Résumé de la séance
- Le budget de 2003 a dominé la période des questions, les partis de l'opposition contestant l'absence d'allégements fiscaux significatifs pour les Canadiens de la classe moyenne, le financement insuffisant des infrastructures et l'absence d'aide aux chômeurs, aux travailleurs du bois d'œuvre et aux militaires.
- Les questions d'éthique ont porté sur la fiducie sans droit de regard de l'ancien ministre des Finances concernant Canada Steamship Lines; les membres de l'opposition ont soutenu que des réunions personnelles avec des dirigeants de CSL étaient incompatibles avec une véritable fiducie sans droit de regard, tandis que le premier ministre a défendu l'arrangement comme conforme aux lignes directrices.
- Sur l'Iraq, Gilles Duceppe a pressé le premier ministre de déclarer clairement que le Canada ne se joindrait pas à une coalition dirigée par les États-Unis sans mandat de l'ONU; le premier ministre a confirmé que le Canada n'avait pas été invité à participer et ne s'était pas offert à le faire.
- Les membres du NPD ont critiqué les engagements budgétaires en matière d'infrastructure comme insuffisants, soutenant que l'argent était réparti trop mince et trop loin dans le futur pour combler un déficit d'infrastructure de 57 milliards de dollars, et que rien n'était spécifiquement consacré au transport en commun ou au rail.
- La taxe de sécurité aérienne a été scrutée, l'Alliance canadienne s'interrogeant sur la raison pour laquelle l'industrie aérienne seule était taxée pour des coûts de sécurité non imposés aux secteurs ferroviaire, portuaire, frontalier ou maritime.
- Une résolution procédurale a été annoncée à la clôture de la période des questions, le leader du gouvernement à la Chambre confirmant qu'une conclusion satisfaisante avait été atteinte sur l'impasse concernant les affaires émanant des députés pouvant faire l'objet d'un vote.
Le premier ministre a fait une déclaration publique précise et sans ambiguïté selon laquelle le Canada n'avait pas été invité à rejoindre une coalition dirigée par les États-Unis contre l'Iraq et ne s'était pas offert à le faire, donnant aux Canadiens l'articulation la plus claire de la position du gouvernement sur la question qui avait dominé les 24 heures précédentes.
Clark cites specific pre-1994 rules on blind trusts prohibiting personal interventions, asks the Prime Minister to acknowledge he changed those rules and explain why — a precise, document-based accountability question directed at a specific policy change.
Plutôt que d'expliquer pourquoi le gouvernement s'est engagé à moins de 20 % de ce que le comité de la Chambre des communes recommandait pour les dépenses de défense, Manley a faussement attribué au député la position que moins d'argent devrait aller aux enfants pauvres, à l'environnement et aux soins de santé — un homme de paille qui a entièrement évité la recommandation spécifique du comité parlementaire citée dans la question.
Questions sans réponse
- M. Stephen Harper a demandé pourquoi le budget ne pouvait pas identifier un seul exemple d'un programme qui sera réduit d'un dollar, après des mois de consultation sur le contrôle des dépenses — Manley a invoqué une réaffectation d'un milliard de dollars mais n'a nommé aucune réduction de programme précise.
- M. Leon Benoit a demandé pourquoi le gouvernement s'est engagé à moins de 20 % de ce que le comité de la Chambre des communes et le comité du Sénat recommandaient pour le budget de la défense — aucune réponse substantielle chiffre par chiffre n'a été fournie.
- M. Pierre Paquette a demandé précisément si le budget contenait quoi que ce soit pour les victimes du conflit sur le bois d'œuvre et pour la deuxième phase du plan d'aide — le ministre a cité la réouverture d'une seule usine et des programmes généraux sans aborder l'engagement de la deuxième phase.
- M. Joe Clark a demandé si le premier ministre avait été pleinement informé de tous les détails pertinents des relations de l'ancien ministre des Finances avec Canada Steamship Lines et pouvait garantir que la lettre et l'esprit du code de conduite avaient été respectés — le premier ministre a dit qu'il n'était pas de son ressort d'être informé, ce qui ne constituait pas la garantie demandée.
- Mme Judy Wasylycia-Leis a demandé pourquoi le budget accordait un allégement fiscal pour le charbon mais pas un seul sou dédié au transport en commun ou au rail — le ministre de l'Environnement a mentionné des fonds généraux d'infrastructure et de changement climatique accessibles aux municipalités mais n'a confirmé aucune allocation dédiée au transport en commun ou au rail.
Harper demande pourquoi le budget ne contient aucun allègement fiscal pour les Canadiens de la classe moyenne ordinaire.
The question frames a partisan 'spend, spend, spend' narrative and asks vaguely why there is 'absolutely no tax relief' for ordinary middle class Canadians, without citing any specific budget figures or a precise measurable ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government went on a shopping spree and ordinary Canadians know they will be paying. Canadian workers and families wonder why when the Liberals get to spend, spend, spend, they have to pay, pay, pay. They are wondering what is in it for them. Why is there absolutely no tax relief in the budget for ordinary middle class Canadians?
Manley invoque la réduction d'impôt de 100 milliards de dollars sur cinq ans et l'indexation complète, et affirme que la priorité des Canadiens était d'augmenter les dépenses en soins de santé, pour les enfants pauvres et l'environnement.
Manley references the $100 billion tax reduction and full indexation but does not address the specific claim of no middle-class tax relief, pivoting instead to spending priorities.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, how soon they forget a five year $100 billion tax reduction by the government. How soon they forget full indexation of all tax brackets. How soon they forget that Canadians' top priority has been increased spending on health care, on poor kids, on the environment. These are the things that we have been doing.
Harper met au défi le ministre des Finances de réviser le budget et d'avancer dans l'année en cours les réductions d'impôt sur le revenu des particuliers reportées à l'avenir.
Harper provides some factual grounding by referencing CPP premium increases, airline taxes, and the GST, and issues a specific challenge to move future personal income tax cuts into the current year's budget, though the framing remains adversarial.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the reason they forget is that those tax cuts were offset by CPP premium increases, airline taxes and a record GST that the Prime Minister brags about. Canadians know that most of the personal income tax cuts that the government talks about have been deferred well into the future. I challenge the MInister of Finance, if he is serious about middle class tax reduction, why does he not revise his budget and today move those future tax cuts for personal taxes into this year's budget?
Manley affirme que Harper a tort et que les réductions d'impôt sur le revenu des particuliers ont été mises en œuvre et continuent d'être bénéfiques, puis énumère les priorités de dépenses qu'il a entendues des Canadiens.
Manley asserts personal income tax cuts have been implemented but provides no figures or timeline, and pivots quickly to listing spending priorities rather than addressing the specific challenge to advance the tax cuts.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, he is wrong. Personal income tax cuts have been implemented and they continue to be enjoyed year after year by Canadians. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I spent the last several months hearing from Canadians about what they wanted to see in the budget and I can tell him that we responded to that. We responded to their demands to see more money for health care, more money for children living in poverty, more money for homelessness, more money for affordable housing, and more money for the environment. Those are the priorities of the government.
Harper demande pourquoi le budget ne peut pas identifier un seul programme qui sera réduit d'un dollar, compte tenu de mois de promesses de contrôle des dépenses.
Harper cites the finance minister's own prior public statements about controlling spending and a promised $1 billion reallocation, and asks for one concrete example of a program reduced by one dollar, making it a specific and answerable accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, if we look at the tax relief in the budget for ordinary Canadians, there is not enough to pay for the rose that was in the finance minister's lapel. For months the finance minister went around the country talking about the need to control spending. He even said in this budget that he promised in the future to look at up to $1 billion a year. It was nothing more than an attempt to whitewash the spending scandal swirling around the government. After months of looking into this issue, why could the budget not identify one example of one program that will be reduced by one dollar?
Manley affirme qu'il y a un milliard d'exemples parce que l'exercice de réaffectation donne lieu à une réaffectation des dépenses d'un milliard de dollars en 2003-2004.
Manley claims there are 'a billion examples' because the reallocation exercise yields $1 billion in 2003-04, but offers no single concrete example of a specific program reduced, which was the precise ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, there are a billion examples like that because the result of the reallocation exercise is a reallocation of spending of $1 billion in 2003-04.
Penson demande pourquoi le gouvernement ne livrera pas l'ensemble des réductions d'impôt déjà annoncées dans l'année en cours plutôt que de les reporter.
Penson cites a $7.50 to $1 spending-to-tax-relief ratio and asks why the full package of cuts is not delivered this year, but the framing mixes rhetoric about neglecting average Canadian families with the specific ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is strange that there was not one example in yesterday's budget. The government increased spending by $7.50 for every dollar in tax relief and none of that tax relief will go to hardworking middle class families. The government has neglected the average Canadian family. If the cuts already announced are so great, why will the finance minister not deliver the full package this year?
Manley cite des chiffres précis d'économies : une économie de 1 395 $ (24 %) pour une famille type de quatre personnes avec deux revenus totalisant 60 000 $, et une économie de 44 % pour une famille de quatre personnes avec un seul revenu de 40 000 $.
Manley provides specific dollar figures — a $1,395 saving (24%) for a two-earner family of four at $60,000 and a 44% saving for a one-earner family of four at $40,000 — directly addressing the claim about ordinary Canadians.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I just wish to draw to the hon. member's attention that the difference in tax paid by a typical two earner family of four with a combined income of $60,000 this year is a saving of $1,395, a saving of 24%. For a one earner family of four with $40,000 in income, it is a saving of 44%. Those are the ordinary Canadians. That is the tax relief they are experiencing.
Penson demande pourquoi le ministre des Finances impose des fardeaux aux familles canadiennes moyennes tout en n'offrant que 8 $ par année en réductions de cotisations à l'assurance-emploi — pas assez pour un film.
Penson uses a specific example from the budget — the $8 a year in EI premium reductions — to illustrate his point concretely, though the concluding question about 'burdening the average Canadian' is broader and rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, here is an example from yesterday's budget. The $8 a year in premium reductions on EI will not get an average Canadian to a movie, not one movie a year. In fact, it would not even pay for a babysitter long enough to get through the coming attractions. Why is the Minister of Finance burdening the average Canadian and average Canadian families to pay for his spending spree?
Manley souligne que les cotisations à l'AE étaient de 3,09 $ en 1993 et devaient monter à 3,30 $, et que le gouvernement les a réduites neuf fois consécutives, avec une dixième réduction hier fixant le taux à 1,98 $.
Manley directly addresses EI premiums by citing the reduction from $3.09 (scheduled to rise to $3.30) in 1993 through ten consecutive reductions to a rate of $1.98, which is relevant and factual but does not engage with the $8-per-year figure Penson raised.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member raised the question of employment insurance premiums. When the Liberal government was elected in 1993 the premiums were $3.09 and scheduled to go up to $3.30. Instead, nine consecutive times we have reduced employment insurance premiums. The 10th time was yesterday when we set a premium rate for next year of $1.98. That is progress in employment insurance.
Duceppe demande au premier ministre d'annoncer définitivement que le Canada ne participera pas à la coalition des pays volontaires que les États-Unis veulent envoyer en guerre contre l'Irak.
Duceppe asks a specific question about whether the Prime Minister will announce clearly that Canada will not participate in the coalition of willing countries, referencing a contradiction between the PM's statement and his communications director's walk-back, but the ask has a partly rhetorical framing.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, the Prime Minister rejected any Canadian participation in the coalition of willing countries the United States wants to set against Iraq. Unfortunately, his director of communications rushed to alter this by stating that the government had not yet reached a decision. Instead of backtracking, ought not the Prime Minister to be reassuring the public and announcing, once and for all, that Canada will not be participating in the coalition of willing countries the United States wants to send to war against Iraq? The public has a right to know clearly what Canada's position is.
Chrétien note que les Américains et les Britanniques, qui ne voulaient pas d'une deuxième résolution de l'ONU, sont maintenant susceptibles d'en présenter une, suggérant que le processus de l'ONU qu'il a favorisé est suivi.
Chrétien does not address whether Canada will or will not join the coalition of willing countries, instead pivoting to the UN process and the shift toward a second UN resolution.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is following the situation closely, he will realize that, only a few weeks ago, neither the Americans nor the British wanted a second UN resolution, and now they will likely be introducing one. This means that the United Nations process we have favoured since last July is being followed by all parties interested in finding a peaceful solution.
Duceppe demande si le Canada dira à Rumsfeld qu'il ne fera partie d'aucune coalition avec les États-Unis sans l'aval des Nations Unies.
Duceppe grounds his follow-up in a specific contemporaneous reference to Donald Rumsfeld's statements and asks the pointed question of whether Canada will tell Rumsfeld it will not be part of any coalition without the United Nations, making it a reasonably specific accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, that is not what I am asking. I am following the situation very closely and I have just been listening to Donald Rumsfeld. He was asked whether the U.S. would go if the UN does not. He still reserves the right to go, and says that there are willing countries standing by. The journalists asked him to name these willing countries, but he refused. Is it not the duty of Canada, in monitoring the situation very closely, to tell Mr. Rumsfeld, “We will not be part of that coalition. Get that idea out of your head. We will not be in any coalition with the United States and without the United Nations”? That is what I want an answer to.
Chrétien déclare que le Canada n'a pas été invité à faire partie d'un tel groupe et qu'il n'a pas non plus offert de le faire.
Chrétien gives a short, direct-sounding answer — that Canada has not been asked to take part in any such group, nor has it offered to — but does not go as far as the categorical assurance Duceppe requested.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday in the House, we have not been asked to take part in any such group, nor have we offered to.
Paquette demande comment le ministre des Finances peut expliquer que malgré plus de 15 milliards de dollars à dépenser, le budget ne contient rien pour l'accès à l'assurance-emploi, le coût du gaz et du mazout, ou le bois d'œuvre.
Paquette identifies three specific omissions — employment insurance access, gas and heating oil costs, and softwood lumber — while noting the budget exceeded $15 billion, but the question is diffuse by covering three separate issues at once.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, one wonders why the Minister of Finance is proud, when his budget consisted of handing out more than $15 billion with nothing to improve access to employment insurance, nothing for the cost of gas and heating oil and nothing for softwood lumber. Since he has the money, how can the Minister of Finance explain that his budget contains not one word on the issues that are having a terrible impact on thousands of Canadians and Quebeckers?
Manley dit avoir consulté les Canadiens dans toutes les régions et avoir répondu à leurs priorités : soins de santé, enfants de familles à faible revenu, environnement et changements climatiques, et innovation.
Manley does not address employment insurance, gas and heating oil, or softwood lumber, instead repeating the same list of consultation-driven priorities (health care, children, environment, innovation).
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I consulted with people across Canada, in every region. And what I heard from these Canadians were the priorities that we chose: health care, children, especially in low-income families, the environment and climate change. These are the investments that we made, an innovation. And we responded directly to what the public wanted.
Paquette demande au ministre de confirmer que le budget ne contient absolument rien pour les victimes du conflit sur le bois d'œuvre, étant donné que la deuxième phase promise du plan d'aide ne s'est pas concrétisée.
Paquette focuses specifically on softwood lumber, references the promised second phase of the assistance plan, and asks the minister to confirm the budget contains nothing for victims of the softwood lumber conflict — a concrete, verifiable question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, once again, this budget contains nothing for softwood lumber, a human economic crisis that has hit thousands of workers and their communities in addition to hundreds of businesses. The assistance plan provided for a second phase. We are still waiting for it. Can the minister deny that his budget contains absolutely nothing for the victims of the softwood lumber conflict?
Pettigrew dit que les programmes fonctionnent bien, citant la réouverture d'une industrie à Saint-Fulgence avec 150 emplois, et affirme que DRHC et Ressources naturelles Canada ont des programmes et que les négociations à Washington se déroulent très bien.
Pettigrew does not confirm or deny the budget contains nothing for softwood lumber victims, instead citing one plant reopening in Saint-Fulgence with 150 jobs and asserting that programs and Washington negotiations are going very well.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we have programs that are working very well in the area of softwood lumber. The industry in Saint-Fulgence, in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, just reopened, with 150 jobs. Human Resources Development Canada and Natural Resources Canada have programs and the negotiations in Washington are going very well. Our government is doing its job.
Blaikie demande, compte tenu du montant dérisoire consacré aux infrastructures cette année, quelle communauté peut s'offrir la moitié d'une usine de traitement de l'eau, citant le maire de Winnipeg qui qualifie le programme de farce et la Fédération canadienne des municipalités qui parle d'un budget apocalyptique.
Blaikie cites specific third-party characterizations (the mayor of Winnipeg calling the infrastructure program a joke, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities calling it a doomsday budget) and asks a pointed rhetorical question about which community gets to buy half a water treatment plant, but the ask is more illustrative than precisely answerable.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, one wonders sometimes what the Liberals would do without the Canadian Alliance. The Liberals pretend to spend and the Canadian Alliance pretends that it is true when in fact the reality is something quite otherwise. The mayor of Winnipeg calls the infrastructure program a joke. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities calls it a doomsday budget. This patchwork budget completely ignored the needs of communities. With the absolute pittance devoted to infrastructure this year, can the Minister of Finance tell us which community gets to buy half a water treatment plant?
Manley dit que seul le NPD qualifierait 3 milliards de dollars de somme dérisoire, note que cela s'ajoute aux 5 milliards des deux derniers budgets pas encore dépensés, et mentionne les investissements dans le logement, les enfants de familles pauvres et les changements climatiques qui profitent également aux villes.
Manley challenges the characterization by citing $3 billion in new infrastructure investment on top of $5 billion from the last two budgets, which is relevant context, but does not address the mayor's or FCM's specific criticisms.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, only the NDP pretends that $3 billion is a pittance. Not only that, it is an investment on top of the $5 billion that was in the last two budgets for infrastructure, all of which is not yet spent. It is on top of the money that we have put into housing, increased in this budget. It is on top of the money that we have put into children living in poor families, most of whom live in cities. It is on top of the money that we have made available for projects related to climate change, much of which will benefit people living in cities and there is more.
Blaikie demande ce que Vancouver devrait faire avec sa part de 50 000 $ du budget d'infrastructure, compte tenu du déficit d'infrastructure de 57 milliards de dollars et du fait que l'argent annoncé ne finance pas un kilomètre de métro à Toronto ni entièrement le port de Halifax.
Blaikie provides three specific figures — not a kilometre of subway in Toronto, half the money for Halifax harbour, a $57 billion infrastructure deficit — and asks what Vancouver should do with its $50,000 share, making it a pointed and data-grounded question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance knows that money is spread so far and so thin into the future that it reminds me of the minister's answer. The money announced yesterday does not buy a kilometre of subway in Toronto. It is half the money for Halifax harbour. There is a $57 billion infrastructure deficit in this country. What does the minister think Vancouver should do with its share of the infrastructure budget, its $50,000? That is what each community gets. What should Vancouver do with its 50 grand?
Manley dit que le gouvernement fédéral a établi depuis neuf ans une pratique d'investissement dans les infrastructures municipales avec les provinces et les municipalités, et que cela tire parti des investissements provinciaux dans des domaines clairement de compétence provinciale.
Manley responds by questioning Blaikie's view of the Canadian Constitution and explaining the federal-provincial-municipal leveraging model, but does not address the $50,000 Vancouver figure or the other specific comparisons raised.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I think once again the hon. member has a strange view of the Canadian Constitution. What we have done is we have established over the last nine years a practice of investing in municipal infrastructure with the cooperation of the provinces and municipalities. In doing that, we have set the bar for provinces to make the necessary investments that they should be making in the case of municipalities which are clearly within their jurisdiction. What we have seen in each province is a response to that, which has seen the money we have put in leveraged again and again into increased projects that would otherwise--
Clark demande au premier ministre de reconnaître qu'il a modifié les règles sur les fiducies sans droit de regard qui interdisaient auparavant aux ministres d'intervenir personnellement dans les décisions touchant les actifs en fiducie, et d'expliquer pourquoi.
Clark cites specific pre-1994 rules on blind trusts prohibiting personal interventions, asks the Prime Minister to acknowledge he changed those rules and explain why — a precise, document-based accountability question directed at a specific policy change.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Until 1994 the rules on blind trusts prohibited absolutely cabinet ministers from personally intervening in any discussion or decision making that may affect assets held in that blind trust. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that he changed those rules to allow personal interventions by ministers and will he tell the House why he changed those rules?
Chrétien explique que l'arrangement permettait à l'ancien ministre des Finances de faire son travail pendant qu'un fiduciaire gérait son entreprise, et que des comptes rendus périodiques étaient normaux pour quelqu'un ayant des actifs, affirmant que le ministre ne gérait pas les actifs.
Chrétien does not directly acknowledge changing the rules or explain why, instead describing the arrangement that allowed the former Minister of Finance to be briefed while a trustee ran the company, and asserting there was no conflict.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I would like first to take the compliment on behalf of the Minister of Finance that the leader of the fifth party had no question on the budget. I gave the explanation yesterday. There are circumstances like that. The arrangement made was to make sure that the former Minister of Finance could do his job as Minister of Finance and have the trustee run his company and to make sure that he would be briefed from time to time, as is normal when we have some assets. He was not managing the assets. The assets were managed by the trustee.
Clark demande si le premier ministre a été pleinement informé des activités de son ancien ministre des Finances avec Canada Steamship Lines et s'il peut garantir que la lettre et l'esprit du code de déontologie ont été respectés en tout temps.
Clark cites the code of conduct guide for ministers and quotes directly from it that ministers are held accountable by the Prime Minister, then asks whether Chrétien was fully briefed on the former finance minister's dealings with Canada Steamship Lines and can guarantee the code was followed — a pointed, document-grounded question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, so he can run the Department of Finance and CSL at the same time. Yesterday the Prime Minister referred to the code of conduct guide for ministers. The code says, “Ministers and Secretaries of State are held accountable by the Prime Minister for their adherence to the code's provisions”. Is it the Prime Minister's position that he has been fully briefed on all the relevant details of his former finance minister's dealings with Canada Steamship Lines? Will the Prime Minister guarantee personally that the letter and the spirit of the code of conduct were followed at all times in--
Chrétien dit que la gestion sans droit de regard est aveugle pour le ministre, pour lui-même et pour tous, et qu'il n'aurait pas été sage d'être informé des activités de CSL puisque c'était une entreprise familiale gérée par des fiduciaires, le ministre des Finances faisant correctement son travail sans conflit d'intérêts.
Chrétien says blind management is blind for the minister, for him, and for everyone, and that it would not have been wise for him to be briefed on CSL operations, but does not directly answer whether the letter and spirit of the code of conduct were followed.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, blind management is blind for the person who is the minister. It is blind for me and it is blind for the people. When it is to be protected to not affect the operation of the government, it would not have been wise for me to be briefed on the operation of CSL. It was not my business. It was a family business run by trustees in the interest of the company and the Minister of Finance of the day who was doing his job properly without any conflict of interest.
Benoit demande pourquoi le budget n'a engagé que moins de 20 % des 5 milliards de dollars par année d'ici 2005 que le comité de la Chambre des communes a recommandé pour inverser la réduction cumulative de 29 milliards de dollars du budget de la défense.
Benoit cites specific figures — a cumulative $29 billion (in 2002 dollars) cut from the defence budget over nine years and a House of Commons committee recommendation of $5 billion per year by 2005 — and asks why the government committed less than 20% of what the committee recommended.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in nine years the former finance minister ripped a cumulative $29 billion in 2002 dollars from the defence budget. To fix the problem the House of Commons committee recommended putting back $5 billion per year by 2005. We are talking about the safety of Canadian citizens and the security of our nation, yet the government committed less than 20% of what the House of Commons committee said we would need. Why?
McCallum dit que la direction militaire actuelle l'a informé d'un déficit budgétaire de 936 millions de dollars, que le gouvernement a éliminé d'un trait de plume en un an, et que l'objectif ayant été atteint, les forces armées sont maintenant sur une voie de réaffectation.
McCallum addresses the budget shortfall by citing advice he received of a $936 million gap that was wiped out, and claims the gap no longer exists, but does not address the $5 billion per year committee recommendation or explain why the government committed less than 20% of it.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, early in my days as defence minister I received advice from the current military leadership, as opposed to retired military people, that there was a budget shortfall of $936 million. Little did I know at the time but the government had the wisdom to wipe out this gap with a stroke of the pen in a single year. There is no more gap. Now that the objective has been achieved, we are on a path of reallocation and making difficult choices to build the military of the future.
Benoit demande pourquoi le gouvernement ne s'engagera pas à respecter ce que le comité de la défense de la Chambre et le comité du Sénat ont réclamé en matière d'importantes augmentations des dépenses de défense, étant donné que l'Alliance canadienne a demandé l'ajout de 2 milliards de dollars à la base du budget de la défense cette année.
Benoit references both the House of Commons committee and the Senate committee recommendations for substantial increases, specifies the Canadian Alliance's own call for $2 billion added to the defence budget base this year, and asks why the government will not commit to what the parliamentary committees called for.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, at least today the defence minister is acknowledging that $29 billion is the right figure. That is some progress, but the Canadian Alliance has called for $2 billion to be added this year to the defence budget base. The House of Commons committee and the Senate committee have asked for substantial increases in defence spending and yet the government continues to add just a small portion of what the parliamentary committees have called for. The government has shown that defence spending is a low priority and it is not willing to commit to what the House defence committee and the Senate committee have called for. Why?
Manley dit que la plus grande augmentation dans un seul ministère était l'augmentation de 800 millions de dollars au ministère de la Défense, puis laisse entendre que la position du député signifie moins d'argent pour les enfants pauvres, l'environnement et les soins de santé.
Manley notes that the $800 million increase to the defence department was the largest single increase in any departmental spending, but then deflects by implying Benoit's position means less money for poor kids, the environment, and health care, without addressing the parliamentary committee recommendations.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, one of the functions of government is to make choices and we did make choices yesterday. The largest single increase in any departmental spending was in the defence department. An $800 million increase was made in a department that was receiving about $12 billion a year. I only take from the member's intervention that he suggests that less money should be given to poor kids and more money should be given to the military. Less money should be given to the environment and more money should be given to the military. Less money should be given to health care and more money should be given to the military.
Picard demande ce que le budget contient pour les chômeurs touchés par le trou, les prestations réduites, la pénalité de deux semaines et l'accès réduit.
The question references the gap, reduced benefits, the two-week penalty, and reduced access, but frames them rhetorically and the ask ('What is there in the budget for all these people?') is broad and accusatory rather than specific.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, not only is the Minister of Finance throwing billions of dollars around, but not to the unemployed who are struggling because of the gap, reduced benefits, the two-week penalty, not to mention reduced access to benefits for thousands of young people and thousands of women. What is there in the budget for all these people? Nothing.
Manley cite les mesures budgétaires pour les enfants à faible revenu, les enfants handicapés et les aidants naturels.
Manley pivots to children in low income families, children with disabilities, and a caregiver program, entirely ignoring the unemployed and the specific EI concerns raised.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, there are many things in the budget for ordinary Canadians, for children living in low income families and children with disabilities. We have developed a program to help those who must look after seriously ill parents, children or family members. I think that Canadians will benefit greatly from the measures introduced yesterday.
Picard demande si le ministre est embarrassé de continuer à soutirer 3 milliards de dollars aux chômeurs sur la prochaine année compte tenu du surplus budgétaire.
The question cites a specific figure of $3 billion over the next year taken from the unemployed, making it more grounded, though the framing is still rhetorical ('picking the pockets').
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, with the billions of dollars available to him, is the Minister of Finance not embarrassed to keep picking the pockets of the unemployed, to the tune of $3 billion over the next year?
Manley souligne 100 milliards de dollars en réductions fiscales sur cinq ans, la dixième réduction du taux de cotisation à l'AE et annonce un processus transparent pour établir les taux futurs.
Manley addresses EI rates directly, citing the tenth consecutive reduction and announcing a transparent rate-setting process, though he does not address the $3 billion surplus allegation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, there have been cuts in several tax measures. We have cut $100 billion over five years, including cuts in EI rates. We have now reduced the EI premium rate for the tenth time. Next year and in 2005, there will be a totally transparent process for setting the rate for the following years.
Solberg souligne que le budget de 2000 promettait une réduction des cotisations à l'AE à 2 $ d'ici 2004, calcule que l'annonce d'hier représente seulement une baisse de 2 cents valant 8 $ par année, et demande pourquoi la classe moyenne reçoit si peu du surplus qu'elle a généré.
Solberg cites the 2000 budget commitment of EI premiums dropping to $2 by 2004, calculates yesterday's announcement as a 2¢ drop worth $8 a year, making it highly specific and holding the minister to a prior public commitment.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the 2000 budget scheduled EI premiums to drop to $2 by 2004. That means yesterday's announcement for 2004 EI rates works out to a pathetic drop of 2¢. Thanks for very little. That works out to $8 a year. Middle class Canadians generated that surplus. Why is the finance minister giving this $8 middle finger to the middle class?
Manley indique que la réduction pour l'année prochaine sera de 12 cents par 100 dollars, qu'il s'agit de la dixième réduction consécutive et que le taux correspondra approximativement au coût des prestations versées.
Manley gives the specific reduction figure of 12¢ per $100, confirms it is the tenth consecutive reduction, and explains the rate will approximate actual benefit costs, but does not address the 2000 commitment of $2 by 2004.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the reduction for next year will be 12¢ per $100. That is the tenth consecutive reduction. Furthermore, that will reduce the premium rate to approximately the cost of the benefits being paid. Going further, the fund will be based on revenue in equal to costs of the program.
Solberg affirme que les libéraux ont perçu 45 milliards de dollars de plus en cotisations d'AE qu'ils n'en ont versé, note que le budget ne le mentionne pas, et demande si le surplus d'AE n'existe pas réellement et s'il s'agissait d'une arnaque créée par l'ancien ministre des Finances.
Solberg cites the specific figure of $45 billion more collected in EI taxes than paid out, and asks a pointed question about whether the EI surplus actually exists or was a scam, though the framing is partly rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals keep announcing the same thing year after year. This was first announced three years ago. Liberals have collected $45 billion more in EI taxes than they have given out to workers. The fact that they have not mentioned this in the budget is their way of saying, “Too bad. We have spent the surplus. We are going to keep EI taxes too high so that we can build up a new surplus and everyone is just going to have to trust us not to spend it again”. That is basically what they are saying. Will the finance minister confirm that no EI surplus actually exists and that it was all a scam created by the former finance minister?
Manley dit que le taux de l'année prochaine est basé sur les coûts prévus du programme, que le surplus a été inclus dans le fonds de recettes consolidé et utilisé pour réduire la dette et augmenter les dépenses en soins de santé et programmes importants.
Manley confirms the surplus was used within the consolidated revenue fund for debt reduction and program spending, partially addressing the question about the surplus's existence, but does not address the 'scam' allegation or the $45 billion figure.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, next year's rate is based upon the expected costs of the program and not to generate any additional revenue. The process that we will adopt following broadly based consultations is one that will ensure that the program going forward has premiums that reflect the actual costs of the program. The hon. member talks about a surplus. Yes, it has been used because it was included in the consolidated revenue fund of the government. It has reduced our debt and increased our spending on health care. It has increased our spending on important programs to benefit Canadians.
Gauthier demande pourquoi le ministre des Finances n'a pas supprimé la taxe d'accise de 1,5 cent par litre sur l'essence, initialement introduite pour lutter contre le déficit, étant donné que le déficit n'existe plus.
Gauthier identifies a specific excise tax of 1.5¢ per litre originally tied to fighting the deficit, notes the deficit no longer exists, and asks a pointed question about why it was not removed in the budget.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, while gasoline prices are hitting everyone hard, the Minister of Finance, with all the money at his disposal, has let taxpayers down and has not included anything to help them. Since one of the components of the price of gasoline is an excise tax of 1.5¢ per litre to fight the deficit, and since there is no longer a deficit, why did the Minister of Finance not remove that tax? Had he done so, he would have helped all Canadians.
Manley fait référence à la réduction fiscale de 100 milliards de dollars décidée en 2000 comme bénéficiant à tous les Canadiens, sans aborder la taxe d'accise spécifique de 1,5 cent.
Manley pivots entirely to the $100 billion tax reduction announced in 2000 and does not address the specific 1.5¢ per litre excise tax or the deficit-fighting rationale raised.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in the year 2000, we decided to reduce by $100 billion the taxes paid by all Canadians. All Canadians will benefit from this tax reduction. However, the hon. member would rather reduce one specific tax, instead of the others. All Canadians can benefit from our tax reductions, from lower employment insurance premiums and from the other cuts made by the government.
Gauthier demande pourquoi le ministre des Finances n'a pas aidé les Canadiens qui paient 60 cents le litre pour le mazout, notant que le gouvernement avait agi en 2000 quand il était à 50 cents, et suggère que l'inaction s'explique par l'éloignement des prochaines élections.
Gauthier cites a specific heating oil price comparison (50¢ in 2000 vs 60¢ yesterday) and asks why the minister did not help those paying 60¢ per litre, though the rhetorical jab about the next election weakens the accountability value.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants to talk about the budget of 2000, we can certainly do so. In 2000, just before the general election, the government was in a panic and sent cheques to all citizens of Quebec, including some who were dead and some who were in jail, to reduce the price of the litre of heating oil, which stood at 50¢. Yesterday, the price of a litre of heating oil was 60¢. Why did the Minister of Finance not think about helping those who are paying 60¢ for a litre of heating oil? Is it because the next election is still a long time away?
Manley suggère que Gauthier appuie maintenant l'initiative de 2000 à laquelle il s'était opposé et répète que la réduction fiscale de 100 milliards de dollars profite aux Canadiens.
Manley deflects entirely by suggesting Gauthier now endorses the 2000 program he opposed and references the $100 billion tax reduction without addressing heating oil or the price of 60¢ per litre.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it seems that the hon. member is now convinced that the idea which he opposed in 2000 was a good idea. I am pleased to see that he is open to new initiatives. Considering the fact that we reduced taxes across the whole tax system, I think that even the hon. member would agree that a reduction of $100 billion is not bad.
Rajotte affirme qu'Ottawa perçoit 4,5 milliards de dollars en taxes sur l'essence annuellement mais n'en retourne que 5 % sous forme de financement fédéral des autoroutes, et demande pourquoi le ministre n'a pas réduit la part fédérale de la taxe sur le carburant.
Rajotte cites the specific figure of $4.5 billion collected annually in gas taxes and the 5% returned as federal highway funding, and asks a clear question about why the federal share of the fuel tax was not reduced.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday's budget proves the Liberals still have an unhealthy addiction to high taxes. Each year Ottawa collects $4.5 billion in gas taxes, but only 5% of that money is returned to Canadians in the form of federal highway funding. The government is ripping off Canadians at the gas pump and not returning the benefits to them. Why did the minister yesterday not help to ease the burden on taxpayers by reducing the federal share of the fuel tax?
Manley indique que le gouvernement est dans la troisième année d'un programme quinquennal de réduction des impôts de 100 milliards de dollars et que le choix a été fait de réduire les impôts sur le revenu des particuliers plutôt que les taxes sur le carburant.
Manley confirms the $100 billion five-year tax reduction program and states the choice was to reduce personal income taxes rather than fuel taxes, partially addressing the question but not explaining why fuel taxes were specifically excluded.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we are in the third year of a five year program to reduce overall taxes by $100 billion and choices were made as to what taxes should be reduced. Personal income taxes were sharply reduced in that process and tax rates were indexed in that process. That was the choice that was made rather than reducing taxes on fuel.
Rajotte demande si le ministre des Finances envisagera de dédier une partie de la taxe fédérale sur le carburant ou de la céder aux provinces pour leur permettre de répondre à leurs besoins d'infrastructure.
Rajotte poses a binary, specific policy question — either dedicate a portion of the federal fuel tax or transfer it to the provinces — with clear accountability value regarding infrastructure needs.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, let us hope that some of the sewers that the minister's money will build can hold that kind of answer. The current situation is completely unacceptable to all Canadians. The government has a choice to make, either it dedicates a portion of the federal fuel tax or it transfers the tax to the provinces to allow them to make the funding decisions to address their infrastructure needs. Will the Minister of Finance consider vacating a portion of the federal tax on gas to allow the provinces room to address their infrastructure needs?
Manley répond 'Non, absolument pas', déclarant que les provinces ont la même capacité de lever des revenus que le gouvernement fédéral, que les revenus fédéraux vont dans le fonds de recettes consolidé et qu'il ne s'agit pas de dédier des taxes mais de remplir des responsabilités.
Manley gives a direct and unambiguous 'No, absolutely not' to the specific proposal, explains the consolidated revenue fund rationale, and articulates the government's position on provincial revenue capacity clearly.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, occasionally the opposition complains that the answers we give in the House are unclear. So I want him to listen closely. No, absolutely not. The responsibility that the provinces have for areas which are in their jurisdiction is one for which they have entirely the same capacity to raise revenue as does the federal government. Our revenue goes into the consolidated revenue fund and we make choices as to how to spend it. It is not a matter of dedicating taxes; it is a matter of meeting our responsibilities.
Adams demande ce que la ministre du Développement des ressources humaines fait pour mieux aider les étudiants par le biais du Programme canadien de prêts aux étudiants.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the minister what she is doing to help students through the Canada student loan program, with no accountability dimension.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. It is very expensive to go to college and university in most provinces in Canada. The provinces control tuition, but the federal government can help through scholarships and loan programs. I would like to ask the minister, what is she doing to better help students through the Canada student loan program?
Stewart cite 60 millions de dollars alloués au Programme canadien de prêts aux étudiants, le triplement du montant que les étudiants peuvent gagner tout en étudiant, l'amélioration de la réduction de la dette pour les difficultés à long terme et la nouvelle admissibilité pour les personnes protégées, y compris les réfugiés au sens de la Convention.
Stewart provides specific information: $60 million allocated in the budget, tripling of student earnings exemption, improved debt reduction for long-term difficulties, and new eligibility for protected persons including convention refugees.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased that the budget allocated $60 million to the Canada student loan program to reduce barriers to post-secondary education. We have tripled the amount students can earn while studying without affecting their student loans, we are improving debt reduction for students who experience long term difficulties with paying their loans, and we are very proud that protected persons, including convention refugees, will now be eligible to receive the Canada student loans. I want to recognize the hon. member for his consistent work in this area as well as the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations and the Canadian Federation of Students for their advice and support.
Wasylycia-Leis demande pourquoi le ministre des Finances a accordé un allègement fiscal pour le charbon mais n'a pas dédié un seul sou au transport en commun ou ferroviaire, étant donné seulement 505 millions de dollars cette année pour Kyoto.
Wasylycia-Leis cites $505 million for Kyoto this year, identifies the absence of funding for public transit, freight rail, and high speed rail, and asks why a tax break was given for coal but nothing dedicated for public transit or rail.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we know the Liberals do not care about cities and communities. But it goes beyond caring about water or roads. There is nothing in the budget for public transit, freight rail or high speed rail. In fact, only $505 million this year for Kyoto and not a specific project to put it in. So much for the Kyoto plan. Can the finance minister tell Canadians, who happen to care a lot about the environment, why he gave a tax break for coal, but not a single penny dedicated for public transit or rail?
Anderson affirme qu'il y a 3 milliards de dollars supplémentaires en fonds d'infrastructure, en plus des 5 milliards déjà réservés, et que 1,7 milliard des 2 milliards disponibles est accessible aux municipalités pour des projets de transport en commun réduisant les gaz à effet de serre.
Anderson cites an extra $3 billion in infrastructure moneys, $5 billion already set aside, and $2 billion of which $1.7 billion is available for transit schemes that reduce greenhouse gases, engaging the substance but not addressing the coal tax break or the rail omissions.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member would read the budget and perhaps look at yesterday's televised version. She will discover that there is an extra $3 billion in infrastructure moneys, in addition to $5 billion put aside, that can be used by municipalities for transit projects. She will see there is $2 billion of which $1.7 billion is available for municipalities if they put forward transit schemes which reduce greenhouse gases in a manner which is competitive with other proposals that come forward from municipalities and other partners. There is plenty of opportunity for the municipalities. The challenge is for them to do something about it.
Wasylycia-Leis demande comment le ministre des Finances peut donner le jackpot aux entreprises pour les taxes sur le capital tandis que les familles doivent jouer à la loterie pour des places en garderie, notant qu'il a dépensé sept fois plus pour éliminer la taxe sur le capital que pour les services de garde.
Wasylycia-Leis makes a specific comparison, citing seven times as much spent scrapping the capital tax as on child care, and asks a pointed question about the disparity, though the rhetorical framing of 'photo op' and 'lottery' reduces its precision.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing but smoke and mirrors in the budget on Kyoto and the same happens to be true for child care. The finance minister ought to be ashamed for putting more effort into a photo op than he did in creating child care spaces. We end up not with a day care program but with a child care lottery. He spent seven times as much scrapping the capital tax as he did on child care. How can the finance minister give business the jackpot for capital taxes while families have to play the lottery for child care spaces?
Manley reconnaît que peu d'argent est disponible cette année en particulier parce que des ententes doivent être conclues avec les provinces, mais cite près d'un milliard de dollars sur les cinq prochaines années comme une percée pour augmenter les places en garderie.
Manley acknowledges it is not a lot of money this particular year, explains agreements with provinces need to be reached, and cites almost $1 billion over the next five years, partially addressing the comparison but not the capital tax spending figure.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not apologize for visiting my constituents anytime. What we have been able to do is a breakthrough in making arrangements with the provinces to increase the number of child care spaces available. No, it is not a lot of money this particular year coming up because agreements need to be reached with the provinces. However, it is almost $1 billion over the next five years. For the first time the federal government is putting real money behind a commitment to provide child care spaces for Canadians. This is an important move forward.
Brison demande pourquoi le ministre des Finances a utilisé son premier budget pour acheter le soutien des députés libéraux d'arrière-ban pour sa course à la direction plutôt que de s'attaquer aux incertitudes économiques, et pourquoi le premier ministre ne l'a pas averti de ne pas répéter les erreurs de dépenses libérales des années 1970.
Brison's two questions are largely rhetorical, alleging political motives for the budget and making historical comparisons, with no specific factual ask or accountability grounding.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the capital markets are in the tank, our biggest trading partner is in recession and the world is teetering on the brink of war. Why did the finance minister not use his first budget to address these economic uncertainties instead of using Canadian taxpayers' money to buy Liberal backbencher support for his Liberal leadership bid?
Mr. Speaker, it is the sixties and seventies all over again. There are anti-war protestors in the streets, there is talk of decriminalizing marijuana, and there is a free-spending Liberal government in Ottawa. The Prime Minister must be having a flashback. Why did the Prime Minister fail to warn the finance minister not to make the same mistakes he made when he was finance minister in the 1970s and just say no to Liberal largesse?
Chrétien dit qu'il n'a pas demandé au ministre de priver les enfants pauvres ou l'environnement de fonds, vante le fait que le Canada est le seul pays du G-7 à avoir un surplus et affirme que le gouvernement aide les pauvres, pas les riches.
Chrétien deflects by listing general budget priorities (poor children, environment, infrastructure), touts the surplus record, and counter-attacks without addressing either of Brison's questions.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, no, I did not ask him not to give money to the poor children. I did not ask the Minister of Finance not to give money to the environment. I did not say to the Minister of Finance, do not invest in infrastructure that will be useful. We have run the country very well over the last ten years. We are the only G-7 country still having a surplus and we do what we have to do. When we have money we help the poor, not the rich.
Moore note que la taxe aérienne de 24 dollars a été imposée sans aucune étude d'impact sur l'industrie aérienne et demande pourquoi le nouveau taux de taxe a été choisi sans nouvelles études de fond sur son impact.
Moore cites the $24 air tax, notes it was imposed without any impact study, and asks a specific question about why the new tax rate amount was chosen without new background studies on its impact on the air industry.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the air tax is down but it still--
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker, last year the Liberals imposed the $24 air tax and admitted to doing so without doing any impact study whatsoever on the air industry. The $24 amount was picked right out of the sky without any economic background done on it. As a result, fewer Canadians are flying, communities are losing service and people have lost their jobs. My question: Why was the new tax rate amount chosen without any new background studies done on its impact on the air industry?
Manley affirme que le taux est établi en fonction des coûts des mesures de sécurité aérienne supplémentaires et explique que le passage à la comptabilité d'exercice intégrale permet de répartir le coût sur la durée de vie des actifs acquis.
Manley states the rate is set based on costs of additional air security measures and explains the accrual accounting change enabling the reduction, but does not address whether a new impact study was or was not done.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the rate is set based upon the costs of the additional air security measures that are being adopted. As was made clear yesterday in the budget, as well as in the documents we circulated in November, the ability to reduce the tax is based on the fact that we are moving to a full accrual accounting system, which will enable us to apportion the cost over the life of the assets being acquired.
Moore demande pourquoi le gouvernement impose une taxe à l'industrie aérienne pour un régime de sécurité qu'il n'impose pas aux secteurs ferroviaire, portuaire, frontalier ou maritime.
Moore draws a pointed comparison — no rail tax, no port tax, no border tax, no marine tax — and asks why the government taxes the air industry for security but not any other industry, making it reasonably specific though partly rhetorical.
Texte source
So, Mr. Speaker, no study was done. Increased rail security: no rail tax. Increased port security: no port tax. Increased border security: no border tax. Increased marine security: no marine tax. For some reason, the Liberal government sees fit to tax the air industry for air security but not any other industry at all. My question is for the transport minister. Why does the government insist on taxing, unfairly, the air industry for a security regime that it does not impose on any other industry? Why does the government insist on hammering the air industry?
Manley reformule la question comme un souhait d'augmenter les taxes dans d'autres secteurs, note les frais d'utilisation existants dans d'autres secteurs du transport et soutient que les mesures de sécurité aérienne supplémentaires après le 11 septembre 2001 étaient destinées aux passagers de l'aviation qui devraient donc en assumer les coûts.
Manley reframes Moore's question as a request to raise taxes in other sectors, notes existing user charges in other transportation sectors, and argues it was appropriate for aviation passengers to pay for their additional post-September 11, 2001 security, partially engaging the fairness argument.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I will take that this is a representation by the member that he wishes us to increase the taxes in other sectors in order to pay more of those costs. He will know that there are already user charges that apply to other transportation sectors. He knows that the additional measures that were adopted after September 11, 2001, in the aviation sector were designed directly to provide greater security to the passengers who use the service. It was appropriate in that case to have the users pay the costs of the additional security.
Loubier demande si la situation où 7 provinces sur 10 prévoient un déficit pendant que le gouvernement fédéral accumule et dissimule des surplus n'est pas la meilleure preuve du déséquilibre fiscal.
Loubier raises the specific context of 7 out of 10 provinces expecting deficits while the federal government piles up surpluses, and asks whether this constitutes proof of fiscal imbalance, making a reasonably grounded argument though the ask is somewhat rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, while 7 out of 10 provinces expect a deficit for this fiscal year, the Minister of Finance is piling surplus upon surplus, and is even managing to conceal his surplus funds. He is pocketing taxpayers' dollars to meet needs that are not really there. Is this not the best possible proof that there is indeed fiscal imbalance, or in other words that there are provincial governments without enough money to meet their responsibilities, while the federal government has to invent expenditures in order to justify its actions?
Manley note que le déséquilibre fiscal n'est soulevé que lorsqu'il y a un surplus fédéral, affirme que l'endettement provincial est toujours inférieur au fédéral et fait référence aux dépenses pour l'École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe.
Manley deflects by noting fiscal imbalance is only raised when there is a federal surplus, challenges the claim about provincial indebtedness levels, and pivots to a spending example in Saint-Hyacinthe rather than addressing the fiscal imbalance argument directly.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is always easy to bring up fiscal imbalance when there is a surplus. When there is a federal deficit, however, there is never any mention of it. We know that the level of provincial indebtedness is always less than that of the federal government. We also know that, when we do have money to spend, on the École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe for instance, the hon. member may then think it is a good idea.
Loubier soutient que le surplus du ministre des Finances aurait dû servir à réduire les impôts fédéraux pour permettre aux provinces de hausser les leurs et de financer leurs propres compétences, sans écraser l'unique contribuable.
The question makes a substantive fiscal federalism argument about tax room transfer but the ask is implicit and wrapped in rhetorical framing about 'bungling.'
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister is forgetting that the money is not his, it is the taxpayers'. Incidentally, a large part of that money comes from Quebec. The minister is also forgetting that there is, when it comes down to it, only the one set of taxpayers. This year, given the Minister of Finance's surplus, it would have been easy for him to reduce federal taxes so as to allow the provinces to raise theirs, and thus to be able to finance their own initiatives within their own areas of jurisdiction, namely health, education and some other areas, without squeezing money out of the one and only taxpayer, who has to bear the brunt of the federal government's bungling.
Manley affirme que le gouvernement du Canada agira dans ses propres champs de compétence et effectuera des investissements dans les enfants, l'environnement, les Forces canadiennes, l'infrastructure et la santé.
Manley ignores the specific proposal about reducing federal taxes to create provincial tax room and instead lists budget spending priorities, deflecting the substance of the question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is going to act within those areas of responsibility that come under its jurisdiction. We are going to make the investments Canadians want us to make for children in families of modest means, the environment, the Canadian Forces, infrastructure, and health. This is our responsibility. At our level of government, we are going to do what needs to be done.
Hill cite le conseiller en éthique du Canada de février 1999 affirmant qu'on ne peut être à la fois investisseur actif et ministre du Cabinet, et demande si le premier ministre considère toujours l'arrangement de l'ex-ministre des Finances comme une fiducie sans droit de regard compte tenu de ses nombreuses réunions avec des responsables de sa grande entreprise.
The question quotes the ethics counsellor's own 1999 statement verbatim and asks a pointed yes/no accountability question about whether the former finance minister's arrangement qualifies as a blind trust given documented meetings with CSL officials.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, what my colleague really wanted was a complete removal of the transportation tax, totally. I will go back to the issue of blind trusts. Canada's ethics counsellor, speaking in Australia back in February 1999, said, and I quote: In a nutshell, you can be a personally active investor or you can be a Cabinet minister. You cannot be both. Now that the Prime Minister knows that the former finance minister had numerous meetings with officials in his big company, does he still think that qualifies as a blind trust?
Chrétien affirme que l'ex-ministre des Finances n'investissait pas mais avait investi avant de devenir ministre, que les ministres ne sont pas tenus d'oublier leurs responsabilités familiales, et que l'ex-ministre a respecté les lignes directrices.
Chrétien addresses the nature of the investment (pre-ministerial, family company) and asserts guidelines were respected, but does not directly answer whether the arrangement qualifies as a blind trust under the counsellor's own standard.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the former minister of finance was not investing. He had invested a long time before he became a minister. When we become ministers we are not asked to forget our assets and our responsibilities vis-à-vis our family. We make sure that there is no conflict of interest. The guidelines have been drafted accordingly and the former minister of finance has respected the guidelines.
Hill souligne qu'une fiducie sans droit de regard est censée empêcher un ministre du Cabinet d'avoir une connaissance personnelle de ses entreprises, rappelle les réunions importantes avec des responsables de CSL, et demande à nouveau si le premier ministre estime que l'arrangement constitue une fiducie sans droit de regard.
Hill repeats the core accountability question with added specificity about the purpose of a blind trust — preventing personal knowledge — and presses again on the CSL meetings, making the ask clear and direct.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I guess it was the same thing in Shawinigan and is the same thing with CSL. A blind trust is supposed to prevent a cabinet minister from having personal knowledge about his companies. We now know that there were significant meetings with CSL officials. So I ask the question again, as I did not get an answer: Does the Prime Minister still hold that that arrangement qualifies as a blind trust? Because I do not.
Chrétien explique que, s'agissant d'une entreprise familiale qui ne pouvait être divisée, l'ex-ministre devait recevoir des rapports sur cette seule entreprise, mais que la gestion était assurée par des fiduciaires et que des fonctionnaires gouvernementaux assistaient toujours aux réunions pour prévenir tout conflit d'intérêts.
Chrétien provides somewhat more detail about the family-company rationale, the single-company reporting, and the presence of government officials at meetings, partially engaging the blind-trust question without directly confirming or denying that the arrangement qualifies.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I explained yesterday that having personal assets is not like having shares in a bank or in a company. It was a family company, and it could not be split. He had to receive reports about only one company, and it was the company that was his. That is what arrangement was made, but the management of these assets was done by trustees, and when there was a meeting, officials in charge of that for the government were always present to make sure that there was to be no conflict of interest.
Bulte demande à la ministre du Patrimoine canadien de confirmer que la SRC recevra au cours de l'exercice 2003-2004 les 60 millions de dollars supplémentaires qu'elle a reçus au cours des deux dernières années.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to confirm a specific dollar figure ($60 million) for CBC funding, which is narrow but clearly designed to allow the minister to announce good news rather than hold her to account.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Last night's budget actually addressed a number of--
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker, while the budget last night addressed many of the major priorities of Canadians, notably absent from the finance minister's speech was a mention of any additional funding for the CBC. Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage confirm that the CBC will receive in its 2003-04 fiscal year the additional $60 million that it has received in the last two years?
Oh, oh.
Copps confirme que de nouveaux fonds pour la SRC sont bien inclus dans le cadre financier, remerciant le ministre des Finances et le premier ministre.
Copps confirms that new funding to the CBC is indeed in the fiscal framework, which directly addresses the ask, though she provides no specific dollar figure or details beyond that confirmation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, may I thank the member for Parkdale—High Park for not only an excellent question but an excellent contribution as the parliamentary secretary and one of those who worked so hard to support public broadcasting in the country. I want to thank my friend and colleague, the Minister of Finance, and the Prime Minister, for making sure that new funding to the CBC is indeed in the fiscal framework.
Meredith demande quand le gouvernement prendra des mesures proactives après que les États-Unis ont adopté de nouvelles réglementations interdisant aux non-Américains de conduire des véhicules commerciaux transportant des matières explosives, une mesure unilatérale dont le gouvernement n'a pris connaissance qu'après sa mise en œuvre et qui touche des centaines de camionneurs canadiens légitimes.
Meredith identifies a specific new U.S. regulation prohibiting non-Americans from driving commercial vehicles carrying explosive materials, notes the government was unaware until after implementation, and asks for proactive steps, though the ask is somewhat open-ended.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the government is constantly playing catch-up with Americans on security issues. The U.S. recently passed new regulations prohibiting non-Americans from driving commercial vehicles carrying explosive materials. This unilateral action affects hundreds of legitimate Canadian truck drivers and the government was unaware of the change until after it had been implemented. When is the government going to take some proactive steps before more Canadians lose their jobs?
Collenette reconnaît que le Congrès américain a agi avec beaucoup de précipitation depuis le 11 septembre, ce qui a parfois entraîné des conséquences imprévues, et affirme que le gouvernement a travaillé avec le département américain des transports et est sur le point de régler le problème.
Collenette acknowledges the unintended-consequences problem, confirms work with the U.S. department of transportation, and says they are close to resolving the issue, which is a partial but relevant response without specifics.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, one of the problems we have had since September 11 is that the U.S. Congress has acted with great haste to deal with security threats and sometimes the legislation has unintended consequences. The hon. member has just explained one of those unintended consequences. We have worked with the department of transportation in the United States and we are close to resolving the issue.
Meredith demande quand le gouvernement protégera les emplois canadiens menacés, alors que des législateurs et des médias américains réclament des contrôles plus stricts, notamment le déploiement de 100 000 soldats américains à la frontière, et que chaque renforcement unilatéral de la sécurité frontalière nuit aux exportations canadiennes, qui représentent un tiers de l'économie.
Meredith cites a specific economic figure (exports account for a third of our economy) and references American calls for 100,000 troops at the border, but the ask — when will the government protect Canadian jobs — is broad and rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, American legislators and media figures are calling for even tighter controls at the Canada-U.S. border, suggesting that 100,000 American troops be posted there. Every time the Americans unilaterally increase border security, it adversely affects Canadian exports to the United States, which account for a third of our economy. When is the government going to protect Canadian jobs that are at risk when they are dependent upon exports to the United States?
Collenette affirme que le premier ministre a créé un comité de sécurité du Cabinet présidé par le vice-premier ministre après le 11 septembre pour régler les problèmes de sécurité bilatéraux dans le domaine des transports, et soutient que ces problèmes sont traités de manière efficace.
Collenette points to the security committee of cabinet established after September 11 and chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, and makes a general claim of success, without addressing the specific risk to Canadian export jobs or the calls for troop deployment.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should acknowledge the fact that after September 11 the Prime Minister established a security committee of cabinet, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, which has tried to resolve all of these bilateral security issues, particularly in the transportation sphere. I think we have been very successful. The United States, once the case is taken to it, accepts our logic. I believe that many of these problems are being dealt with and will continue to be dealt with in a very efficient way.
Girard-Bujold demande si le ministre des Finances réalise que, avec seulement 100 millions des 300 millions disponibles pour l'infrastructure municipale prévus pour le prochain exercice — soit un dixième du milliard nécessaire — il a raté une belle occasion malgré les fonds à sa disposition.
Girard-Bujold cites specific figures ($1 billion needed, $100 million of $300 million available to be invested, one-tenth of what is needed) and asks whether the Finance Minister realizes he missed a great opportunity, making it factually grounded though the ask is partly rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, municipal infrastructure needs an investment of at least $1 billion this year. However, for the next fiscal year, plans are to invest only $100 million of the $300 million available for municipal infrastructure, one-tenth of what is needed. Does the Minister of Finance realize that, with all the money at his disposal, he has missed a great opportunity to fix the problem, while his all-over-the-map approach has succeeded only in making everyone unhappy?
Manley affirme que le budget annonce un investissement supplémentaire de 3 milliards de dollars dans l'infrastructure stratégique sur les dix prochaines années, en plus des 5 milliards déjà disponibles, et déclare que, devant choisir, il privilégiera les enfants vivant dans la pauvreté plutôt que les autoroutes.
Manley cites the $3 billion additional investment over 10 years and references the existing $5 billion, which is relevant context, but does not address the specific complaint about only $100 million being deployed in the next fiscal year and pivots to a comparison with children living in poverty.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in the budget, we signalled our intention to continue to support the construction of strategic infrastructure over the next 10 years, with an additional $3 billion investment, which is in addition to the $5 billion that had already been made available, some of which remains to be spent. Given the choice of investing in highways or children living in poverty, I am going to choose children living in poverty.
Cet échange ne contient que des « Bravo » de la part de députés, sans qu'aucune question ne soit posée ni répondue, vraisemblablement en reconnaissance de visiteurs dans les tribunes.
- Some hon. members
Texte source
Hear, hear.
M. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Alliance canadienne) a demandé au leader du gouvernement à la Chambre si l'impasse concernant la possibilité de voter sur les affaires émanant des députés avait été résolue. Le leader du gouvernement à la Chambre, Don Boudria, a confirmé qu'une conclusion satisfaisante avait été atteinte et qu'elle serait vraisemblablement ratifiée le lendemain matin par le comité de modernisation et déposée à 10 h à la Chambre des communes.
- Canadian Alliance Mr. John Reynolds
- Lib Don Boudria
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask the government House leader if he could indicate to the House whether the stalemate regarding private members' business being votable has finally come to a conclusion?
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to confirm to the House, through the question of the hon. House leader for the official opposition, that we have arrived, I am very pleased to say, at a satisfactory conclusion which, hopefully, will be ratified tomorrow morning by the modernization committee and tabled at 10 a.m. in the House of Commons. I want to thank the House leader for the official opposition, all other House leaders and all members of the modernization committee, including the chair of course, for their tremendous support, along with all those who contributed toward the process.
M. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC) a invoqué le Règlement pour demander au Président d'examiner les bleus concernant une question du député de Kings—Hants qui avait été déclarée irrecevable pendant la période des questions, laissant entendre que la partie principale de la question était recevable. Aucune décision n'a été rendue dans le cadre de cet échange.
- PC Mr. Loyola Hearn
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, during question period today you ruled out of order a question from the member for Kings—Hants. I know it was very noisy in the House but I was wondering if you perhaps could look at the blues because I believe that the main part of that question was in order. I would certainly appreciate your ruling on that matter.