Rick Dykstra

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent question and I certainly want to congratulate the member on his support for seniors in his riding and across the country.

The 2007-08 budget is historic from a seniors perspective. For the first time in 40 years we are going to do what a report recommended to the Senate and the House, that seniors' pension incomes should be split so that they will pay less tax, so that they will be able to keep more dollars and will be able to stay in their homes and pay property tax or be able to afford the things that are necessary.

We have taken another position with respect to the new horizons program. We have a new seniors council. The Prime Minister said that we will have leaders who are dedicated, which we do in Senator Marjory LeBreton and the Minister of Health, who will show the leadership to make sure that the seniors council provides us with the type of advice that the government wants and needs to help seniors in the short term and the long term.

That commitment comes through clearly in the new horizons program where 14 million new dollars are being invested so that communities like mine can ensure that seniors have programs that are dedicated specifically to them. We want to make sure that they too have an opportunity to play a role in their communities.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today to the budget once again. It is worth speaking to more than once. It is significant for the country and it is significant for my riding in St. Catharines. It strengthens our economic federation. It invests in a stronger, safer and healthier Canada. It builds on the foundations of policy, which were developed and announced in November, to talk about Canada's strengths.

We announced what the policy framework and measures were going to be, in terms of moving forward, and we ensured that we acted upon those policies within the framework of our budget, those policies being fiscal advantage, tax advantage, infrastructure advantage, knowledge advantage; and entrepreneurial advantage.

The budget is fiscally responsible and it is a prudent balance between long term prosperity and short term needs.

In terms of long term prosperity, we have a significant debt payment. It requires, based on the way the budget is structured, that future governments do the same in ensuring that any surpluses go against our national debt. It ensures that not only are those tax savings on interest going back to Canadians through reductions in personal income tax, but it also tells future generations that we are acting responsibly and turning a country and an economy over to them that will not be straddled with a significant national debt.

It also recognizes and rewards the people who make our country great. We do not talk about this very often, but owners of small business, low income working Canadians, Canadian parents who pay household bills and try to save for their children's tuition are the people who make our country great. It is unique in terms of Canadian strengthens. Canada's government is committed to building on those solid foundations.

Budget 2007 is a first step of Advantage Canada's long term plan. Several major announcements, as I mentioned, fulfill the promises and commitments that we made in November.

For example, for small and large businesses, we are committed to reducing the paper burden on them by 20%. When we talk to small businesses across the country, business owners who employ perhaps themselves and their families or perhaps two or three employees, the paperwork they need to go through to keep that business running and to keep everything accountable is significant. From a federal perspective, we have said that they should have less paperwork, less red tape with which to deal.

We have also told those same people that it is time we increase the lifetime capital gains exemptions for small business owners, for farmers and for fishermen, from one side of the country to the other. Will we ensure they have the benefit of lifetime capital gains? Yes. We are moving from an amount of $500,000 to $750,000. The last time it was increased was back in 1988, almost 20 years ago. Its time has come.

We have also ensured that we have increased capital cost allowance rates on buildings used in manufacturing or processing, from 4% to 10%. We have ensured that other capital cost allowance rates have been raised, as well. It puts Canada's tax rate on new investment now third lowest among G-7 nations.

For manufacturing, there is a two year, 50% straight write-off for any capital investments in equipment and machinery acquired after the announcement of the budget on March 19. That is significant for manufacturing. General Motors announced a potential expansion in St. Catharines of some $400 million into a building, an investment it can make because it realizes that investment can be accelerated in terms of its write-off. It is already spurring economic activity across the country and the budget has not even been passed yet.

However, business cannot do it alone. Infrastructure is also desperately needed. Therefore, we have renewed our gas tax commitment. We have ensured that all municipalities, like the City of St. Catharines, will receive a portion of the gas tax credit.

By 2010, the city of St. Catharines will have received some $4.2 million. When we put that into context and look at the city of St. Catharines' operating budget, that $4.2 million will represent 5% of its yearly operating budget. That means property taxpayers should not have to see the types of increases they have over the last number of years.

We have also extended that gas tax credit until 2013-14. It means communities like mine can count on that money. They know it will be there. They can make their investments. They can talk about infrastructure and make the type of investments they need to ensure their communities are strong. Municipalities across the country know they have a partner in the federal government.

There will be priorities for these funds such as a cleaner transit system and better access to hospitals so people can get there sooner? We look forward to working with councils across the country to get this job done. In my riding the relationship, based on this, is a strong one. We look forward to working together.

The building Canada fund will mean $8.8 billion of investment over the next seven years for areas including border crossings and trade gateways from one side of the country to the other.

The budget is historic because it restores fiscal balance. It implements the recommendations of the expert committee on equalization. Glen Hodgson, chief economist for the Conference Board of Canada, said, “I think we can probably declare the fiscal imbalance between the federal and the province governments is over”.

This is what it means for Ontario and my community. It honours the Canada-Ontario agreement, which means close to $7 billion of new investment into the province and communities like mine. It means that social programs will be funded for the first time, especially those of health care, on a capital basis, which is huge for the province of Ontario.

In total Ontario will receive more than $12.7 billion in transfers in this fiscal year alone. The transfer means so much to the province. Regions like Niagara need to make it clear to the provincial government that they expect their fair share. Let me provide an example.

This government committed $250 million in new money for child care expenditures through 2007-08. That meant for the province of Ontario there would be $95 million to create new child care spaces in the province. Obviously that would trickle down and hopefully mean new spaces in Niagara and St. Catharines.

However, the provincial government in Ontario determined that, despite the fact it would receive $95 million in child care payments, it would only include an additional $25 million in its budget. That means $70 million in transfer payments, which hopefully were to be dedicated by the federal government to the province of Ontario, will not be invested in child care.

There was a lot of talk in the House from parties opposite that maybe we needed to invest more because there was a need for more spaces. The cheque was cut, the money was sent and the spaces were not provided and the money was not invested by the province of Ontario.

We have also had the opportunity to restore the fiscal balance with the Canadian taxpayer. There were $9.2 billion put toward debt. It has been said, but it should be said again, that $22.4 billion over the last two years went toward paying down the debt. Debt reduced today means taxes reduced tomorrow.

We have ensured that personal tax cuts are there as well. There is a $2,000 child tax credit worth $300 a year for every child under the age of 18. There is pension splitting for seniors, finally, after 40 years. We have also made key investments in the area of education, research and development and cultural heritage. All of this is to ensure that from 2005-06 to 2008-09 spending will increase by 4.1%, a full percentage point less than the economy is expected to grow.

Excluding the one time cost of restoring the fiscal balance since budget 2006, the value of these tax cuts announced is more than double the value of new spending announcements.

We believe in responsible fiscal management and we will live up to the promises of advantage Canada to reduce debt, reduce taxes and position our country to be a world economic leader.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's story. I did take from his comments one of the interesting points about how a deal is a deal is a deal.

Both he and I worked extremely hard as members of the finance committee in trying to make sure that time was allocated to the opportunity for witnesses to come forward, as the member explained, one of which was the premier of Saskatchewan, and to make sure that ample opportunity was provided for us to listen to what they had to say.

Also, the fact is that from his discussions and mine during the morning, at the end of the day we came to an agreement that the budget in fact would move forward based on what he wanted to make sure was going to happen. He then met with the member for Wascana to make sure that was okay. I did the same.

At the end of the day, I have a question for the member. I certainly am not going to hold the member personally responsible because it was not his decision as to why we are here now, but in fact we did keep our side of the bargain. We made sure they had ample opportunity to get this out. I would like to know from the member why the Liberal Party did not keep to its side of the arrangement.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, not always, but most of the time I have the pleasure of listening to the member for Winnipeg North as we share stories across the table at finance committee. I have listened to a couple of her speeches in the House. Sometimes they are exciting, but not always as exciting.

One thing I heard the member for Winnipeg North say, which astounded me, was that the moneys would go forward anyway.

I find that ironic for her to say that. In May 2004, when the Conservatives were in opposition and were pounding away at a government that was corrupt, a government that had a sponsorship scandal, a government that had done some terrible things to the people in the country, she and her party stood in support of that government. They said that the budget should pass because of what it would do for the homeless, for children, for those unemployed. Today she stands in her place and says that the money will be spent anyway.

I would like to get a clarification from the member for Winnipeg North. Why was it okay to support a corrupt government and its budget of 2005, but it is not okay to support the government's budget in 2007?

[Extension of Sitting Hours, June 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the amendment that was proposed, but it is no longer on the table. It is off. Thank you.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, June 11th, 2007]

No, Mr. Speaker, not this specific point.

[June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member has raised a number of points and I would like to just briefly address them.

With respect to his point about the expenditures for the environment, this government has taken a strong approach. I take my colleague's comments about whether or not it is our job to blame previous governments, or whether it is our job to address those issues. I will not even talk about casting blame, but I will talk about what our commitments to Kyoto were supposed to be and what has not happened in the past number of years.

Obviously, to take the type of approach that the member's party would like to take would certainly bring this country's economy to its knees. That is not our intent. That is not going to be our approach. We have set money aside. We have put money in the budget. We have developed programs, including “Turning the Corner”, which speaks specifically to the issues that the member spoke to.

If this budget does not pass through the Senate, the money that is booked to be spent on the environment will need to come out of this year. The difficulty that the member speaks about is a fair one in terms of where that revenue is going to come from, where it is going to go, how much is going to be spent and where it is going to be allocated.

What we need to do to specifically address the issues my colleague mentioned, is to get the budget through the House and through the Senate.

[June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for paying such close attention to my speech.

The member makes two very excellent points. On the first one, regarding Big Brothers Big Sisters, I appreciate her offer to go back and do a little bit of investigating to see where that program stands and to see if in fact what she has stated is the case.

However, I do want to make note of something she mentioned about Big Brothers Big Sisters. In my riding of St. Catharines, Big Brothers Big Sisters do great work. One of the many positive components of the Canada summer job programs for students is that, maybe in the member's riding but certainly in my riding, young people are participating in the program, and Big Brothers Big Sisters was one of the programs that benefited in my community. I anticipate that across the province and across the country that is also the case, showing clearly that this government shows support for Big Brothers Big Sisters. However, I take her point and certainly will look into it.

I will comment briefing on adult literacy. I certainly share her point, her goal and her feelings about adult literacy. It is very important in terms of adults who do not have or have not had the opportunity to learn. However, in terms of funding, we have addressed those issues, maybe not in the program that she formerly stated but let me just show from budget 2006 that we invested an additional $350 million per year in aboriginal funding for education.

We also made sure that within that there was a priority that additional funds, which did not exist in any previous budgets, would certainly be there to try to address those issues of youth and ensuring that our young people, certainly aboriginal young people, have the opportunity to learn to read and write, but at the same time also ensuring that the help is there for aboriginal adults who need it. It was there in 2006 and obviously it is there in 2007 as well.

[June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have prepared an exciting speech on the main estimates. We are going to let everyone know what we have done because the main estimates present information on both budgetary and non-budgetary spending authorities.

The 2007-08 main estimates provide information on $210.3 billion in total budgetary expenditures, including $74.9 billion in voted appropriations such as departmental operating and capital expenditures, and $135.4 billion in statutory items previously approved by Parliament.

In total, the 2007-08 main estimates have increased by $12 billion or 6% relative to the 2006-07 main estimates. This increase is accounted for by increases of $11.7 billion in budgetary spending and $256.6 million in non-budgetary spending. However, when the 2007-08 main estimates are compared to the total 2006-07 estimates, including supplementary estimates (A) and (B), the year over year increase in total projected spending is $2.3 billion or only 1.1%.

Why are the main estimates so important? The estimates help to ensure that parliamentarians and Canadians are sufficiently informed of the government's expenditure and resource plans so that the government may be held to account for the allocation and management of public funds.

The government is moving forward with priorities announced in budget 2006 and the November 2006 economic and fiscal update, including increased funding for the environment, defence and security, and social programs.

The 2007-08 main estimates demonstrate the government's approach to effective and transparent management of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars and its commitment to keep growth in spending to a rate that is sustainable.

These main estimates show that the government is keeping its fiscal house in order and taking the right steps to effectively manage taxpayers' hard-earned dollars and ensure that they do get the best value for government programs and services. The estimates, in conjunction with the budget and the economic and fiscal update, reflect the government's annual resource planning and allocation priorities.

Last November, the finance department released Advantage Canada, which has four core principles: first, focusing government, which means making sure that spending is efficient, effective and accountable; second, creating new opportunities and choices for people, which means creating incentives and ensuring opportunities for Canadians to succeed right here at home; third, investing for sustainable growth, which means investing in the areas that are needed for a strong economy, including scientific research, infrastructure, and a clean and sustainable environment; and finally, freeing business to grow and succeed, which means ensuring that government is facilitating business and not hindering growth through excessive tax or regulatory burdens.

Those four core principles build upon the five comparative advantages, which are: fiscal advantages, tax advantages, obvious infrastructure advantages, knowledge advantages and, what we are so strong at here in our country, entrepreneurial advantages.

I will talk a little about 2007 budget spending.

With respect to infrastructure, budget 2007 delivers more than $16 billion to infrastructure. Including the infrastructure funding provided in budget 2006, federal support under the plan will total $33 billion over the next seven years. That is about $1,000 for every Canadian. Provided are an estimated $17.6 billion in base funding, $8.8 billion for the building Canada fund, and $2.1 billion for the national fund for gateways and border crossings. Part of this amount will be used to make a contribution toward the cost of a new access road that will link a new crossing at Windsor-Detroit with Highway 401.

Also provided are $1.26 billion for the national fund for public-private partnerships and $510 million to the Canada Foundation for Innovation to enable it to undertake another major competition before 2010. The government will account for the funds as they are disbursed by the CFI to institutions. It is anticipated that $70 million will be provided to institutions in 2008-09. That is not bad for those in my riding who are students at Brock University. To enable additional young Canadians to pursue graduate level studies, budget 2007 provides $35 million over two years to expand these scholarships.

As border communities, and we have many of them in our country, we will see an increase of $146.8 million in net funding for the Canada Border Services Agency. This is primarily as a result of budget 2006, which outlined the government's commitments to securing Canada's borders and to further implementing the security and prosperity partnership of the North America initiative.

These major items include $390 million to go toward the electronic eManifest program aimed at streamlining and speeding up border crossings without sacrificing security. There is also $60.5 million to arm border service officers and eliminate work-alone situations in order to enhance border security and certainly enhance officer safety.

There is $15.1 million for the provision of border services in relation to a new container facility in Port Rupert as part of the Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor initiative, and there is also $8.7 million to screen marine crews and passengers on the Great Lakes under the securing Canada's marine transportation initiative.

With respect to seniors, budget 2007 provides an additional $10 million per year to new horizons for seniors, which will bring the total budget for the program to an astounding $35 million per year.

Canada's government is making solid progress on its priorities, including investment in environment, defence, security, our nation's health, and our social programs.

The largest portion of program spending is devoted to social programs, which account for $97.4 billion, or 46.3% of the total program spending for 2007-08. This represents by far the largest component of total program spending.

Of the remainder, spending on public debt charges, international immigration and defence programs and general government services account for an additional $82.9 billion, or 39.4% of total spending.

The government has made a commitment to ensuring that Canada's aid programs deliver tangible results while making effective and efficient use of our resources.

The main estimates for 2007-08 include $3.026 billion in budgetary spending for CIDA and a further $22.6 million in non-budgetary investments. Together, these amounts represent a $74.3 million increase over CIDA's main estimates for the fiscal year now drawing to a close.

The Minister of Finance reiterated the government's commitment to increase spending on international assistance by 8% in this fiscal year as part of the overall objective to double Canada's international aid between 2001 and 2011.

When it comes to arts spending, the operating base of Canada Council for the Arts is increasing by $30.9 million, or 20.5%. Of this, virtually all of the funding is for individual artists, art organizations and increased touring and dissemination of artwork to support innovation, growth and success in Canada's cultural communities.

The remainder of the funding is to support the interdepartmental partnership with the official languages community program.

Canadian Museum of Nature spending is increasing by a net of $25.1 million, or 42.4%. The increase is reflected in its capital budget, with $25 million for a major renovation of the Victoria Memorial Museum Building.

Total spending requirements are being partially offset by a decrease in the operating budget. The National Battlefield Commission spending is increasing by $4.3 million, or almost 49%. Virtually all of this increase is for the rehabilitation of roads, sidewalks, storm sewers in several areas of the Battlefields Park, the construction of a restroom/office building and landscaping at the major events in site preparation for the celebration of the park's 100th anniversary and the 400th anniversary of Quebec City.

With respect to the environment, the Parks Canada Agency spending is increasing by $21.3 million, or 3.7%, of which the major increases are the following: the enhancement of Parks Canada's ability to manage ecological integrity; the 400th anniversary of the Quebec celebration; the Asian-Pacific Gateway initiative; and repair and restoration of infrastructure in national parks.

The National Capital Commission's spending is increasing by a net of $2.8 million, or 3.1%, mainly as a result of increases in capital projects being funded from their acquisition and disposal fund.

The Department of Natural Resources' spending is also increasing by a net of $719.1 million, or 50.4%, with some $536.1 million in new funds for contributions and other transfer payments, and the remainder in operating and grants.

Among the variety of program initiatives receiving funding, the most noteworthy include: the nuclear legacy liabilities program; the clean air agenda; the Port Hope low level radioactive waste cleanup program; the federal response to the mountain pine beetle program; and the forest industry long term competitiveness strategies program.

In addition, there are major increases in statutory payments to the Newfoundland offshore petroleum resource revenue fund, which is $241.6 million, and the Nova Scotia offshore revenue account.

The Department of the Environment is anticipating a net increase in spending of $38.1 million, or 4.7%, with much of the increase due to the implementation of the new environmental management agenda and its clean air initiatives, which represent $250 million.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency's spending is increasing by $15.8 million, or 2.8%, for increased operating and capital costs, the major item being an increase in funding for avian and pandemic influenza preparedness, something on which we focused in budget 2006 as well.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's spending is increasing by $15.8 million, or 20.1%, in order to deal with new demand in regulatory workload associated with industry growth and the licensing of new nuclear power plants.

Security and public safety program sectors in 2007-08 is estimated at $6.5 billion, which represents 3.1% of total program spending. Compared to the previous year, this sector's spending in 2007-08 has increased by $484.8 million, or 8%. Among the major drivers contributing to the increase in planned spending is the increase of $298 million in net funding for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

As we can hear, there is a lot in the estimates for 2007-08. I certainly want to compliment the President of the Treasury Board for the work that he did in preparing these estimates, working long hours to ensure the ministries were prepared and that we were prepared to implement budget 2007-08 and that we would stay on track.

I know the President of the Treasury Board will ensure our government our ministries do that. I think we will see that at the end of 2007 and 2008 we will have accomplished a lot for the people in this country. We will have accomplished a lot because we set a budget in place that, hopefully, will pass very soon, of which its estimates will ensure that we spend the money appropriately, accountably and in the way that we should.

[Business of Supply, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. The member just verified that the Atlantic accord trumps the budget. It is as simple as that. I thank him for doing that.

If the Conservative government were not here and it were a Liberal government, horrid thoughts come to my mind. The fact is a Liberal government would not have dealt nor tried to deal with this issue. It would not have even tried. Members on the other side of the House do not think it is an issue or a problem. We dealt with it.