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.

Department of Social Development Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-22 is an act to establish the Department of Social Development and to amend and repeal certain other acts. The member has given a good speech, quite frankly, on the whole subject matter of early learning and child care which we spoke about and debated last night. He was here for some four hours and we spoke about some of the nuances.

There are obviously negotiations that must be held with every province. There is only so much that we can do and we cannot have one model that fits all because every province has a different base to work with. I am a little concerned and I am hopeful that the member would maybe want to reconsider hist position on the bill to create the department and not have his position affected by a measure which is included in the budget bill, Bill C-43, which his party supported.

I do not want to get into a debate about child care because that is not the bill we are debating, but I would say to the member that this is a first step. It is $5 billion over five years with $700 million in the first year. The premise is that putting the interests of children first is very important and that to deal with one aspect, being quality child care, is important regardless of how it might be delivered. We know that it really costs much more to set up a true, effective, quality national program, but we should work together to build on a starting point because there is only so much we can do with $5 billion over five years.

Child Care

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, five provinces, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia, have signed child care agreements with the Liberal government.

These agreements are part of the promise made by our government to provide $5 billion over five years for creating an early childhood education and child care system in every province and territory.

Adoption of the budget at second reading has brought us one step closer to securing the funding for child care. The budget bills are now before the finance committee and Canadians want all political parties to put the public interest first and support Bill C-43 and Bill C-48.

As the chair of the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada said:

Children and families right across Canada are now being held hostage to political opportunism...We need an activist Parliament to get the things done that matter most to Canadians, such as putting in place the foundation for a pan-Canadian child care system...

Let us get on with this budget, get on with the process and give Canadians the national child care program they deserve.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

What were they supporting? They were supporting the Bloc Québécois to defeat Bill C-48 which would have defeated the government and put us into an election.

Why would they support the budget and then turn around and dissolve Parliament? This motion is precisely the same thing. When was it tabled in the House? It was tabled on May 26, last week when we were off. It takes 48 hours notice. This is yet another point of evidence about the bad faith that the Conservatives have shown with regard to making a minority Parliament work. That is the issue.

Let us consider what happened with the 2004 budget. It was introduced in mid-March and it received royal assent on May 14 of the same year. When Parliament works, the budget implementation bill gets passed.

This year's budget was introduced a week later in the calendar cycle, on March 25. It is already May 30. This budget could have passed already.

If it had not been for the bad faith of the Conservative Party and the unholy alliance between the right and the wrong, then this budget would have been addressed. It would have been referred to the finance committee. We would have had the budget dealt with at the finance committee, back in the House and given royal assent.

Now we have this motion. I note that throughout this day, other than the mover of the motion, members from the Conservatives and the Bloc have not been participating in the debate. They do not care about the motion. This is yet another example of failure to cooperate in a minority environment.

The Conservatives know quite well that the finance committee starts its hearings on Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 tomorrow at 11 a.m. The opposition has the majority of the members on that committee. I urge Canadians to watch what will happen at that committee to see how true they are to their word that they want the Atlantic accord to pass.

If the Conservatives believe that the Atlantic accord should move forward swiftly, then they have to pass out of committee both Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 without amendment. I do not think that will happen. I think we will see some games start tomorrow. I think we will see a lot of obstructionism. I think we will see that those bill will take a long time. I do not think they will give the budget a chance to come back to this place before we rise for the summer break.

I think the whole issue here is whether there ever will be a good faith gesture on behalf of all parties, which are at least in favour of a united Canada, to work together to ensure that the important issues of the day, which affect Canadians from region to region to region, are dealt with by this place.

We must understand fully that we will never get everything that we want. However, if there is a good faith gesture to be given, now is the time to give it. Now is the time for the parties to work together, to work with the priorities to ensure that they are properly represented.

If it had not been for the Prime Minister to sit down with Premier Williams, the Atlantic accord would not have existed. There was a serious problem there. I do not believe there is a member in the Conservatives, Liberals or NDP who has a problem at all with the Atlantic accord. We want to see it implemented.

For the Atlantic accord to be implemented, we have to get the bill out of committee unamended. We have to get it back into the House without report stage motions and with restricted debate at third reading so we can get to the vote at third reading. Then we can show our collective will to support the budget implementation bill in all its elements to which I have related.

When I came to this place in 1993, I wanted to work as a member of Parliament, to be a part of the House and maybe leave a fingerprint somewhere. I wanted to have some influence and to work hard for my constituents. It did not matter whether I was an important person in cabinet or something like that. That was never an issue. I think if most people in this place were asked, they did not even know how much a member of Parliament made when they ran for public office. It was not a consideration. They wanted to come here.

This last session has probably been one of the least comfortable sessions we have had. I understand we are in a minority situation. However, I have never seen such a deterioration of the collaboration and the communications between members. I have seen friendships broken. I have seen people start to become meanspirited.

Parliament and committees cannot work when that is going on. As far as I am concerned, we must begin on a member by member basis to renew our trust in each other and to do the right thing on behalf of Canadians. We must do our job at committee and we must come here to participate in debate, not lay out ideas on how to trip up the government in order to cause an election. If that is the idea, why all the games? Why not just keep putting forward confidence motions?

All I know right now is that as a member of Parliament I am prepared to work within a minority situation to try to do the best that we can.

I talked earlier about Joe Clark's government and the fact that it was a matter of numbers. I do not think members want to have to go through that again.

When I ran in the February 1980 election as a Liberal candidate for the first time, I was proud to represent a political party and its views. I suspect every member in this place were dedicated to their party and to its platform. We all wanted to come here to make those things work, to make a difference, to fight on behalf of the interests of our regions, to work hard to resolve the issues our constituents had relating to federal jurisdiction and to represent the interests to other jurisdictions.

As we can see in this budget, it touches upon many areas that are principally provincial jurisdiction: post-secondary education, day care, infrastructure, a deal for cities and the health care system. Delivery of health care is at the provincial level but it is done through collaboration and cooperation. The Canada Health Act provides the framework under which it operates but each of the provincial governments has those responsibilities.

We are collaborating with our provincial counterparts to make sure that policy, even at the provincial, regional and municipal levels, is acting on behalf of the best interest of all Canadians.

We should take the lead role in terms of providing the example to all elected officials at all levels of government that we have to work together.

I think the motion comes from the heart of the member. I have talked to him many times about this and I know he honestly believes this. However he also knows that if Bill C-43 passes through committee tomorrow, and it could if there is a will, the Atlantic accord, along with that, would come back to this place and we could deal with it. It would be faster than even this motion.

Why the motion? The motion basically makes me wonder whether there is this element of goodwill that still exists. It is a very important for Parliament to demonstrate that goodwill.

We heard the members from Cape Breton, Charlottetown, Yukon, Toronto and Scarborough, the parliamentary secretary, talk about the importance of this budget to their regions, but we also heard them clearly say that they understood the importance of the Atlantic accord. It is just as important as any other aspect of the budget because together it forms a framework where Canada becomes a better place in which to live and work.

We are here to do the best we can to ensure Canada is a better place in which to live and work.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 51 which is on the notice paper and is in the name of the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl. In the motion at the beginning and at the end it states:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Finance that it divide Bill C-43...be reported back to the House no later than two sitting days after the adoption of this motion.

Bill C-43 is the budget bill. Tomorrow at 11 a.m. the finance committee will be meeting. If the Conservative Party wants to have the Atlantic accord passed, tomorrow at finance committee members should appear, pass Bill C-43 and get it back to the House tomorrow, two days early.

This is not a simple matter. What has been asked is that an element in the budget, a budget which has 24 different segments in it, be carved out and be dealt with separately. It is certainly not a matter of parliamentary tradition. More important, we are talking about a budget in a minority scenario. It was 25 years ago that Joe Clark was prime minister of Canada. He told the country he would govern as if he had a majority. We know exactly what happens when a party governs as the majority when there is only a minority. A minority government is an important concept in democracy. Minority governments can work. Minority governments have worked and it takes cooperation among the parties.

However, what we have here is an example of duplicity in terms of what the official opposition would care to do. First, if the Atlantic accord is so important, then why did the Conservatives support the budget, Bill C-43, on May 29, which includes the Atlantic accord, and then on the immediate subsequent vote, vote against Bill C-48 which would have dissolved Parliament and sent us to an election, thereby killing the Atlantic accord?

If they were really honestly and truly behind the Atlantic accord, which I know our party is because it is an important part, how could they somehow vote for part of the budget implementation bill and then turn around and vote to dissolve Parliament? That is not the way this place works. It is certainly not the way a minority government works.

Why would the official opposition decide to have an unholy alliance with the Bloc Québécois, which sole purpose to be here is to promote the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada? The Bloc leader said just yesterday on a news program that his members were going to vote against the budget. They are against the Atlantic accord and yet the Conservative Party has an alliance with them to defeat the government. The leader said, “let's defeat this government at the earliest opportunity”.

How many different alliances do they have to have? If it were really important, they would have come together with the rest of the House, ignoring the Bloc's narrow view of Canada, and worked with the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party to find a way to work toward a solution. What happened? There was no goodwill, no good faith shown by members of the Conservative Party to make minority government work. All they wanted to do was defeat the government and send us into an expensive election that was not necessary. They know very well that it would have resulted in another minority government after spending another $250 million.

I understand the thrust of the motion. I support the Atlantic accord. I support it as part of the budget. It is part of this government's budget. It is part of the budget bills combined, Bill C-43 and Bill C-48, which are reflective of the collaboration and the cooperation that is necessary for a minority government to work. Official opposition members are opposed to Bill C-48. They want to defeat it. They want the government to fall and they will continue to play games. How can we understand the sincerity of their support for the Atlantic accord?

The Atlantic accord will die if Bill C-48 dies. The best way to get the Atlantic accord in force is to get the budget passed. Get both bills, Bill C-43 and Bill C-48, to committee. Get them back to the House quickly without amendments at report stage, have a quick debate at third reading and get it to the Senate. Let us get royal assent and let us get things moving.

The way a minority government has to operate is in collaboration. I wish everybody could have everything that they want for their constituents and for their parties, but we are a Parliament of Canadians. We are here on behalf of all Canadians. We have to balance those interests. We have to ensure that the interests of all Canadians are considered, not just one segment of a budget.

That budget went through an exhaustive process of consultation with all Canadians across the country. The finance committee visited every region of the country to ask Canadians what was important to them. They came before the finance committee here. All the economists and financial experts came before committee. The committee had representations of every region of the country, all the major groups and organizations, came and advised the government on their priorities.

What were they? I have a list here. I do not think I have to go through and read them. The priorities included such things as lowering taxes for Canadians, increasing the limits that could be contributed to RRSPs, eliminating foreign property limitations, increasing disability benefits for children, increasing the period for registered education savings plans, increasing the maximum medical expense supplement and extending the date for charitable giving with regard to the tsunami relief effort. Do members remember that? Also included were an increase in the GIS for our seniors, the changes to the air travellers security charge and the excise tax cut. If the members would like to look at the summary of the bill, part 12 enacts the Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador additional fiscal equalization offset payments act.

I could go through each of the elements of the budget and I could tie it in to the advice that Canadians gave to parliamentarians, to the finance committee and to their members of Parliament with regard to important elements. Some of those elements are directly related to certain regions of the country, but on balance it is a budget for all Canadians and that is how it has been presented to Canadians.

When I looked at this motion, I asked myself very honestly whether I felt it was coming in good faith and good will. We had a vote on May 19 on Bill C-43 and Bill C-48. I remember what happened. I think Canadians remember what happened. The Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP supported the budget. The Bloc Québécois members, those who want to separate from Canada, voted against the budget. Unless it has something to benefit Quebec, they do not care about the rest of the country. That is who they are representing. Then on Bill C-43 the Conservatives no longer supported the budget, including the Atlantic accord.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have not been a student of biology and I could not say if those particular breeds are indigenous to certain parts of Canada. I am sure they are not actually based on my own sense of things.

My colleague from Charlottetown hits on a very important point. We should try to represent all Canadians in this House. We should stop thinking only about narrow political and parochial views. We were elected to represent the people of Canada.

The Atlantic accord is very important because of the levels of income and unemployment in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia, but we can deal with that now if we pass the whole bill, Bill C-43 and Bill C-48. Let us not be so parochial. Let us get on with the job of representing Canadians.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the last point, we will miss that kind of lucid understanding of the budgetary cycle and how the House of Commons works. Maybe we should try to encourage the member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell to go for another term.

He is absolutely right in what he says. With respect to the first point, it highlights the hypocrisy or the inconsistency of the party opposite. When our finance minister tabled the budget, I sat here and was moved because it was such an excellent budget. Therefore, when I heard in the scrums that the leader of the Conservative Party actually said that there was nothing much his party could argue with in the budget, I was pleased but not surprised because it was and is an excellent budget, which is why it is so important to deal with the budget as a whole.

There is no need to hive off a portion. We know what the politics are. To please some of the Atlantic Canadian members of the Conservative caucus they want to hive it off and fast track it. However the problem is that we have an excellent budget, not just with the Atlantic accord but we have so many measures in the main part of Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 that are absolutely stupendous and which Canadians want.

I actually engaged and listened to what people were saying over the last week, and not just Liberal supporters, and they unanimously said that they wanted the budget passed but not in little bits here and there. Canadians want the budget passed but the members opposite are not listening or they are listening but are not acting upon that information.

I absolutely agree with my colleague. It has to be seen as one whole piece and we need to deal with Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 expeditiously so Canadians can get the benefits of those measures.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for this absolutely fantastic speech. I know many members and, no doubt, Canadians generally would want me to say this because it truly was.

Does my colleague see, as I do, that there is something a little confusing about the opposition's position on Bill C-43? On the one hand, last week opposition members voted in favour of having the budget passed. This week they have asked to sever parts from that which they were in favour of only a little bit more than a week ago.

Now that is a little hard for Canadians to understand. If one is in favour of the whole bill, then presumably one is in favour of whatever is contained in the whole bill. If one is in favour of the whole budget implementation bill, then what possible benefit would there be to segregate anything from it and to pass it apart rather than to pass the whole bill at the same time so that Canadians generally could enjoy the benefits that are in the Atlantic accord but in the other components of that excellent piece of legislation as well?

Second, perhaps he could add to the comments made earlier by the Bloc Québécois member, as to whether the government will spend the money allocated in last year's budget.

The member on the opposite side of the House has forgotten—and I ask my colleague to speak more about this—that many budgets include multi-year programs. This does not mean that all the money set out in the budget will be spent this year. Some budgets have been spread over one, two, three or four years. Some funding is even spread over a five-year period.

I invite my colleague to talk more about this.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on severing the Atlantic accords from Bill C-43, which would not be very wise thing to do. That is why I am happy to contribute to the discussion today.

Members of the Conservative Party, who used to be members of the Alliance Party or the Reform Party before the merger, often stood up in this place when it came to votes and their whip would say that members would be voting this way or that way unless otherwise advised by their constituents.

The Conservative Party, or its predecessors the Alliance and the Reform, prides itself on being close to the people. Last week we were told that those members were going to listen to what their constituents had to say. I have to conclude that they are not very good listeners.

I have talked to many Canadians in eastern Canada, western Canada, Atlantic Canada, northern Canada and elsewhere. With the exception of a few, they all agreed that the vote last week was a momentous vote. A lot of people watched it. Hundreds of people were waiting for us to exit the chamber. They were interested in the results of that historic vote in which the Speaker broke the tie.

What I heard from my constituents and from people across Canada was that a lot of time was taken away from the business of the House to focus on that confidence vote. We have had the vote and most Canadians now want us to get down to the business of governing and to make this Parliament work.

Conservative members pride themselves on being close to the ground. That may be true in some parts of Alberta and some parts of western Canada. However, with all due respect, when the election happens, it will be decided essentially in Ontario and Quebec, and that will not go down very well with members on the other side of the House. Those members should call up their friends in Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada to find out what they think. I think they would find that Canadians do not want an election right now. Those members are not listening. They do not have their ears to the ground. Some friends of mine who are more conservative in their way of thinking do not want an election now.

We are prepared to have an election. My colleagues and I are ready. We can go any time. I do not get obsessed with polling results and I am sure my colleagues on this side of the House do not get obsessed with polling results either, but if we look at the results we would find our party is doing quite well in the polls, especially in Ontario. The reason for that is obvious. People in Ontario are not attracted to the policies of the Conservative Party and they are not engaged with the leader of that party.

These are truisms. I am not saying something to incite people. Anyone who does not know that Canadians do not want an election, that they are not attracted to the policies of the Conservative Party and that they are not getting a lot of resonance from the leader of the Conservative Party must have their head buried in the ground.

Canadians know we had a confidence vote last week and what a shambles it was. They turned on their televisions and saw members running back and forth, not getting down to the business they were elected to do, to serve in the Parliament of Canada, to make Parliament work. Canadians want us to get down to work.

I naively thought that when I came back to Ottawa after the week break, we would actually deal with the budget. The budget has some amazing elements to it, and it is supported by Canadians. In fact, it was supported by the Conservative Party until those members started to read every morning in the National Post about the day to day testimony at the Gomery inquiry and then they would bring it to the floor of the House.

People watched that on television and said it was not very nice. Of course it was not nice and that is why the Prime Minister called for the Gomery inquiry, so that he could get to the bottom of it, hold people accountable, and make the policy changes required.

Suddenly, the Conservatives found that when all these issues were on the floor of the House of Commons and people were watching them on television, they were going up in the polls somewhat. Is that not interesting? They said, “Let's have an election now because we might be able to win”, forgetting the fact that Canadians said that they wanted to make this minority Parliament work. It is tougher to get things done in minority parliaments, but they can work. In fact, I and many members have seen it happen.

The justice committee dealt with a bill that focused on DNA. That is why this bill should not be split because the committee system is working very well. We passed a bill dealing with DNA. We all put a little water in our wine and got unanimous consent in the House to speed it through the Senate. This Parliament can work if we put our minds to it, but it is not working because of these reckless motions that focus on partisan interests in Atlantic Canada.

The Conservative Party is very nervous about losing the support of its Atlantic caucus members. Conservatives say it will be a great idea to split the bill because then they could fast track the Atlantic accord through the House of Commons and the Senate. I ask everyone, what would that accomplish? We would end up with part of a budget bill and the key elements of Bill C-43, of which the Atlantic accord is a very important part of course, but there are other very important parts to Bill C-43.

My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, highlighted some of them, but I would like to come back to them because they are very important. There is one part of Bill C-43 that I would like to see fast tracked. Maybe we could bring a motion to fast track the excise tax moving to cities and communities.

I live in the city of Toronto. My colleague, the Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities, has basically put this together. We can move what I believe to be $200 million per year, once fully implemented, to the city of Toronto. It could use that money to fight crime, to build infrastructure and public transit, and to have cleaner water and air. We could use that money. In fact, that is step two of what has already been done. The government wisely eliminated the GST for municipalities. For the city of Toronto, that meant another $55 million a year it could use to deal with the issues facing large cities.

I would like to hive off that part of the budget. I am sure members would like to carve out other parts of the budget and fast track them too. Pretty soon 90% of the bill would be fast tracked. Then it would not be fast tracked anymore, it would be slow tracked because there are too many parts of the bill being fast tracked. This is a slippery slope.

Any member of the House who has been here long enough knows that one does not start splitting bills for the convenience of some members of the Atlantic caucus of the Conservative Party. The Conservatives want to split it so they can speak to their constituents in Atlantic Canada. It has nothing to do with what is good for Canada. It has nothing to do with the benefits of the budget bill, which are so important for Canadians.

I would also like to see the budget pass because there is a large investment in national defence. As part of this budget, there is $1 billion that will go into our national security agenda. We often hear members opposite talk about our borders, security and terrorists. Now is the time to put their money where they mouths are and pass this bill. Let us pass this bill today, never mind fast tracking.

In fact, by arguing that we should split this bill we have wasted maybe a week or two. We could have had this bill sent to the other place in a heartbeat if members opposite would support it. They know that. All we are doing is delaying and delaying when in fact we could meet the agenda of establishing the Atlantic accord by including it in Bill C-43 and passing it, and passing Bill C-48 expeditiously.

Let me tell members something else that I like about Bill C-43. Bill C-43 implements the Kyoto accord. It builds in a lot of market measures and incentives, so that we can actually meet these very ambitious goals that we have set. There would be a $1 billion fund, for example, for competing ideas on how to eliminate and reduce greenhouse gases. That is another part of this budget. Maybe there are some other colleagues who would like to take that part of Bill C-43 and separate it out, sever it and fast track it.

This is not the way business is done in the House of Commons. Instead of sitting here and debating severing the Atlantic accord from Bill C-43, we could actually be passing Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 and delivering all those measures.

Another issue that is very important in my riding is child care. I have a lot of, not to be sexist, female members in my riding who come to my office and say that they have a two-income family, but cannot get out and work properly because they do not have proper day care in Ontario.

We now have an agreement with Ontario which we could pass today if the members opposite had the political will, instead of trying to finesse little points here there and sever this and that. Just pass the bill. We could get on with it. We could deliver child care. We could deliver all the benefits that are embedded in this budget.

I think there is another point that is often forgotten in this House when we have these debates and that is, the underpinnings behind budget 2005. Allow me to take members through some of the context of this budget.

The first item that immediately pops out is that this is the eighth consecutive surplus that this government is delivering. Against all the industrialized economies in the world, we are considered an economic darling. The markets think we are an economic darling because of what we have done, what our finance minister did, and what this government continues to do. We have had consistent growth and we continue to have consistent growth of 3% per year, which is unsurpassed in the industrialized world.

We have unemployment down to levels of 6.8%, which is a five-year low. Could we do better? Of course we could. We could do better if we could pass this budget because there are measures in here to help Canadians get into the labour market. There are measures in this budget that would help us bring down the unemployment rate from the low level of 6.8% to even lower if these people on the other side would stop debating about severing this and that and just pass the budget.

There are a few other contextual elements that I need to speak about in terms of our fiscal progress. We have low interest rates. We have low inflation. What does that mean? That means that there are many Canadians who otherwise would not be able to purchase a home who are able to purchase a home. We see people getting out of their rental accommodation and buying homes. The construction sector is booming. That is contributing to our economic growth.

We are paying down the debt. Members opposite talk about the surpluses, how the surpluses are a bad thing, and how we have not estimated within a few hundred dollars here and there. The reality is, and we know that in this House, if the revenues are understated by, let us say, 1% a year and the expenditures are understated by 1% per year, that would create a flux of about $3 billion to $4 billion in the annual surplus. So this is not an exact science.

However, I would rather have, and I am sure that all of us would rather have, a surplus than a deficit. Is that not so? I think so. We want to have a surplus. We are consistently having surpluses. We are paying down the debt with those surpluses. The surpluses are not an end in themselves.

We are below less than 40% debt to GDP ratio which is well within the range of what is considered acceptable. In fact, we are going to go further. We are going to go to 25% debt to GDP. What does that mean? That means, for example, that today as we speak, as we take up time talking about splitting budget bills, and if members opposite are going to waste the time of the House, I am going to have my say as well, there is in excess of $3 billion a year that taxpayers in Canada are saving each and every year because of the $56 billion that we have paid down against the debt. It is in excess of $3 billion annually.

By the way, that is a permanent annuity. That is $3 billion each and every year into the future. As we pay down more debt that $3 billion will grow. What can we do with that $3 billion? We can invest in the environment, national defence, national security, health care, post-secondary education and seniors. These are the kinds of investments we are making. That is the kind of flexibility that we have when we have budgetary surpluses.

The mantra of the Conservative Party is to cut taxes. It is like a broken record. We went through this in the province of Ontario. We had Mike Harris and Ernie Eves. What did they do? They cut taxes to a point where they could not sustain the social and economic programs of the province of Ontario. Guess what. We then had a new premier and a new finance minister who came in and tried to say it was a fiscal imbalance. I think they have been listening to the Bloc Québécois on this fiscal imbalance terminology.

The current party at Queen's Park has inherited a structural deficit caused by excessive tax cuts that went beyond the fiscal capacity of the province of Ontario. What does it do? It says that it will lay that problem at the feet of the federal government.

When our government came into power in 1993, we faced a $42 billion deficit. Did we stand around and blame everyone, point fingers and say that we cannot do this, we cannot do that, it is not our fault,. and it was their fault? We did not do that, although we could have laid it at the feet of Brian Mulroney. That is what we should have done. I am sure it has come up in debate from time to time.

The point is we got on with the business of eliminating our deficit, of cutting expenditures, of dealing with the fiscal challenges that we had to face. There were no excuses and no scapegoats. We got on with the business of dealing with it head on like mature adults. That is what we are going to continue to do.

That is why when I stand up in this place to talk about severing the Atlantic accord I find myself in a childish discourse because we should be passing Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 so that Canadians can reap the benefits of the budget package which has so many benefits, some of which I have described.

I could go on and on, but I only have one minute. Therefore, I will wrap up. I would like to suggest to the House that instead of us debating these moot points, why do we not get on with the business of government, with the business of Parliament, and pass these budget bills which Canadians want.

If members opposite want an election, the Prime Minister has said they will have an election. They will have an election this year, 30 days after the Gomery inquiry reports. We will have an election.

Canadians do not want an election now. They want us to get down to the business of government and manage the affairs of the nation. For that reason and for many others I will not be supporting the motion.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on his balanced approach to the motion before us. The motion is to split an item out of the budget, which is very important to the member's region since it is the Atlantic accord.

The motion is rather fascinating in terms of strategic. I want to remind the House that there was a vote on Bill C-43 and all but the Bloc supported it. Now it is before committee.

I suspect that at committee it should receive full support of at least all the parties, except the Bloc, which will get it back to the House. Effectively the intent of the motion before us today is to split it out and get the Atlantic accord part in the House. We can get the entire budget bill back to the House just as quickly with the cooperation of the members. I am sure the member understands this.

The other part of this which is of great concern to me, and I am not sure if it is of concern to the member, is that the official opposition also voted against Bill C-48 which was a confidence motion which would have brought the House down and sent us to an election. To have this motion today to split out the Atlantic accord seems to be contradictory to their intent to defeat the government and to bring us back into an election. Could the member comment on that?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso for his illuminating remarks about the budget, Bill C-43 and Bill C-48, and why the Atlantic accord should remain part of Bill C-43.

I notice the member talked about the very significant benefits that are built into the budget for seniors. I could not agree with him more. That is why I would like to get on with passing it for a whole host of reasons. However, what it does for seniors is very important.

Our government is doubling the funding for a program called new horizons for seniors. I know it has been very well received in my riding. Seniors groups can do projects to help them feel more connected with the community. They can help to improve their health and general well-being and make them feel more a part of our culture in Canada. That is one aspect.

I know the budget also has an increase for the guaranteed income supplement. That is a important measure for seniors with fixed incomes and those who have low incomes. I would like to see these measures passed.

Would the member comment further on what benefits he sees with these programs and why we should get on with passing the budget bill?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have already said I acknowledge that this is a bit of a risk. I acknowledge that this is a fair question to raise, but I also think that in the interests of making progress we have to find some ways to get beyond some of these games, roadblocks and stonewalling.

I think that in this instance a case could be made. It is not the most critical thing one could come up with, but it seems at the moment to be the only thing we can come up with, and that is to say, “Look, let us at least get this dealt with and move on in good faith to dealing with Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 in their entirety”. In other words, let us move on to the other 28 measures that we are dealing with. Let us get on with it. Let us take away the very club, the very basis on which the official opposition is stonewalling and saying that this is just not going to go anywhere until we deal with this.

I agree with the hon. member that the opposition could turn around and try to say “now let us split off something else and something else and something else”. We do not have to agree to that kind of nonsense. We can say that there can be a reasonable case made with respect to the Atlantic accord because it is a fairly specific bill that deals with something quite different and quite unusual, pertaining only to the treasuries of two provinces, really, although the Atlantic economy in general will benefit, there is no question. My plea is to say that if someone has a better idea of how we can finally get on with doing what we are here to do, then let us hear that too. I think that--

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to concur with the observations made by my colleague, the Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities. I do sense a certain inconsistency in the point of view of the member for Halifax, because if we look at Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 we see that they are essentially a stand-alone package.

I do have concerns. For example, what if the Conservative Party could uncouple the Atlantic accord? Let us say that it is fast tracked. We would still be left with the main or certainly an important part of Bill C-43 and Bill C-48. What would happen if the Conservative Party and the Bloc then said that on Bill C-48 they would like to fast track the part on overseas development assistance, for example? I cannot imagine the Conservatives supporting that, but one never knows. They could say they want to uncouple parts of Bill C-48 and fast track them.

I think my colleague is absolutely right. We have a package of two budget bills that are basically one, Bill C-43 and Bill C-48. Is the hon. member speaking on behalf of her Nova Scotian constituents or on behalf of the party? I share the minister's concern.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities)]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Halifax, which arises from the arrangement which we have made with the New Democratic Party to bring together a package of Bill C-43 and Bill C-48. All of us on this side of the House think that is pretty good business given some of the measures that are in there, including the $800 million for public transit.

My concern is with the position of the member for Halifax on the pulling out of the Atlantic accord from Bill C-43. It seems to me that if on the one hand she and her party would argue, as I would, that we ought to see Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 as one but on the other hand we start pulling out different elements to vote on from Bill C-43, indirectly and I am sure without intention she will weaken the case for our presenting of Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 as a unified package. Perhaps she might want to comment on what seems to be a contradiction.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are 24 sections in this bill, all of which in my view are quite important sections, not equally important but quite important. Some of which would arguably be as important to other members of the House as is the Atlantic accord to certain members of the House. I do not quite understand the basis for her question.

The hon. member needs to be careful about cherry-picking particular sections of either Bill C-43 or Bill C-48, both of which I know she considers to be important bills. When we cherry-pick on budget bills, other difficulties are created.

She used as an example the veteran's bill. The veteran's bill was a single issue bill that created a bill of rights for veterans. It was an important thing but simply a single issue bill. This is a bill which covers a great number of items and proposes spending in the order of $200 billion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appear not to be the most popular person in the House with the member opposite, but I appreciate that I have this opportunity to respond to his motion.

He has asked that the offshore agreements with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia be severed from Bill C-43, the bill to implement the measures in budget 2005. Headlines over the weekend made it pretty clear just what is behind the motion. He wants to protect one element of the budget from his party's obstructionist tactics.

The hon. member is telling us that it is okay to derail moneys for cities and communities, that it is okay to derail money to create more day care spaces, both in his province and the province of Nova Scotia, and that it is okay to derail increases in the guaranteed income supplement for seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is okay to derail things such as those which are in the budget implementation bill, but he only wants this aspect of the budget passed immediately.

It is referenced as the Atlantic accords, but I would note in passing that there are two provinces that do not benefit from the Atlantic accord, namely New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Therefore, it is pretty hard for the hon. member to say that this is a particular benefit for a generalized region when it is only a benefit to two particular provinces. Insofar as his proposal disadvantages half of the provinces in the region, that in and of itself is part of the reason why the budget should pass in its entirety, all 24 sections.

The motion is not possibly the strongest argument ever made by a member in the House. We on this side of the House disagree profoundly. We believe the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia deserve fair treatment under the Atlantic accords. There is not a person in the House who disagrees with that point. We believe they deserve a new deal for cities and communities. I hope the hon. member agrees with that. We believe they deserve more and better child care and I hope the hon. member agrees with that. We believe they deserve an increase in the standard of living for their seniors. I think the hon. member would agree with that point as well.

All this can be done quickly if the members across the way would quit with their game-playing and put the interests of Canadians first. We have had a week off. I am not sure what it was like in other communities, but in my community there was great support for the budget and to get on with the business of Parliament. I am sure in your community, Mr. Speaker, there was a bit of a different view with respect to your dramatic role in that last vote.

Let us talk about timing because that was one of the significant points that the hon. member made, that somehow or another we could pretty well turn this whole thing around in two days. I would just make note that the budget implementation bill for budget 2004, which is the parallel budget and the exact same thing as what we are doing now, was introduced on March 31, 2004 and received royal assent on May 14, 2004. It took six weeks to pass the entire budget implementation bill. We still do not have the parallel bill for 2005 to committee stage, which will start tomorrow. I wonder what in fact is the difference. Bill C-43, the bill to implement this year's budget, was introduced on March 24. We are now only getting it before the committee, starting tomorrow.

I want to make this important point. If the hon. member is concerned about timing, he really only needs to look in the mirror. If it were not for the tactics of his party, the budget could have received royal assent weeks ago and the money would be flowing already.

The last few weeks in national politics have been full of development and surprises of all kinds and here we go again. Canadians are getting tired of all this bickering and all the shenanigans from the official opposition, which knows that Canadians would like the government to get on with the business of governing. Mr. Speaker, I do not know what it was like for you but certainly for me over this past week that was a theme repeated by many constituents. Similarly, I would like nothing better than to get on with the business of this budget implementation bill.

Budget 2005 was shaped by the contributions of many people, including many members in the House on all sides who provided their advice and insights. I adopt the views of the hon. member for Halifax who said that everyone had a contribution to make with respect to not only the Atlantic accord but the budget itself. This included specific input from the opposition finance critic and the finance critics from the other parties, the hon. members for Medicine Hat, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and Winnipeg North.

What resulted, I believe, was a budget that is highly credible, effective and promises real benefits to millions of Canadians. It is a very popular budget not only with the people in the Atlantic region but throughout Canada.

However what allowed us to have a budget like this did not come easily. The government, with the help of Canadians, worked hard to get to where we are today. As the song says, we have come a long way, baby. Let us reflect for a moment on how far we have come as a nation in recent years.

When my party first took office about 12 years ago, Canada was mired in very deep financial trouble and there was speculation in the Wall Street Journal about our impending third world status. We were, quite frankly, in a vicious cycle of growing deficits and rising debt with high interest rates, little or no economic growth and a very real danger that our social programs would be cut drastically.

Within a few short years, Canada's situation underwent a remarkable turnaround. We eliminated the deficit and began our current string of seven consecutive budget surpluses. As we know, this budget projects an eighth budget surplus and the anticipation is that over the next five years we will run a further five budget surpluses.

We have reduced our federal debt by more than $68 billion and restored Canada's triple A credit rating which is not only of benefit to the government and the debt it has to pay, which is roughly twice the debt of all of the provinces combined, but it also assists the provinces themselves in terms of enhancing their credit ratings so that they pay less money for their indebtedness, let alone municipalities that have a modest debt burden, and then of course Canadians, both corporate and personal, are paying infinitely less interest for their money these days.

We implemented the largest tax cut in Canadian history and made significant investments in priorities such as health care, education, research innovation and the protection of our environment. This turnaround was not by accident. Quite the contrary. It was a direct result of the fiscal and economic plans implemented by the government and the commitment of Canadians to seeing them through. To this day these efforts continue to bear fruit.

Indeed, Canada enjoys the benefits of an economy that is both strong and resilient. This resilience has manifested itself time and time again as Canada's economy has bounced back from several unexpected shocks, both foreign and domestic.

In 2003, for example, despite the shocks of SARS, the beef ban caused by a single case of BSE in Alberta and an increase in the value of the Canadian dollar, Canada recorded economic growth of 2% annually, exceeding half the members of the G-7.

In 2004, despite a sharp increase in oil prices and a further rise in the value of the Canadian dollar, our economic growth strengthened to 2.8%, a rate that once again surpassed that of other G-7 nations such as France, Germany and Japan.

That brings us to the year 2005. Today our recent economic indicators are looking quite positive. We have strong consumer spending, supporting a healthy growth in our GDP.

The most recent figures show that our unemployment rate has declined to 6.8%, the lowest level in five years. Inflation remains within a band of 1% to 3%, despite a sharp rise in global oil prices. Interest rates remain at historic lows, as they have the past several years.

There we have Canada's economic performance in a snapshot. Clearly, when we look back and estimate how far we have come, we have much to be proud of as a nation.

There are plenty of reasons to be optimistic about the future as well. Private sector economic forecasters surveyed by the Department of Finance before the last federal budget estimated that Canada's economy would grow by 2.9% this year and 3.1% next year, rates that would clearly put us at or near the top of the G-7.

It was against this backdrop that we introduced Budget 2005. Like all budgets, it was the product of consensus and an exercise in trade-offs among members of the governing party. Indeed, my hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, has the unenviable task of saying no to many great and worthwhile proposals from members of the government, the opposition parties and Canadians whom he met as part of his prebudget consultation. We can imagine just how tough it is to weigh all these considerations against the government's finite fiscal resources.

When all was said and done, we delivered a budget that delivered squarely on the commitments that we made in the 2004 election campaign and the Speech from the Throne, issues such as increased funding for environmental protection and more money to assist immigrants and new Canadians become a part of our workforce.

Once passed, the budget will implement our commitment to give Canada's communities a share of the federal gas tax revenue and establish the framework for a national early learning and child care initiative. All of these measures are aimed at protecting our national security, stimulating economic growth through research and innovation and promoting Canada's voice in international affairs.

Where would we be without our commitment to sound budgetary planning and the commitment written right into the budget that we will not, under any circumstances, return to deficit. That, in part, is thanks to a wide range in reallocation of resources where we identified $11 billion in savings over the next five years.

Initially our parliamentary colleagues in the opposition seemed to be pleased with what we had set out. Only minutes after the budget was tabled, the hon. Leader of the Opposition stated that there was nothing in the budget that should cause a government to be defeated. That is a pretty extraordinary statement by any member of the House, but particularly a strong statement of endorsation from the Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition. So he, along with the hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl and members of his caucus, voted to support the bill less than two weeks ago.

First we have a general endorsement on the delivery of the budget and then we have a vote from his caucus and his leader less than two weeks ago on this very budget that we are talking about.

I respectfully suggest to the hon. member that his position is somewhat disingenuous to speak in favour of the bill, to vote in favour of the bill and then say that no, we have to run this piece way ahead of any other pieces, many pieces of which would benefit his own constituency.

He has now presented this as a severance measure but it is hard for me to understand his motivation, other than a certain protectionist view of his own political livelihood. At one point one votes for the budget and at another point one speaks in favour of the budget. We have an example before us of six weeks before the previous budget implementation bill. We have, of course, already passed that six week period by virtue of some of the activities of members opposite. I take it that he does not have as much confidence as, say, I would have in the good faith of the members' opposite in their support of the budget implementation bill.

Let me just talk a bit about the commitments that are in the bill. We have a commitment to implement our national early learning and child care program. There is no question that the establishment of such an initiative would help thousands of working families across the country to find affordable and accessible child care services. This would encourage more people to join the labour force knowing that their children are being looked after in a stimulating environment.

At the same time, research around the world has shown that quality child care and early learning opportunities are critical to ensuring that children get the best possible start in life, putting them on the road to achieving their dreams and boosting Canada's well-educated and technically skilled workforce.

I put it to the House in a rhetorical fashion. What is it about that initiative that the hon. member does not like?

How about the commitment to infrastructure? This would not only improve the quality of life for people who live in our communities but it would also make communities more attractive places in which to live, work and invest for both domestic and foreign investors. Canada needs to continue to attract this investment to keep our economic engines running.

These initiatives represent investments in our future as a nation. They would help ensure our children and our children's children will grow up in a better country than we did.

I know the hon. member for Don Valley West has been a champion of this initiative in the budget and rightly can recognize himself as being in this budget and I know he is very enthusiastic about the support. I appreciate that the hon. member for Don Valley West understands the importance of passing this budget. What I fail to understand is how the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl can possibly disagree with that initiative.

However I want to reiterate that these investments will not be made at the expense of everything that we have achieved thus far. We will not allow this government to go back into deficit, which is why we have pursued and will continue to pursue a balanced approach to fiscal planning, including continued debt reduction, investments in social and economic priorities and tax relief.

Speaking of tax relief, Canadians have told us that they want more money in their pockets. Our position has remained clear for the past several years. As fiscal resources permit, we will continue to reduce the tax burden faced by individual Canadians. The tax cut we implemented in 2000 reduced taxes for individual Canadians by an average of 21% over the past five years and we have built on these reductions in every subsequent federal budget.

In budget 2005, we increased the amount of income that Canadians may earn without paying federal income tax to a threshold of $10,000, which is roughly a move from $8,000 to $10,000. This move, which will be fully implemented by the year 2009, will remove more than 860,000 low income Canadians, which will include a quarter million seniors, from the tax rolls.

Let us make no mistake about it, tax relief will continue to remain a cornerstone of our balanced approach to the nation's finances.

In conclusion, it is time to stop the rhetoric and get on with the job that Canadians have elected us to do, and repeatedly told us to do, particularly in the last few weeks, that of managing the business of our nation for the benefit of all our citizens.

In the motion today from the hon. member, he is concerned about his constituents. Not to put too fine a point on it, he seems to be more concerned about his political neck. However this motion would only serve to delay the benefits of budget 2005. Let us put this wrangling aside and let Canadians reap the benefits of this bill.

My advice to the hon. member is simple: Hold tight, the money is on its way.