Bill C-43 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2005

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005

Part 1 amends the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Application Rules to
(a) increase the amount that Canadians can earn tax free;
(b) increase the annual limits on contributions to tax-deferred retirement savings plans;
(c) eliminate the foreign property limitations on tax-deferred retirement savings plans;
(d) increase the Child Disability Benefit supplement to the Canada Child Tax Benefit;
(e) allow for a longer period for the existence of and contributions to a Registered Education Savings Plan in certain circumstances where the plan beneficiary is eligible for the disability tax credit;
(f) increase the maximum refundable medical expense supplement;
(g) exclude emergency medical services vehicles from the standby charge;
(h) extend to January 11, 2005 the date for charitable giving in respect of the 2004 taxation year for the tsunami relief effort;
(i) eliminate the corporate surtax; and
(j) extend the SR&ED tax incentives to SR&ED performed in Canada’s exclusive economic zone.
Part 2 amends the Air Travellers Security Charge Act to reduce the air travellers security charge for domestic air travel to $5 for one-way travel and to $10 for round-trip travel, for transborder air travel to $8.50 and for other international air travel to $17, applicable to air travel purchased on or after March 1, 2005.
Part 3 amends Part IX of the Excise Tax Act to extend the application of the 83 per cent rebate of the goods and services tax (GST) and the federal component of the harmonized sales tax (HST) to eligible charities and non-profit organizations in respect of the tax they pay on their purchases to provide exempt health care supplies similar to those traditionally provided in hospitals. It also amends that Act to provide that a director of a corporation may, under certain conditions, be held liable not only for unremitted net GST/HST amounts, but also for GST/HST net tax refund amounts to which the corporation is not entitled. Finally, it amends that Act to allow, under strict conditions, the creation of a Web-based GST/HST registry to facilitate the verification of a supplier’s registration by a registrant for the purposes of claiming input tax credits.
Part 4 amends Schedule I to the Excise Tax Act to phase out the excise tax on jewellery through a series of rate reductions over the next four years.
Part 5 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to pay funds to a trust established to provide the provinces with funding for the purpose of early learning and child care.
Part 6 authorizes the Minister of Finance to pay funds to a trust established to provide the Territories with funding for the purpose of assisting them to achieve the goals of the Northern Strategy.
Part 7 amends the Auditor General Act to permit the Auditor General to conduct inquiries into and report on the affairs of certain corporations that have received at least $100,000,000 in funding from Her Majesty in right of Canada. This Part also amends the Financial Administration Act to extend the application of financial management and control provisions in that Act to wholly-owned subsidiaries of parent Crown corporations and certain parent Crown corporations.
Part 8 authorizes the payment of funds to various foundations, including the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for the purpose of providing funding to the Green Municipal Fund.
Part 9 amends the Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada Act to focus the mandate of the Foundation, to modify its governance structure, to establish qualifications for the appointment of the directors and the President, to impose a duty of care on the directors and the President and to require that the Foundation offer its services in both official languages. It also amends the Act to specify the type of funds the Foundation may receive and the appropriate use of those funds and to require that those funds be invested in accordance with policies, standards and procedures established by the board. In addition, the provisions of the Act respecting auditing, annual reports and winding-up have been expanded.
Part 10 amends Part 1 of the Budget Implementation Act, 1998 to broaden the category of persons to whom the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation may grant scholarships and bursaries to include not only persons who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act but also persons who are protected persons within the meaning of subsection 95(2) of that Act, for example, Convention refugees.
Part 11 authorizes the Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities), pursuant to the initiative commonly known as “A New Deal for Cities and Communities”, to make payments for the purpose of providing funding, in the fiscal year 2005-2006, to cities and communities for environmentally sustainable infrastructure initiatives, in accordance with agreements to be negotiated with provinces, territories and first nations.
Part 12 enacts the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador Additional Fiscal Equalization Offset Payments Act. The legislation will implement the arrangements of February 14, 2005 reached with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia on offshore revenues. To do this, the legislation will
(a) authorize the payment of equalization offset payments to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia for 2004-05 to 2011-12, set out the conditions under which payments will be extended to any of fiscal years 2012-13 to 2019-20, and authorize payments for that period should those conditions be met;
(b) set out the manner in which the offset payments are to be calculated;
(c) authorize the making of a cash pre-payment in the amount of $2 billion in respect of the agreement with Newfoundland and Labrador and a cash pre-payment in the amount of $830 million in respect of the agreement with Nova Scotia; and
(d) implement all other aspects of the agreements.
Consequential amendments to the Budget Implementation Act, 2004 respecting offset payments to Nova Scotia will also be required to ensure that 100 per cent offset is being provided for in fiscal years 2004-05 and 2005-06.
Part 13 establishes an Agency, to be called the Canada Emission Reduction Incentives Agency, to acquire greenhouse emission reduction and removal credits on behalf of the Government of Canada.
Part 14 enacts the Greenhouse Gas Technology Investment Fund Act. That Act establishes an account in the accounts of Canada called the Greenhouse Gas Technology Investment Fund to which are to be charged amounts paid by the Minister of Natural Resources for the purpose of
(a) research into, or the development or demonstration of, technologies or processes intended to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from industrial sources or to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere in the course of an industrial operation; or
(b) creating elements of the infrastructure that are necessary to support research into, or the development or demonstration of, those technologies or processes.
The Act also provides for the creation of technology investment units in respect of amounts that are contributed to Her Majesty for those purposes.
Part 15 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to
(a) increase the deposit insurance coverage limit for insurable deposits from $60,000 to $100,000;
(b) repeal the authority of the Corporation to make by-laws respecting standards of sound business and financial practices for member institutions; and
(c) provide that the deposits of a federal institution shall automatically be insured.
Part 16 amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to provide for the termination of the obligations of certain borrowers in respect of student loans in the event of their death or if, as a result of their permanent disability, they are unable to repay their loan without exceptional hardship, taking into account their family income.
Part 17 amends the Currency Act with respect to the Exchange Fund Account and the management of Canada’s foreign exchange reserves. These amendments include authorizing the Minister of Finance to establish a policy concerning the investment of assets held in that Account and to advance funds to that Account on terms and conditions that the Minister considers appropriate.
Part 18 amends the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to provide the Minister of Public Works and Government Services with responsibility for the procurement of goods and services for the federal government, and to authorize the Minister to negotiate and enter into contracts on behalf of the Government of Canada and to make commitments to a minimum volume of purchases on its behalf.
Part 19 amends the Employment Insurance Act and the Department of Human Resources Development Act to allow the Canada Employment Insurance Commission to set the premium rate under a new rate-setting mechanism. In setting the rate, the Commission will take into account the principle that the premium rate should generate just enough premium revenue to cover payments to be made for that year, as well as the report from the employment insurance chief actuary and any public input. On an as-needed basis, the Commission may also contract for the services of persons with specialized knowledge in rate-setting matters. If it is in the public interest to do so, the Governor in Council may substitute a different premium rate. In any given year, the rate cannot change by more than 0.15% ($0.15 per $100) from the previous year’s rate, and for the years 2006 and 2007 must not exceed 1.95% ($1.95 per $100).
Part 20 amends the Employment Insurance Act, for the purpose of the implementation of a premium reduction agreement between the Government of Canada and a province, to allow for a regulatory scheme to make the necessary adjustments and modifications to that Act as required to harmonize it with a provincial law that has the effect of reducing or eliminating the special benefits payable under that Act. A consequential change is also made to the parental benefits provisions.
Part 21 amends the Financial Administration Act to provide the authority for the President of the Treasury Board to create a shared-governance corporate entity for the purpose of administering group insurance or other benefit programs. In addition, the amendments provide the authority for the Treasury Board to establish or modify those programs not just for employees of the public service but for other persons or classes of persons as well.
Part 22 amends the Old Age Security Act to increase the guaranteed income supplement by $18 a month for single pensioners and by $14.50 a month for each pensioner in a couple, effective January 2006. Also, the amendments increase the allowance by $14.50 a month and the allowance for the survivor by $18 a month, effective January 2006. In addition, the amendments provide for identical increases to the guaranteed income supplement, the allowance and the allowance for the survivor in January 2007.
Part 23 authorizes the Minister of Finance to pay funds directly to the provinces of Quebec, British Columbia and Saskatchewan and to each of the three Territories.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary makes a point of repeating that many provincially elected representatives recognize the fiscal imbalance as a problem. And not only in Quebec. I can think of Ontario Finance Minister Greg Sorbara, and of the tour I went on with the Subcommittee on Fiscal Imbalance, where there was this very broad consensus in almost every province we visited about the existence of a fiscal imbalance.

The worst part is that not only does this fiscal imbalance exist, but it is also turning into a political imbalance, where decisions made by the federal government have a very serious impact on how the various provincial states and Quebec are run. The members of the various legislative assemblies and the National Assembly are not the only ones to recognize the fiscal imbalance.

As far as I know, our colleague from Acadie—Bathurst—the name of his riding came back to me—is not an MLA; he is a federally elected representative. As far as I know, the Leader of the Opposition and our Conservative colleagues, who recognize the fiscal imbalance, are not MLAs. Clearly, we in the Bloc Québécois do recognize the fiscal imbalance. We may not always be in perfect agreement on how to resolve this very serious problem, but it must be agreed that there is a problem.

I will give the parliamentary secretary a quick example, and then come back to the phasing out of the corporate capital tax. At the time Bill C-43 was tabled, the federal government was planning to withdraw from that field to some extent. Shortly after, Quebec's finance minister tabled his budget and, in light of the direction the federal government was taking, also decided to reduce the capital tax, and raise the corporate tax rate slightly for larger corporations. All in all, this was intended to result in a tax reduction for corporations in Quebec.

The problem is that, by changing its mind now about the capital tax, the government is completely messing up Quebec's corporate tax strategy. That is what the fiscal imbalance is about. The federal government's decisions have a direct impact on legislation at other levels.

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, if the House were to pass a resolution that a tooth fairy is sitting on someone's left shoulder and the resolution was passed unanimously, does that mean that there would be a tooth fairy sitting on someone's left shoulder?

Provincial politicians have passed a resolution that says there is a fiscal imbalance. What else would one expect provincial politicians to do but to pass a resolution that says there is a fiscal imbalance? For provincial politicians there is no down side to passing such a resolution. Provincial politicians would feel they have died and gone to heaven. They can get the revenues from another level of government and never have to pay any kind of political price or accountability to their electorate. It is free money.

If all that stands between me and fiscal imbalance and money is a resolution, then as a provincial politician, whether I am a treasurer or premier of a province, a backbench MPP or MLA as the case may be, I am going to pass that resolution because I am going to get money. That is the force in effect of fiscal imbalance as seen through the lens of provincial politicians.

Ironically, when the shoe was on the other foot about 25 years ago when costs were on a runaway train here in Ottawa and the provinces were running a surplus, it was the same question except that it was reversed. The finding at that time was that there was no fiscal imbalance. Does anyone know why? It is because there cannot be any fiscal imbalance in this federation. There just simply cannot be because both levels of government have access to similar sources of revenue.

First, I would like the hon. member to address the issue of how anyone could possibly have a structural fiscal imbalance when each level of the federation has access to almost identical resolutions. Second, he made a big point about enabling legislation. I would like him to comment on whether Bill C-43 is also enabling legislation and in fact parallels the language of Bill C-48.

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have now reached third reading of Bill C-43, which implements the government's 2005 budget. I would like to point out, first—because it is hard to avoid it—that we cannot talk about Bill C-43, without talking about Bill C-48 at the same time.

I want to clarify something right from the start. The Bloc Québécois, unlike our NDP colleagues, did not wait until the last minute to make proposals to the government to present a budget bill that meets Quebeckers' expectations.

Right after budget day, we presented the government with a number of points along the lines of the prebudget consultations in the Standing Committee on Finance. Some points were also suggested to us when the Bloc Québécois toured through Quebec to confirm with Quebeckers what we would ask the government.

We offered these points immediately after the budget presentation. We did not wait until several weeks later, nor did we make a last minute deal in an attempt to rescue this government, a deal that totally left out the unemployed, providing no increase in EI benefits, nothing on setting up a truly independent EI fund, nothing to improve accessibility to this very important system, for the unemployed, those in need, those in crisis. Immediately following the budget presentation, we informed the government of our intentions. We told them we were prepared to work with them and even vote in favour of their budget. However, they had to listen to the priorities of Quebeckers, because that is very important. We did make these points clear during the prebudget consultations in the Standing Committee on Finance and during a tour of Quebec. There was unanimity.

I will start with the first point: the fiscal imbalance. Out of 200 elected representatives—that is, 125 at the National Assembly and 75 in the Parliament of Canada—only 21 fail to recognize the fiscal imbalance. It so happens that these are members of the Liberal Party of Canada. In Quebec, fiscal imbalance is almost unanimously recognized as a matter that has to be addressed; there is at least a very broad consensus to that effect. Tax fields have to be transferred to allow provinces like Quebec to provide the services the public has come to expect. Transfers for education and social programs have to be increased. A fundamental reform of equalization is also in order.

In recent months, we have seen the government, acting on promises, the magnitude of which it had not fully measured, make piecemeal agreements having a very substantial impact on equalization. These agreements might even alter the nature of the equalization system. There has to be a fundamental reform of equalization, including raising the ceilings and removing the floors. It is important that equalization recognize and adapt to the economic realities of Quebec and Canada. Instead of being based on five provinces, the average should be calculated for all the provinces and Quebec. Certain calculations in the equalization formula have to be reviewed, especially with respect to property tax. This has been and still is a priority for Quebeckers.

I will mention in passing that, at the Subcommittee on Fiscal Imbalance, we have arrived at a majority report which includes four very important recommendations.

The government can deny the fiscal imbalance all it wants, this does not change the fact that a House subcommittee has written a report on it.

The second essential element for Quebeckers, which I mentioned briefly earlier, is employment insurance.

We have a new minister. Not so long ago, she said she was in favour of expanding access to employment insurance. Currently, only 38% of all EI applicants manage to qualify for benefits. This is disgraceful and despicable. The feds are collecting surpluses at the expense of a segment of the population in crisis and with real, not imaginary, needs. These people are waiting for benefits to pay for their groceries, rent, mortgage or food for their kids. But only 38% of them qualify. This is really scandalous.

Not so long ago, the minister recognized this fact and also recognized that there should be an independent EI fund, so that the government can never again dip into these surpluses. This is scandalous, too. The government has taken $48 billion. Instead of using that money to meet the real needs of our constituents, it took it in order to continue to accumulate astronomical surpluses.

Last year, the surplus forecast was $1.9 billion; the actual surplus ended up being $9.1 billion. If this is not a disgrace, I would like to know what is.

As for improving access to EI, the House adopted a unanimous report recommending reducing the number of hours required for eligibility. What has the government done? Naturally, the Prime Minister repeats in the House that he wants to eliminate the democratic deficit. But, since June 2004, all the government has really done is ignore the majority, and even unanimous, decisions of House committees, and even ignore the majority decisions of the House itself. I need only remind members of the decision to split the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in two.

The Kyoto protocol has been raised in the House on a regular basis. Quebeckers are concerned about the environment. They have made serious efforts to encourage industries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Much work has been done. Quebec has made a huge effort. But what does the government do? Once again, it introduces a bad plan based on the polluter-paid, instead of the polluter-pay, principle.

The government really needs to be sent back to redo its homework. It went completely off the track in drafting Bill C-43. God knows we tried to help it. We presented it with proposals that were, it seems to me, not only credible but also effective, given the financial means available to the government at the present time. What did it decide to do? It shunted them aside just like that.

Unfortunately, we are often far too creative for this government. To give just one quick example, my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher introduced a private member's bill that proposed a very simple solution, one to foster a better environment and cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. It proposed a tax incentive to users of public transit for the purchase of bus passes. This was something so simple and easily applied. But no, it had not crossed the government's mind. We thought of it, though. We presented this bill to the government but we are still waiting to hear its reactions.

Another really simple element could also be readily applied. Why not have a tax credit for the purchase of hybrid vehicles? This would both encourage a major industry and thereby create employment, and result in a cleaner environment. This is exactly in line with the concept behind Kyoto.

But this government is far too concerned with piling up a surplus, with ganging up on the sovereignists in particular. This government realizes it has nothing to gain in Quebec. It has already dumped it and continues to ignore it.

As for agriculture, we again made some concrete and precise proposals to the government. Agriculture is going through the worst crisis in decades. Mad cow—I hardly need say more. I can remember meetings in Quebec of the Union des producteurs agricoles, when the minister preferred to hide here in the House rather than go out and meet them. The Bloc Québécois did go. In fact, a number of Bloc Québécois MPs left Ottawa and went to meet the farmers in Quebec City. We listened as they told us what they needed, and reassured them that we would defend their interests. We came back here in order to be in the House when there was an opposition day on agriculture.

What did the minister do in the meantime? Said he had been unable to go. Defending the interests of Quebeckers means defending them in this House, defending them in our ridings, defending them at meetings like the one I just mentioned, and bringing word of their true needs back to this House.

There was talk in this House this afternoon about international aid. Again, the UN has set a noble target, whereby Canada should allocate 0.7% of its gross domestic product to international aid. Bill C-48 does provide a $500,000 increase in that respect. The UN's goal is for this 0.7% target to be met by 2015. What is this government headed for? Provided the required investments are made and maintained, this target will not be achieved before 2035. Again, the government is totally off the mark.

Now, let us look at the issue of respect for the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. Understandably, this is an important topic for us. Today, in this House, there were more discussions about early years child care. The Prime Minister had pledged to transfer funding to Quebec with no strings attached. Yet, several months later, he is still negotiating. Can you tell me, Madam Speaker, what is there to negotiate when there are no strings attached? It eludes me. Or did I misunderstand something? There are no strings attached. In that case, what is there to be negotiated? Why does he not simply transfer to the Government of Quebec the funding for a system which he himself holds up as a model?

Where the Canadian Francophonie is concerned, our francophone cousins in the rest of Canada have been completely ignored in this budget. In some ways, I find it somewhat ironic that the Bloc Québécois is far too often the one championing the cause of French-speaking minorities outside Quebec. In this respect, my colleague from the NDP, the name of whose riding unfortunately escapes me, regularly emphasizes the importance of protecting the French-speaking minorities in the rest of Canada. I want to commend him on his work on that.

I said earlier that we cannot talk about Bill C-43 without talking about Bill C-48. Briefly, I will say that, on Bill C-48—and I hope that my words will not be too harsh for this place—the NDP has been royally had. It is as simple as that. Why did that happen? Let me give a quick example.

The NDP said that the reduction in the capital tax had to be withdrawn from the budget and invested in social measures. The government said that, of course, it would do that. In doing so, last week in this House, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said to us that, if we were not convinced, he would invite us to examine the document he had in front of him so that, I paraphrase—although the government is introducing a motion whereby only 40% of businesses will benefit from the reduction in the capital tax, in any case, whether it is accepted or not in future legislation, the government intends to reintroduce this capital tax. So, it will reintroduce it.

The NDP has been had, and that is only one of the ways.

More important still, we heard from Mr. Charles-Antoine Saint-Jean of the Treasury Board Secretariat in the Standing Committee on Finance a few days ago.

On the subject of Bill C-48, my colleague from Joliette pointed out that, with a budget surplus of $2 billion, the government could do the spending provided in C-48. I will quote from Mr. Saint-Jean:

The opportunity is there; it is not mandatory. The bill makes it possible—

The member for Joliette replied: “Ah, so it is not mandatory? Remind us why.” And Mr. Saint-Jean replied:

This bill enables the government—

It enables it. It does not oblige it. A little while later in this committee meeting, I wanted to make sure I understood. I will quote myself, with your permission. I asked Mr. Saint-Jean:

So, if I have understood rightly...the government needs the $2 billion surplus. It can then, if it wishes and if its priorities have not changed, if, in the following year, in a new budget, it does not introduce a bill eliminating the $2 billion, it can allocate up to..., but it is not obliged to do so. In addition, there is the $2 billion, naturally—$2 billion in surplus.

So I want to make sure I understand that, Mr. Saint Jean. The government can, but is not obliged to, spend up to— the amount specified in Bill C-48.

Mr. Saint-Jean's answer was as follows. I invite both my NDP and Conservative Party colleagues, along with the parliamentary secretary of the finance minister and his Liberal colleagues to take note of the answer. It is very important, and our fellow citizens must understand.

Indeed, clause 11 provides clearly that the Minister of Finance may make payments to be taken from the Consolidated Revenue Fund up to the amount of the difference. So that is “may” and not “must”.

And I concluded, “That concludes very well, Mr. Chair”.

So they made a deal with the government. Basically, it involved removing the elimination of the capital tax. The government has already said it did not intend to do so, as it will act, in any case, under future legislation.

The government gave itself a way out by saying that there absolutely had to be a $2 billion surplus accrued at the end of the year. We are not talking about quick investments. There needs to be a $2 billion surplus. However, nothing in Bill C-48 requires the government to pay the amounts mentioned.

It could pay $0 or $1. It could pay half the amount. It could pay the full amount, I agree. Nevertheless, it is not required to. Next year, it will table a new budget. It could decide that it no longer has the same priorities as those mentioned in Bill C-43 and Bill C-48, especially C-48. It could present a budget that might end up reducing the surplus, hypothetically speaking, to $1.5 billion. It would thereby be free from its virtual obligation imposed by Bill C-48. And the NDP will have been had. Even if there is a $2 billion surplus, nothing requires the government to spend the amount stipulated in Bill C-48.

Since I have only one minute remaining, I will wrap up my speech. Unlike the NDP, we did not wait until the last minute to present the government with the priorities of Quebeckers. We presented the government with important and achievable items based on the consensus in Quebec that would serve the best interests of our constituents in Quebec, as well as those in the rest of Canada. We did not make a last minute deal and we were not had by the Liberal government.

Business of the House

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties concerning the House proceedings scheduled to resume under government orders later today. I believe that you will find consent for the following motion:

That when the House returns to government orders later this day, following private members' business, no dilatory motions or quorum calls shall be entertained by the Speaker,

That at the conclusion of today's debate on the third reading stage of Bill C-43, but no later than midnight, all questions necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the said bill be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to 3 p.m. on Thursday, June 16, 2005,

And, that at the conclusion of the debate on Bill C-43, the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party of Canada believes that Canada can become the most prosperous nation in the world, but we do not think that can happen with the Liberal government at the helm. Certainly not when it is supported by the NDP and is taking its marching orders from the NDP when it comes to economic and fiscal policy. I cannot think of a worse scenario in terms of generating wealth for Canadians, creating jobs, and doing the things that are necessary to provide Canadians with the opportunity that they really deserve.

Having said that, it is my pleasure to stand today and say that we are going to support Bill C-43 because we have been able to make some changes to it.

I want to point out to the House and to my friend across the way that back when we had a throne speech at the beginning of September, the Conservative Party insisted and finally got amendments to the throne speech that called for tax relief. It is actually the same tax relief that my friend in the NDP was running down a moment ago and was agreed to by his party. That became part of the budget.

Finally, the government has started to come around and see that these things are important. It is important because Canadians perversely pay income tax at $9,900 a year, which is ridiculous.

We think about helping people on the low end of the income scale. Obviously the NDP do not care about that. However, when it comes to helping people on the low end of the income scale, why do we tax people who are scraping by on pensions? It is ridiculous. I am thrilled that we were finally able to get the government to move a little in our direction on personal income tax cuts.

When it came to tax relief on large employers, the Liberals have gone through this crazy process where they said they believed in this and they had to have it because it would create jobs. Then in an effort to save their political skin they reversed themselves and said that they would take it out of Bill C-43 and strike a deal with the NDP.

Then the next day, after there was much pressure from our party and from people who actually employ Canadians, they put it back in. They said that they would bring it back in a different piece of legislation. It is ridiculous. The Liberals do not have a clue as to what they are doing. They obviously do not have a vision for where we should go down the road. I think it is important for the Government of Canada to have some kind of a real vision, so that we can guarantee Canadians jobs and opportunity down the road.

I want to point out today that we have big challenges. We have flat take home pay in Canada. There was a report in January that showed that Canadian take home pay has only gone up 3.6% since 1989 which works out to an increase of about $84 a year for the average Canadian. That is reprehensible.

In a country this wealthy, to have take home pays flat like that for 15 years, that speaks volumes about public policy. The government is not leveraging the tremendous natural resources that we have and the human resources. The fact that we have this unfettered trade relationship with the United States, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, we should be exploiting that relationship. We are not doing those things to the degree that we could and the result is that take home pay is basically flat in Canada. In fact, there was a report from Statistics Canada the other day pointing to the fact that productivity is flat in Canada. We turned in our worst productivity performance this spring in six years.

Because of the government's high tax policy, average Canadians pay around 49% of their wages in taxes. There was a report by the Fraser Institute that showed an Ontarian making $35,000 a year spends $17,175 in taxes and levies to all the different levels of government, which is crazy.

I know the NDP member says that they pay it to the government and then the government gives it back to them in some form and everyone is better off. What my friend fails to note is that when government reaches into people's pockets, takes $1 out, gives 20% of it to the bureaucracy, and in some cases Liberal advertising agencies, then gives them back 80¢, and people are supposed to be grateful for the 80¢ they get back out of their $1. That is crazy.

We need to figure out which are the things that government can and should do and which are the things it cannot and should not do. There are many things today in which the government is engaged and involved that I think have turned out to be very wasteful. I could talk about the firearms registry and a lot of different things, but time will not permit that.

One thing the Conservative Party was successful in doing, along with getting the government to change its mind on personal income tax and corporation taxation, was to remove part 15 of the budget legislation that would govern large final emitters under the Kyoto provisions through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It was inappropriate. All parties noted that eventually. We claim success on that. We think that is important and it can be done in a different way down the road when the government has taken the time to figure out how to do it in a way that will not unduly hurt the economy. We have to be concerned about that.

We also were able to effect a big change when it comes to the greenhouse gas technology fund. We brought in some amendments, which the government will accept, that would make it much more flexible so companies working through this fund will be able to meet targets in a way that will cost a bunch of jobs in the Canadian economy.

We also brought in several accountability provisions so advisory boards that reported to the minister with respect to the greenhouse gas technology fund would have to make their advice public, which I think is only appropriate.

There are many things we have done to change and strengthen the bill, of which we are proud.

However, the government has to go further. The deal with the NDP is a disaster. I want to argue that there is a better way. We think there is a role for government, it has gone way beyond where it should be in Canada today. Canadians should be allowed to keep more of the money they earn.

Members may have heard me speak in this place before about the impact of leaving $1,000 a year in the pockets of low income Canadians. I did some calculations. Let us think about some of the people we know who are struggling today.

I know a family with four children and a modest income. If we gave that family a $1,000 a year tax break and it was put into an RRSP, it would work out to $1,160 with the break it would get from the RRSP. If we amortize that over 30 years with only a 5% return, it works out to $81,000 that would build in that RRSP. If a tax break of $2,000 a year was given, obviously it is double.

Those people know better than government what is right for their families, with their money. Does it make sense to give money to a government that has wasted money and in some cases, I am afraid to say, money that people in the Liberal Party have stolen? There is no question about that. That is not disputed. In fact, criminal charges have been laid. Liberal Party officials have admitted that they were engaged in stealing money.

Let us make an effort to leave more of that money in the pockets of Canadians who earn it in the first place. If we do that, I think we will eventually reach the goal of making Canada the most prosperous country in the world. We should be there today. We have been falling. Other countries have shot by us. Countries like Iceland, Ireland and the Netherlands have all passed us in terms of standard of living. Why? Because of bad public policy.

Do those countries have resources that we do not have? That is hardly the case. They have no resources, typically. We have all the resources but they are moving ahead of us in standard of living. They have reduced the taxes that hurt their productivity the most, which this government refuses to do. In fact, the finance minister spoke in Halifax today and criticized business for not being more productive. He is the one with some of the highest taxes on capital and investment in the world.

How can our businesses compete when those taxes have gone through the roof? How can businesses go and hire more people when we have that kind of anchor to pull around behind us? Where is the vision from the government to make Canada the most prosperous country in the world?

If we can achieve that, then we can make Canada the most generous country in the world. If we have the most prosperous country, then we can be the most generous.

I want to put the lie right now to what the NDP member and my Liberal colleague across the way were saying just a moment ago. They say that all we believe in is tax relief. Tax relief is the means to an end. What we want is prosperity for Canadians. We want opportunities. I do not really care about having a program that is only about tax relief, not at all.

There are many other things we have to do to ensure that people have that high standard of living. We have to be able to ultimately afford to fund our social programs, like post-secondary education. One of the most important ways to ensure that people have a high standard of living is to ensure they have access to post-secondary education. Not only that, rather obviously, it just enriches the life of the person who gets that education.

The only way to ensure that we will have the money down the road is to expand the tax base. That means getting excessive taxation off the backs of all kinds of businesses such as small businesses, the types that are championed by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Chamber of Commerce, groups which have been very critical of the government in the last while and Bill C-48, and large employers.

I point out that the C.D. Howe Institute says that if the government had reversed itself on removing the taxation on large employers, it would have cost the Canadian economy 340,000 jobs. That is not just a statistic. Those are jobs to individual people, people who have to look after their families. I am glad the Conservative Party and a coalition of people who actually hire workers were able to pound the government to the point where it came to its senses. Now it is bringing back the reduction in taxation for large employers. It is very important to do that.

Getting back to my point, we believe there is an important role for government. The government has a role to play when it comes to ensuring the rule of law, Frankly, we do not do a very good job of that today in Canada. We just had a question period today where the Conservative Party was grilling the government over the report that there were now a thousand Chinese spies operating in Canada.

I want to argue that in many cases money, which should go to essential services, the things only the government can do, is taken away to put into things that the government should not be doing at all, like again the firearms registry. I could talk about other places where it has wasted money. I could talk about the submarines that the government bought and cannot get them to float or sink or whatever it is. It has done a terrible job on some of this stuff. Suffice it to say, we believe there is a role for government.

We also believe the government has a really important role to play when it comes to ensuring that we have access to markets. One of the problems the Conservative Party believes the government has not addressed today is the whole issue of ensuring that we can provide goods and services to the United States, by far our most important market. Eighty-four per cent of all our exports go to the United States, so it is critically important. We see that border too often closed to us these days. We think that is an important role the government has to play, but it has not done a good job of it.

We think the government has a very important role to play when it comes to things like health care. We believe the government should adequately fund health care. We also believe, and I think this is now backed up by the courts, the government has done a horrible job of ensuring, after 12 years, that Canadians can get access to health care. The government cannot blame that on anyone else. It has become so bad that people now have to go to the court to force the government to deal with their medical problems. The government is not doing a good job when it comes to providing certain kinds of government services.

Here is something Canadians run into all the time. Has anyone here tried to get a passport lately? The only place a person can go to get a passport is the government. The government is doing a lousy job with that $160 billion we sent it to use for providing programs and services. It is doing a lousy job when it comes to those kinds of things.

As an MP, I have people come to my office all the time saying that they have sent their paperwork in six or eight months and they still do not have their passports and they have to go somewhere. They are doing a lousy job in providing basic services.

We think there is a role to play. We do not think the government is playing that role. We think very often Canadians could do a better job with the money that goes to Ottawa and too often is wasted.

If the idea is to ensure that people are as well off as they can be, as prosperous as they can be and that they can look after their family, many times a government program will not do that. Many times a family will do that, a family which has a good job or maybe two good jobs. It is a family who has enough income, after they have paid their taxes, to put money into an RESP so they can look after their son or daughter's education down the road or money in an RRSP so they have a bit of a nest egg to retire on. I think that is a great idea.

My friend across the way is mumbling that it was a Liberal idea. It may have been a Liberal idea, but it is also a Liberal idea to tax people to the point where they can hardly afford to put money into RRSPs today. A 49% taxation rate is also a Liberal idea.

We think Canadians need that money to buy groceries or to go on a vacation. We want to see them have a high standard of living. We want them to have enough income after they have paid their taxes so they can really enjoy their life. We want them to have some choice in child care.

Here is another issue on which I think a lot of Canadians are certainly behind the Conservative Party. The government says to parents that they are not doing a good job of looking after your children. Then it says that it will take some tax money away from them and put it into a national day care program. Whether they prefer to use day care or not, they still pay taxes for it.

Many Canadians make a different choices. Many Canadians say that they would like to have one parent stay home for awhile with the children as they grow up.They think that is the best way to help them get through those formative years. Other people make a different choice and put their children in day care. The point is, Canadians should have some choice.

The government, although it denies it, is trying to take away choice by taking tax dollars from everybody and putting it into institutionalized day care. That is the government's preference but it may not be the preference of other Canadians.

The Conservative Party completely opposes that and I make no apologies for it. Every poll I have seen indicates that 80% of Canadians would like to have choice. In fact, 80% of them say they would prefer to spend time at home with their children instead of putting them into a day care. We are not saying they cannot. Give Canadians the choice. The new minister may have had great expertise in hockey, but he does not seem to understand the issue of parental choice.

I look forward to hearing questions from my friends across the way.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish that was a commitment I could give because I suspect that some of the time occupied in the debate on this budget might not necessarily be occupied by this side, but may well be occupied by the other side and for that side, I cannot give or receive commitments.

I agree with the member on the johnny-one-note exercise. It is true that members opposite do have a johnny-one-note, that tax relief is the way to nirvana. We all know that tax relief is not the way to nirvana. The beauty of being a Liberal is that we have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

With respect to the $100 billion tax relief, about one-quarter of it applied to corporations and about three-quarters applied to individuals. Similarly, the tax relief envisioned in Bill C-43, about $7.4 billion was for personal tax relief and a little over $4 billion was contemplated for a corporate tax relief, some of which survives intact.

We must have a competitive business environment and if we do, we presumably will increase our productivity. If we were to increase our productivity, we would generate wealth. If we were to generate wealth, then all governments would be able to tax that wealth for the greater good. That is the reasoning behind the tax relief as contemplated in Bill C-43 and which ultimately will be restored in Bill C-43.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on my hon. colleague's comments. It seems to me that one of our prerequisites of entering into discussions with the government about improving the budget was the fundamental principle that it had to be balanced. If we did not have a balanced budget, we would not be able to move forward with any of our social agenda.

The question regarding Bill C-43 that raised our concerns initially was regarding the $100 billion in corporate tax cuts that had already been given out. Having gone through the June election last year, night after night in debates I heard about the Liberal agenda which talked about social spending. It talked about housing and addressing the environment. We were quite shocked however when we saw the original Bill C-43 because it seemed that none of those priorities were there except another $4.6 billion in tax cuts.

We wondered how it was that we had money to spend on more tax cuts after the $100 billion had already been sent out when there was a deficit in the lack of housing, and a deficit facing our students in terms of the debt loads they are carrying. We had the debt loads that our first nations communities were facing and the debt load that was starting to grow in our environment from a lack of a long term plan.

When we sat down to work with the government on improving Bill C-43 into something that was more in line with what the Canadian public wanted, it was based on the principle of a balanced budget. It was based on a principle of giving to Canadians a plan that would actually move us out of the many other deficits that had grown over the years. We have been obsessed with the Conservative Party's one note song on tax cuts at the expense of everything else.

We have heard such strong support for this budget from the home front. We are hearing from people of all political stripes in Timmins—James Bay who are saying to deliver this budget and make it happen. They want this budget to go through. They want the games to end. We are almost in July and we still have not passed these two bills. I am asking my hon. colleague, can we get a very firm commitment that Bill C-43 and our amended budget will be passed before this session ends?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a different budget process in a minority situation as opposed to a majority situation. It cuts both ways. I am sure my hon. colleague will agree that now the NDP is convinced of the merits of balanced budgets and debt reduction. I think my hon. colleague will be convinced of the merits of proceeding in a measured way that responds to the needs of Canadians. In that respect the NDP has given some ground.

Having said that, there are elements, both in Bill C-43 and highlighted in Bill C-48, which reflect initiatives that the government has taken and wants to take, dependent upon the ability of the economy to generate sufficient moneys so that this contingent spending can be entered into. That is possibly a distinction that is sometimes lost on a lot of folks.

We are debating Bill C-43, which is within the fiscal framework as projected by the budget documents put forward on February 23. It is committed spending. Bill C-48 is spending based upon surplus moneys. If surplus moneys were to exceed $2 billion on an annual basis, we would spend on the priorities that the New Democratic Party has identified, which are also the priorities of the Government of Canada, in affordable housing, foreign aid, the environment and areas such as that.

It is a different process, but there is some no go zones in terms of things that the Government of Canada will not do. We will not go into deficit financing. We will not do anything other than have balanced budgets and we will not destabilize the fiscal framework.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, as I listened to the parliamentary secretary give his address on Bill C-43, I was glad to hear both the tone and the content with which he enlightened us about the merits and benefits of Bill C-43.

He will probably remember that the initial NDP reaction to the first Liberal budget that was put forward was less than enthusiastic. In fact, we voted against that original budget. It did not strike us as addressing the needs and priorities of Canadians as we had identified them as New Democrats.

Certainly, the information reaching us, in terms of the priorities of Canadians, differed dramatically from the nature of the budget cobbled together by the Liberal Party. Luckily, and this is the magic of a minority Parliament, a good opposition party can use a minority Parliament to advance its own agenda. It is the advantage of a minority Parliament in terms of benefits to ordinary Canadians. A successful opposition party measures its success if it achieves its agenda.

Thankfully, through negotiations with the government of the day, the NDP, as an effective opposition party, did manage to convince the ruling party that some of our priorities were the priorities of Canadians. To the credit of the Liberals, they listened. It is the magic of a minority Parliament at work.

Even though we are debating Bill C-43 today, which has many of the core elements of the Liberal government budget, would my honourable colleague not agree that the budget process as a whole benefited greatly from the cooperative exercise that took place? There was an effective opposition party using its political capital and political leverage to achieve the agenda that it stands for, which is social spending, the reduction of poverty, affordable housing and a clean environment.

In other words, would my colleague agree that it was a good thing that, by using our political leverage, we have convinced the government to use taxpayers' money in the interests of taxpayers, to use taxpayers' money in a way that Canadians were asking? Would the parliamentary secretary care to expand on that?

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in this final debate on Bill C-43. This has been a long journey. We started this journey back in February with the introduction of the budget on February 23, shortly thereafter, the budget implementation bill and then taking that bill all the way through the debate in the House, first reading, second reading, into committee, hearing witnesses, back out of committee and then the vote last night on report stage amendments. Now here we are on the final leg of our journey in the House with respect to Bill C-43.

The bill contains very important commitments made by the government on key social and economic issues. All of that is premised on the notion that we have sound fiscal management in the country and that we are committed, as a government, to balanced budgets. This budget represents the eighth balanced budget in a row and we anticipate, as we go forward, that we will be going into five more balanced budgets. That, in and of itself, is a historic first in this country.

However we have not always been in such an enviable situation. We will recollect back in 1993 when we came into government that the New York Times was describing Canada as an economic basket case. That was a formidable challenge for the government and it took us three or four budget cycles to actually turn the nation's finances around. We went from a situation of chronic deficits and skyrocketing public debt to a position of diminished deficits to 1997 when we actually ran our first surplus. We have been able to maintain our situation of running surpluses since then.

I think, even for all the parties opposite, we are now committed to the notion that we balance the books first and talk about what expenditures can be made after those books are balanced. I know that is a bit of a revolutionary concept for members of the Conservative Party, the NDP and the Bloc but, remarkable as it may seem, the Liberal government has been able to achieve a political consensus that balancing the books comes before everything.

We have been able to do some remarkable things in this country, one of which is the reduction in the national debt by some $60 billion over the past number of years. That has enabled us to not only achieve a triple-A credit rating, but it has also enabled us to save a significant sum of money on annual basis which is something in order of about $3.5 billion in interest costs alone.

The happy ripple effect of that is that as the Government of Canada goes, so also do other governments at both the provincial and the municipal levels but so also does business. We have at this point in our history very low interest rates. That, in some significant measure, is due to the fact that the Government of Canada has its fiscal house in order.

We have taken our debt to GDP from a historic high of 68% to now just down below 40% and the budget sets a track to go in the next number of years down to 25% of debt to GDP.

We are the only G-7 government that has been able to achieve such a remarkable turnaround and achieve such a balanced budget with surpluses going forward. We are therefore among the leading economies in the world.

That in turn, once we get the books right, allows us to contemplate investments in priorities both social and economic that Canadians have told us about over the last number of years. For those who follow these proceedings, they will know that the finance committee, for instance, conducts extensive hearings in order to be able to ascertain what the priorities are of Canadians.

The minister himself conducts a number of round tables in order to do that. There are what at least seem like endless numbers of meetings, both public and private, on what are the social and economic priorities of Canadians. I think the success of this budget and the way it has been so well received by Canadians across the country reflect the extensive hearings that we have held prebudget.

In turn, there is an expectation that the government live up to its commitments to Canadians: to Canadian families, Canadian individuals, Canadian businesses, Canadian municipalities and the provinces as well. The budget indeed lives up to some expectation on the part of Canadians that we involve ourselves to a greater extent in the affairs of the world.

If I may take a few moments, I will talk about some of these commitments and how the budget speaks to those commitments.

First, with respect to reducing the tax burden on individuals and families, members opposite will recollect that over the past five years we have had $100 billion of tax reduction initiatives, which have effectively reduced federal personal income taxes by 21% on average and by 27% for families with children.

In budget 2003, for instance, low income and modest income families received increases to the national child benefit of $185 per year for both July 2005, or in other words, next month, and July 2006. With these changes, the Canada child tax benefit program is now something in excess of $10 billion as of fiscal year 2007.

In some respects that reflects our commitment to Canadians and in particular to families raising children. That is an increase of something like 100% since 1996. As I say, members can see that this has been one of the priorities of the government once we moved into a surplus position.

Budget 2005 builds on our strong record of sustainable and responsible tax reduction by increasing the personal amount that all Canadians can earn tax free. The budget put forward in Bill C-43 proposes that we move the threshold up to $10,000 by the year 2009. As a result of that, we will take off the tax rolls something in the order of 860,000 tax filers, of whom about a quarter of a million are seniors.

Budget 2005 also tries to encourage savings. As we know, private domestic savings play a key role in our economy. We are very mindful of the demographic realities of our country. As the baby boomers age, the expectation in the not so distant number of years is that baby boomers will be drawing down on their savings, both public and private.

The government has therefore increased the limits for registered pension plans in Bill C-43 and also expects that these limits will increase further. By the year 2010, the annual dollar contribution to an RRSP will be something in the order of $22,000, with corresponding increases for registered pension plans. Thereafter, the ceilings will be indexed according to average wage growth.

We hope that by doing this we will encourage Canadians to save and assist employers in providing competitive compensation packages to attract and retain skilled workers and encourage savings to support investment, productivity and economic growth.

In addition, the budget proposed that we eliminate the foreign property rule. We did that immediately, effective the date of the budget. At one point the limitations were 20% and then ratcheted up to 30%. Now there is no ceiling on foreign property acquisition in one's RRSP. That enables Canadians to diversify their investments and creates larger pools of capital so that we can exercise those pools of capital for the benefit of all Canadians.

The budget also takes steps to improve the fairness of our tax system. It recognizes the special circumstances of certain taxpayers to reduce their ability to pay tax, so there are some initiatives to have a fair tax system and improve the quality of life for persons with disabilities. That follows the recommendations of the technical advisory committee on tax measures for persons with disabilities.

In this budget, the maximum annual child disability benefit was increased to $2,000 from a sum of $1,681, beginning next month. Bill C-43 also proposes that the maximum amount of refundable medical expenses be increased from $571 per year to $750 per year. Other measures as well, responding to the technical advisory committee, will be included in a bill that will be tabled at a later date this year.

The government is committed to ensuring that Canada's tax system is fair for Canadian businesses. It recognizes that the corporate tax system needs to be competitive in order to foster investment. In that regard, the corporate tax reductions that were originally part of Bill C-43 will be reintroduced under separate legislation. Notice has already been given to that effect.

In the budget we also respond to the concerns about tax fairness expressed by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. There is a priority recommendation of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance regarding the jewellery industry in Canada. This budget proposes a phase-out of the jewellery tax, much like the finance committee recommended on two separate occasions, and it is a reflection of the regard the finance minister has for the finance committee and the work it does.

I might mention in passing that I think the finance committee made 33 recommendations. Of those, I believe 24 are all or in part reflected in the budget. The work of the finance committee is recognized in the budget and is appreciated by the minister.

The government has expressed its commitment as well to provide federal funding for our cities and communities. In 2004 we took the first steps in recognizing that by providing a new deal that allocated $7 billion over 10 years through a full GST rebate. For instance, for my community in Toronto that means a saving in the order of about $52 million on an annual basis.

Since the mid-1990s, the Government of Canada has invested something in the order of about $12 billion in infrastructure programs, leveraging more than $30 billion in total infrastructure investment over that similar period of time. We have used the Canada strategic infrastructure fund, the municipal rural infrastructure fund and the border infrastructure fund in order to be able to leverage that $30 billion over the past number of years.

As I said, the full rebate of the GST was contained in a previous budget. Budget 2005 delivers on our commitment to share the federal gas revenues with municipalities in order to address their infrastructure needs. In 2005-06 Canada's cities and communities will receive a share worth about $600 million, which is the equivalent of 1.5¢ per litre. Subsequent legislation will increase the funding gradually, until it gets to be about $2 billion annually by 2009-10 or the equivalent of 5¢ a litre of the gas tax revenue.

The Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities has already begun negotiations with the provinces and territories to share that gas tax revenue. The money will start to flow toward environmentally sustainable projects. In Ontario this will likely mean something like $1.9 billion over the next five years. To round that off, it is about $750 million a year for Ontario in additional moneys. We think this is a good example of all three orders of government working in partnership to build sustainable communities.

Hon. members will recall the commitment made last fall to the provinces on the equalization money for the provinces and the territories, which was something in the order of $33 billion over 10 years. That being enabling legislation, that arrangement has now received royal assent and the money has in fact started to flow to both the provinces and the territories.

I should point out that this initiative represents a fundamental reform of these programs in response to the concerns of premiers and treasurers alike that their funding flows were somewhat irregular because of the nature of the funding formula. They sometimes went up and sometimes went down according to economic conditions, both in the province and out of and external to the province. The government in effect took the risk out of the funding flow, so that commitment to the provinces is something on which they can go to the bank.

The additional moneys that were provided to the provinces, both equalization receiving provinces and non-equalization receiving provinces, were something in the order of $41 billion over 10 years, the total of which--$41 billion and $33 billion--comes up to almost $75 billion in additional funding, which should in large measure stabilize the funding process for provinces as they try to meet the needs of their citizens.

Not included in this legislation, budget 2005 also announced $805 million for direct support for health initiatives, but I wanted to mention this because it further illustrates our government's commitment to continue to try to improve our health care system.

I know that hon. members opposite, two in particular, will be quite keen to see the completion of this budget because they anticipate that both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador will be receiving significant sums of money. In the case of Nova Scotia, it is something in the order of $830 million. In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is something in the order of $2 billion.

I know that those hon. members in particular will be very enthusiastic and encouraging about this receiving quick passage. Possibly they could even convince their colleagues to only make one speech at a time so that we can move directly to a third reading vote. Maybe I am anticipating the power and authority of those two hon. members to encourage their colleagues to do that.

As well, I wanted to point out that this budget provides for $120 million for a northern strategy for the three territories, Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and Yukon, and those moneys will be divided equally among those territories, at about $40 million each. That money, upon the passage of this bill, will be put into a third party trust.

As well, the budget reaches out to the world. I know that you and I share a keen interest in the Caribbean, Madam Speaker. As well, we participated in the Iraqi elections, for instance. It was their first time and it was really interesting to talk to Iraqi Canadians who voted for the first time.

We want to continue that as Canada reaches out to Haiti, Africa, the Palestinians, Afghanistan and Kosovo, and this budget enables us to do some of that. You and I were both moved, Madam Speaker, in the early part of this year with respect to Canadians' response to tsunami relief, which, after all was said and done, ended up as something in the order of $425 million. I know, Madam Speaker, that you are also keenly interested in the welfare of our Sri Lankan population and you and I were able to encourage the government to make sure that the relief was distributed in an equitable and fair way.

As well, the Asia Pacific Foundation has received funding in the amount of $50 million. It will be an endowment, which will hopefully sustain the good work the Asia Pacific Foundation is doing.

Finally, I appreciate the work of colleagues on both sides of the House. Sometimes I appreciate the work of colleagues on the other side of the House a little less, but this in large measure reflects the priorities of Canadians. We have, in large measure, delivered on the commitments made to provinces, communities and to the global community at large.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

moved that Bill C-43, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005, be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-43. The question is on Motion No. 1.

Main Estimates, 2005-06

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the first response to my hon. colleague would be where were the Conservatives when the federal government brought down the budget? Did we hear any amendments from the Conservatives? Did we hear any suggestions? Did they have any kind of an agreement reached with the Liberals?

We heard the Minister of Finance at committee yesterday say that the Liberals had to turn to the NDP because they could not get anything from the Conservatives. They would not deal. They would not talk, or plan or propose. They are stuck in their rut and focused on one issue of having an election without any platform.

I would suggest that the hon. member read the subcommittee on finance which was initiated by the Bloc member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. It was done explicitly to deal with the issue of fiscal imbalance and we attempted to deal with the matter of equalization.

We are not talking necessarily first and foremost about a budgetary provision. We are talking about trying to convince the federal government to start to negotiate seriously with provinces for a new equalization agreement that is based on a 10 province formula that includes natural resource revenue and that is true to the wishes of the premiers as expressed two years ago and ignored by the federal government.

The question again arises, where were the Conservatives throughout this debate? Did members hear the Conservatives suggesting we needed a new commitment to equalization? No. What the Conservatives suggest is that we need to move more in the direction of a patchwork approach to this federation. We need more one-off deals. We need more band-aid approaches. That is the Conservative approach.

At least the Bloc, although we may not always agree on everything, was able to recognize that there was a problem that had to be addressed and we worked together to try to find solutions. That is the issue before us today.

I know the Conservatives are envious. I know they are suffering from sour grapes and NDP envy. However, but I wish they would get on with the fact of recognizing they missed the boat and pass Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 so Canadians can access the money they want and we can get on with building a great country.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

It is a one budget stand, as my hon. colleague has just said.

In the full light of day we set out to accomplish something that was good for Canada, and we did it.

We arrived at a fiscally responsible plan that ensured there would be no attempt to have this government go into any debt or deficit. There was no thought of giving up on some contingency emergency fund to be set aside for sudden situations if they were to occur, and not to go into debt. No, we said that our plan was to use the money that had been set aside for another corporate tax cut for large corporations, because those tax breaks are not producing huge benefits for Canadians in terms of new jobs, new companies and new opportunities in this country. In fact, the government has been giving tax breaks to large corporations and all the while profits have been going up and up for those corporations and investment has been going down and down. The key to our future prosperity is not about giving more tax breaks to those corporations. The key is to invest in areas that will create jobs, meet social objectives and enhance the quality of life in this country.

How can the Conservatives oppose something that positive? It is a proposal that is fiscally responsible. It does not create any kind of deficit for the government. It does not take away the contingency fund. It is a transparent use of surplus dollars. It shifts money from tax cuts for large corporations and puts it into housing for Canadians, lower tuition for students, cleaner air for people who cannot handle the smog warnings day in and day out, and gives some assistance for those suffering from tremendous economic and social structural barriers overseas. It is a very reasonable plan that makes a big difference in the lives of Canadians.

We are here tonight celebrating the fact that with the help of Canadians we have been able to make a difference. The better balanced budget is not perfect. It does not have everything in it. We were not able to accomplish all we would have liked to. We did not get a big concession in terms of employment insurance. We would have liked that. We did not get some new commitments on pay equity. We would have liked that.

We managed some constructive steps forward and we did it within a fiscally responsible framework. That is something to be proud of. I know that Canadians are proud of it and want the budget bills passed.

I am sure that Canadians were appalled when they opened a newspaper and read about the Conservatives first playing games through the course of an entire sitting of witnesses at our committee and then gutting the bill and sending a blank page back to this House. The Conservatives took away the $1.6 billion for housing. They took away the $1.5 billion for education. They took away the $900 million for environmental projects and public transit and for retrofitted housing. They took away the $500 million for assistance overseas.

That is what the Conservatives did. They took away that which Canadians wanted. They are now being held responsible for that kind of irresponsible action. One only has to look at the polls. They dropped by 10 points overnight. They dropped like a stone in the polls, and rightfully so, as my colleague from Windsor has just said, because Canadians have sent us here to act responsibly. Canadians have told us to do a good job, to do something, to make Parliament work. Canadians do not want their members of Parliament to sit here and play games constantly and give them nothing but talk and no action. As one of my other colleagues said, all this talk and no action from the Conservatives is like a bad date.

Let us get back to the issues at hand. We have before us tonight the estimates for this budget year. We have before us two budget bills that are important for Canadians. We have before us a responsibility and a mandate to continue to make inroads, to make this country better than what it is, to ensure that we deal with some fundamental critical issues in our society today.

In the few minutes I have remaining, I want to outline a few of those points of where we have to go in the future.

We see Bill C-48, the better balanced budget bill as just a beginning. We do not see short term investments as the solution in the long run. We recognize there must be a responsibility on the part of the federal government to invest in lifelong learning. That means starting from early childhood and child care supports and going right through elementary and secondary and post-secondary education. It is not something that happens by neglecting an area like education and reducing the federal share of cash to provinces for education down to 11%. Whatever happened to this goal of shared responsibility between the federal and provincial governments?

We must build on what we have been able to accomplish through Bill C-48, in terms of the $1.5 billion for education and improving access for students.

We must build on the beginnings of a national child care program that we see in Bill C-43, something that has been accomplished after many years of broken promises. In fact, members well know that the commitment for a national child care program is the longest running broken political promise in the history of this country. We are finally at the stage where we have the beginnings of a national child care program. We are pleased with that development. It is a beginning step. It is the initial step in a long journey to ensure that this country has affordable, non-profit, quality child care spaces.

Contrary to the Conservatives who like to suggest that our society will come to rack and ruin if we proceed down this path, we say that we have a responsibility to families who choose to work, or who must work, to ensure that their children are in safe, secure, quality child care arrangements.

We have heard so much from the Conservatives over these last two days about choice in child care. For once, let us get this debate straight. We are talking about a policy to deal with working parents. We are trying to respond to the fact that there are thousands of children in unlicensed day care spaces. We are trying to deal with the fact that there are families, too many to count, who cannot afford or cannot find quality child care to ensure their children are in safe, secure, quality settings.

I hear the Conservatives yelling in the background as usual because they cannot grasp the notion that it is possible to combine work and family. It is possible to be a good mother and still hold down a job, like being a member of Parliament. It is possible to provide the nurture, love and caring that is required of mothers and fathers by their children and still hold jobs, provide for families and make a living, but it takes some help from government. It takes government working with communities to make it possible. It means helping families and communities from the ground up to ensure they can help themselves. We are talking about that.

This policy is not about trying to meet all the needs of every individual in our society. If parents choose to stay at home to care for their children, we have an obligation to ensure that policies and tax provisions address those circumstances. That is exactly what must happen, but let us not mix apples and oranges. A child care program to respond to the needs of working families is one thing that has been neglected for too many decades. It must not be allowed to languish for one week more.

Then the issue of dealing with whether our tax system is responsive to all family situations, especially in the cases where one parent chooses to stay home to care for the children full time, must be addressed. No one has said it should not.

It is absolutely irresponsible on the part of the Conservatives to suggest that by addressing one end of this public policy debate, we are taking away from another. We are not taking away choice. We are not denying the needs of all our citizens. We are recognizing the millions of children who now have a right to safe, secure, quality child care and early childhood development. It is as simple as that.

By investing in child care now, we grow the economy. We plan for the future. We ensure that there is a bright future for all in our society. That is but one example of where we must go in the future.

In the two minutes I have remaining let me also say this. In conjunction with lifelong learning, post-secondary and university education and child care, we must also look at achieving policies that ensure the appropriate balance between work and family. The work life balance issue must be addressed by this Parliament in the near future.

Too many families are struggling with the stress of trying to be excellent parents, good providers and contributing members of our workforce without supports that take into account the stress of juggling so much, ensuring there is food on the table and the needs of the family are taken care of with some time left over for themselves to have leisure activities and to enjoy the society to which they are contributing. That is another area for future work.

In the context of budgets, let us look at the issues of equality between the sexes and recognize that nowhere has the government yet achieved a simple objective to ensure gender sensitive, budget making processes and to look at the impact of our policies and decisions on women in the workforce. Nowhere is that more important than in the area of employment insurance.

We still have in practice employment insurance policies that discriminate against women because they want to work part time and care for their children the rest of the time. That is a perfect example for the Conservatives who say that they want to provide choice. If they want to provide choice, where are they when it comes to seeking something as simple as a change in the employment insurance rules so a part time worker is recognized as a permanent member of the workforce and is able to access employment insurance?

Fisheries Act

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources. He mentioned in his speech that this is a technical bill designed to solve a problem that was identified by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, which I sit on. Although there is a little truth to that, let me read what the committee said when a similar bill was introduced in the 37th Parliament. It stated:

Our acknowledgement that the amendments included in Bill C-43 would resolve the Committee's objections to the legality of the relevant regulatory provisions does not imply an endorsement of those amendments particularly as regards the proposed section 10(1), which impose a legal duty to comply with the terms and conditions of a licence, we can conceive that some parliamentarians might object to subjecting such non-compliance to penal sanctions that include imprisonment. To deprive a citizen of his liberty on the ground that the citizen has failed to abide by requirement imposed by a public official in the exercise of an administrative power, such as a term or condition of licence, could be thought undesirable as a matter of legislative policy.

That seems to be the crux of the issue. It is not just a technical change. Yes, it solves the legality of the problem, but there is still the underlying fundamental policy issue. Is it fair and right for somebody to be subjected to those penalties because of a condition that a bureaucrat has laid down? I would appreciate the member's comments on that.