I said that his leadership did not provide suggestions. Good for him if he provided some suggestions to the leadership of the NDP but his leadership did not give one of them to us. That is the truth.

I sat with the Minister of Finance when the NDP critic berated the finance minister but refused to offer one suggestion. It was the same thing from the Liberal Party. At least the Bloc had the decency to put forward some written suggestions. The leadership of the NDP put forward absolutely nothing and then those members have the audacity to stall this process.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, by all means we will recognize Quebec's jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of all provinces in implementing a voluntary, and I emphasize voluntary, common securities regulator.

This is an interesting question considering that the witnesses who appeared before the finance committee this morning reminded us that we were the only industrialized country that does not have a common securities regulator. We had a long discussion about those people who were impacted through non-bank asset backed commercial paper. We are not certain that a common securities regulator would have prevented that frozen asset problem but could have.

We owe it to Canadians to put in place what could help protect the savings of Canadians. That is more important to us than anything we can do. We are in a financial situation where seniors and investors are coming to us and asking how they can protect what they have left. A common securities regulator is the right thing to do. Most provinces are on board. The others have the option to come on board.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of less than truths in the statement the hon. member made. I take a little bit of exception. If I am not telling the truth, is he then insinuating that I am lying? I am sure that he would not insinuate that of any hon. member in the House.

I would bluntly and blatantly argue that the prebudget consultation process that took place, in probably the shortest timeframe in history, was the broadest that has ever happened. The finance committee did not travel but there were meetings held here. People were invited to Ottawa and to many cities across this country. It was the broadest online consultation that has ever happened. We had an incredible amount of submissions that actually put forward ideas.

Speaking of ideas, we did not receive one idea from the Liberal Party of Canada. We did from some of its members but, unfortunately, some of its members did not get the message to their leader.