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.

Committees of the House

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, this has been a remarkable week that began with an unprecedented decision by the government to cancel opposition days, one of the fundamental rights in this House. During the rest of the week, we hardly saw the Prime Minister, here or in public. Last night, the Prime Minister delivered a public address, as if in a national crisis, but it was solely for partisan reasons. It was a partisan speech broadcast on television to the entire country.

It is remarkable when the Prime Minister does not appear here in the House or in public and communicates with the public only via a tape recording. It is incredible.

It has been a remarkable week. Even more remarkable were some of the things in the Prime Minister's speech last night. The Prime Minister effectively went on the air to give a partisan speech and to launch an election campaign. It is a campaign which he says he wants to set for some 10 months out, if I calculate correctly, that is if the Gomery report is ever tabled, since half of the Liberal Party is going to be before the federal courts trying to quash the Gomery report within the next month.

We have a Prime Minister who has already decided we should have an election at a time of extremely unusual choosing, a Prime Minister who has acknowledged corruption in his own party. The question that we face as the official opposition, the question that all Canadians face, is can a corrupt party remain in power while all this is going on? Can it remain in power month after month? The question we have to face as the official opposition is, can we prop up that party in power? Can we prop up a corrupt party at this time, particularly when, as my colleague the House leader has pointed out, that the two other opposition parties have already voted non-confidence in the government?

I do not use the term “corruption” lightly. What we are hearing at the Gomery inquiry is sworn testimony, in many cases sworn unrefuted testimony that certainly points to widespread corruption, but we have incidents outside of the Gomery inquiry that are not even subject to the Gomery inquiry. We have illegal lobbying done by the Prime Minister's Quebec lieutenant. We heard once again evasive answers today. There was improper contracting done by the Prime Minister's campaign manager at Earnscliffe. The campaign manager and the chief of staff just happen to be common law partners. We have investigations going on into that. We have the accusations, allegations of the partisan use of judicial appointments.

I would point out that a Liberal member said to me that people do not believe it. Virtually all of these allegations are coming from senior members of the Liberal Party. I repeat what I said earlier this week. If each group of Liberals says that the other group of Liberals is a group of crooks and liars, what does it really matter which group we choose to believe?

We have a principle in our parliamentary system. That principle is that the government must maintain the confidence of the House of Commons to remain in office.

We all know what the supply day manoeuvre was about earlier this week. Late last week the government removed Bill C-43, the budget bill, from the notice paper. I smelled right away an attempt to avoid a confidence motion at all costs, so I moved that our supply motion would make sure supply days would exist. That is what the government cancelled. Clearly the government has in mind, and it will do more manoeuvres, to avoid any kind of confidence motion in the next month.

This is not an option. This is a violation of the principle of our democratic system. If the government cannot maintain the confidence of the House, it must seek the confidence of Canadians. It cannot circumvent this fundamental principle through procedural manoeuvres. We will do whatever we can to ensure that when we return and have heard from the population of Canada that all options are available to us.

With that in mind, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following:

The 3rd report of the Standing Committee on Finance, presented on December 20, 2004, be not now concurred in,

But that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Finance with instruction that it amend the same so as to recommend that the government resign over refusing to accept some of the committee's key recommendations and to implement the budgetary changes that Canadians need.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this brief opportunity this morning to address Bill C-43, the budget implementation bill. I want to acknowledge the member for Central Nova for giving me the opportunity to be next to speak. I am sure my constituents appreciate that.

I have to say that, as I heard the last exchange between the parliamentary secretary on the government side and the deputy leader on the official opposition bench, I ended up shaking my head and thinking no wonder Canadians cannot make sense out of what on earth is going on in this Parliament today.

I am not going to follow the rabbit tracks and use up my time to try to reconstruct the absurdity of that member, who sat first in the Reform and then in the Alliance caucus, pushing and pushing the Liberal government to cut and cut until there was nothing left of some of our most basic services, such as infrastructure, as the member himself acknowledged, post-secondary education, health care and the broken child care promise. All those things that the government promised in 1993 that it would do if elected to office, his party across the way, the ultra cons, kept pushing the government to cut further.

Now he stands up and says that they on that side will repair the damage. However he does not quite say that he had a major role in pushing for the government to make these massive cuts in the first place.

This brings me to four brief points I want to make in the few minutes available to me. On the issue of the Atlantic accord, the government members and the official opposition members keep leading Atlantic Canadians to believe that they support the speedy delivery of the resources to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia that are contained in that accord.

However it is clear that instead of making this Parliament work, instead of taking the fact that if not every member, at least the vast majority of members are committed to doing that, the government, for its own cynical reasons, has tied up the Atlantic accord in the implementation bill in such a way that it is costing the people of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia dollars that they cannot afford out of the most basic services that they desperately need rebuilt as a result of the hacking and slashing by the Liberal government, egged on by the Conservatives.

If the government were serious about making this Parliament work, it would immediately do what it has been urged to do by the New Democratic Party. In this instance, one of those rare instances where we actually agree with the Conservatives, the government must take it out of the budget implementation bill, get the commitment of dollars flowing and remove the uncertainty and the threat that the Atlantic accord may go down the tubes because of the government's cynical and ham-fisted handling of it.

I want to pick up on the government member's bleeding heart comments about how important the government's commitments are to infrastructure. In my riding a few nights ago, hundreds of people came together in the fire hall in Ketch Harbour to say that they were desperate to get the new water and sewer facilities that have been withheld from them for 40 years.

The following statement was accurately reported by the provincial daily paper, the Halifax Herald , which reads:

While the municipality is kicking in $5 million, the provincial and federal governments are giving a little over $2 million combined.

In other words, the combined contribution from the federal and the provincial governments is less than one-third.

For many years we were able to put together infrastructure projects that were about clean water and sanitation with a formula of one-third contribution from the federal government, the provincial government and the municipal government.

The reality is that what is such a disgrace about the inadequate contribution of infrastructure funding to this project in my riding in Halifax is being repeated again and again all over this country because the government has systematically decided to give billions and billions of dollars in tax breaks to big corporations and the wealthiest of Canadians over the years, still including in the budget $4.3 billion in tax cuts to corporations while people go without the basics of clean water and adequate sanitation services. Those are the priorities that are still reflected in the provisions of the budget implementation bill that we have before us.

I want to say that hope springs eternal. Last night we heard the Prime Minister basically say that we had to get on with the job and do what needs to be done. I think every Canadian wants to see the government cooperating with the opposition parties to do what needs to be done but that starts today, this hour, this moment with indications from the government that it is prepared to do what needs to be done to make changes in the budget implementation bill that is before us.

I hope the government will not literally drop the promise made by the Prime Minister last night across the airwaves and the very next morning turn its back on the commitment made. Let us see if the Liberals mean what they say, and that means changing the legislation that is within their control and the budget that is before us and begin to get the job done, which requires the government changing some of its ways.

The next thing I want to speak to is post-secondary education. During the election, the Prime Minister, in a desperate bid for votes in an all Canadian job interview targeting youth, the post-secondary education students, said he would return $8 billion to post-secondary education funding. I do not think anyone expected that he would return $8 billion of post-secondary education funding all in one budget.

We are dealing here with a Prime Minister who loves to talk about targets and timetables and who says that if we mean the commitments we make, we develop an implementation plan, develop timetables and targets and say how we will keep this promise of recommitting $8 billion to core funding and education, and at least begin to ease the burden that has been heaped on our students.

Has the government done this, even in the budget implementation bill now before us? Absolutely not. Not one red cent was recommitted to rebuild core funding for post-secondary education in the budget, and we know the disastrous results. The results are that tuition hikes continue. Students at Dalhousie University in the heart of my riding have seen almost a 10% tuition hike as a result of the $8 billion broken promise that was made by the Prime Minister on the eve of the election.

Finally, I tried to speak to what is happening locally and to what is happening nationally and internationally. It has to be one of the biggest disgraces of this budget that the Prime Minister and the government yet again have turned their backs on the long established commitment made by a previous prime minister, Lester Pearson, that Canada would lead the way in committing 0.7% of our GNP to overseas development assistance.

Again and again people before the foreign affairs committee have pleaded the case for us to honour our commitment to the millennium development goals, honour our commitment to actually be a good global citizen and commit to that 0.7%.

Not only was there no indication that they were prepared to do it in general, there was absolutely no implementation plan, no targets and timetables, to the utter disgrace and humiliation of Canada in the international community.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this morning to Bill C-43, the budget implementation bill. I am especially pleased to be able to speak the day after the Prime Minister's address to the nation.

This budget is consistent with the Prime Minister's address to the nation. In other words, this budget ignores the public interest, and it is based on the purely political interest of saving his own party. In fact, this budget is strategically designed as a campaign tool.

First, this budget totally ignores the priorities of Quebec. Implementing this budget would clearly contradict our own purpose, which is, first and foremost, to defend the interests of Quebeckers, who have given us the mandate to come here as a strong majority, in terms of members from Quebec.

Bill C-43 should have been an opportunity to make significant improvements to the budget. However, it includes initiatives we find unacceptable. It supports the agreements with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia and, with regard to Kyoto, it sets out measures based on the polluter-paid principle, instead of the polluter-pay principle.

The minority Liberal government should have seized the opportunity presented by Bill C-43 to make real compromises and reflect on the political situation and the message it is getting from all across Canada about the changes that need to be made to government policies.

This morning, my remarks are intended, naturally, for the Liberal members. In particular, I want to warn them that they will take the fall, and even if the majority of the country does not want an election, one will be necessary given the position in which the government is putting the Canadian public.

I was saying earlier that Bill C-43, to implement the budget, is consistent with the Prime Minister's speech yesterday. Last night, the Prime Minister appealed to the nation. It was quite pathetic, because usually a national appeal is in the interests of the entire nation. This means that the head of state, in his official capacity, must speak from on high in the best interests of all Canadians and particularly, in this case, Quebeckers, given the serious damage inflicted on them by the Liberal Party as a result of the sponsorship scandal.

Yesterday, we would have expected the Prime Minister, rather than addressing the nation to ask it to save his party, to apologize for not doing something about the current situation in Canada. We would have also expected him to acknowledge that he was responsible in large part for that situation because, when the Prime Minister was the Minister of Finance and, thus, the custodian of public funds, cheating occurred on the other side of this House for many years. He should have acknowledged that he made a mistake not only by failing to watch more closely over those who were dipping into the fund, but also by withdrawing support from municipal infrastructure.

I am also referring to the Guaranteed Income Supplement and how the government simply decided to deny seniors information about their rights. Today, as a result, seniors are still owed $3.3 billion and the government is preventing that money from getting to them. Yet, these people are among those who need it the most. He should have apologized and said that the situation would be corrected.

In terms of infrastructure, he should have arranged to have measures in place to prevent municipalities from fighting over who wins the jackpot. He should have also acknowledged what we owe to seniors and give them back the money they are entitled to and put money back into the fund for social housing.

The government made these promises in the mid-1990s, and did not start financing these sectors again until 2001. He should have told the public last night that he was sorry, that he made a mistake and that he mismanaged things. He should have added that, effective immediately, since the money is available, he will make amends.

Families are owed a major apology, all of the families of Quebec and Canada, because of the Unemployment Insurance cheat, the $46 billion taken from it. The Prime Minister pulled off a David Copperfield style magic trick to make $46 billion disappear, and now he says this was virtual money and no longer exists. Yet that $46 billion had been accumulated by reducing benefits to the unemployed, even though they and their former employers had contributed to it.

Today, a mere 38% of them can hope to receive EI benefits if they end up unemployed. There ought to have been an apology and a commitment to put that money to its proper use. Instead we are being told today that the money does not exist and that it is all virtual.

Are these employee contributions to the EI fund, and the contributions by employers, who pay $1.40 for every $1 the employees contribute, virtual? Do they exist or do they not? That deduction on people's pay stubs, are we to understand that the government did not keep it? That it was returned? If that was the case, then it has gone somewhere. Into the party's fund? I hope not. So it must be somewhere.

This talk of virtual and non-existent money is tantamount to deceiving the public. The Prime Minister ought to have told us that last night, ought to have admitted that he had deceived us. Only then would he have gained any credibility. He ought to have made a commitment to put the money back into the fund. Then he would have been credible.

So where is that money? It is being used as a hidden tax in order to decrease the debt, although that burden must be assumed by the entire community and not just one part of it. It is even worse when the money diverted has a specific purpose at a time when people are losing jobs and in difficult situations. If they are impoverishing families in this way, is it surprising that there are so many poor people, so many children living in poverty in this country?

If there are children living in poverty, it is because there are parents living in poverty. If there are parents living in poverty, it is because certain people are passing measures to prevent them from receiving benefits after losing their jobs, despite having contributed their entire lives. It is an outrage and the Prime Minister should be ashamed. Why did he not mention this yesterday evening? He would have had credibility, had he done so. He would have been speaking in the interest of the country and of Quebeckers, too, who have taken the fall for him for the underhanded dealings and fishy business connected to the sponsorship scandal.

Tying the election to the Gomery commission means making Justice Gomery shoulder a burden that is not his to carry. It is the same as saying that, when he renders his decision and tables his report on all the testimony he has heard, he will be telling the public which way to vote. That is not the judge's responsibility.

The judiciary has nothing to do with politics. The issues raised by the sponsorship scandal are directly related to public interest. This is political. The Canadian public, and not Justice Gomery, has to make that decision as soon as possible, to stop these people from getting their sticky fingers on the cash.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my riding is in the centre of Canada and my party is concerned about our whole nation. When things happen on the west coast, on the east coast, in Quebec or anyplace in Canada, we as a party are very concerned about the well-being of the people of Canada.

In response to that question, let me say that the Atlantic accord is extremely important. As I said in my speech earlier, that accord could be passed in one day. The reason it is so important is that it increases the quality of life for people on the east coast. It is what they deserve.

There is unanimous agreement within the House that the Atlantic accord should be passed. Everyone is anxious to have that happen. Unfortunately, through typical Liberal manoeuvring it was hooked into Bill C-43. It became a part of that bill. In order to have everything passed we have to make sure that every element of Bill C-43 is best for Canadians. Kyoto was linked in as well. It is well known that people in the House have strong feelings that there are definite problems with some of the Kyoto aspects of the bill.

What we are saying today is that the Atlantic accord should be lifted out of this legislation and made into stand-alone legislation. Let us get this passed in one day, because we are concerned about the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador and those all along the east coast. They are Canadians who have contributed to our country in a major way. At this time they have an opportunity to be the recipients of resources that have been owed to them for a long time. This is our concern.

The Conservative Party of Canada is appealing to the government to take a closer look at Bill C-43 and make sure that the stand-alone elements are lifted out so that we can make sure the people of Atlantic Canada are taken care of.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important this morning to put some comments on the record regarding this very important bill. This is a bill that has some very big difficulties.

It is an important bill that should have been passed in the House of Commons this session. Unfortunately, there are things within the context of the bill itself that are very worrisome and which impact in a very negative way on Canadians, particularly Canadians on the east coast with the Atlantic accord and the Kyoto accord.

In a manoeuvre that appears to disclose a hidden Liberal agenda, Bill C-43 arrogantly disregards the best interests of Canadians. What should have been a straightforward implementation of the budget is in fact an attempt to pass legislation that deserves open discussion in Parliament and specific individual attention, namely Kyoto and the Atlantic accord.

The Liberals knew that the majority of the House would not approve their Kyoto measures if they were presented in stand-alone legislation, so they attached it to Bill C-43. This move has, at the very least, delayed legitimate budget measures from implementation and may even put their implementation at risk. Canadians deserve better than this.

Why is it that some of the measures in this bill are not reflective of how they were presented in the budget document? For example, the Department of Finance website assures Canadians that the Liberal government will “deliver on commitments made in the 2005 budget”. The budget stated that the amount of the share of the gas tax would rise to $2 billion annually or 5¢ per litre by 2009-10. While part 11 of Bill C-43 allows the transfer of 1.5¢ per litre of the gas tax to the provinces, territories and first nations for sustainable infrastructure projects, the Liberals have reneged on the remainder of their commitment.

In a recent survey conducted by the Manitoba chapter of the Canadian Automobile Association, respondents nearly unanimously agreed that Canada's roads and highways are a part of health and safety. They are a health and safety issue. The same group unanimously agreed that the federal government must reinvest more of the gasoline excise taxes collected in roadway development.

The days of neglect must be reversed. Further delay is not an option. Prior to the last election there were grandiose announcements about how this issue would be addressed, yet this issue has not been addressed.

In light of the glaring need for immediate action, how is it that the Liberal government only authorized gas tax transfers until 2005-06? Instead of fulfilling its 2004 election campaign promise and providing critical infrastructure assistance, the gas tax transfer has simply become another example of an election promise gone unfulfilled again.

Doing what we say we will do means planning how to fulfill a promise. That is again planning how to fulfill a promise, not planning on how to make excuses. Canadians deserve better. The Liberal government once again violated the trust and confidence of the Canadian people.

Senior adults in nursing homes deserve our respect and care. In my riding of Kildonan--St. Paul, as in the rest of Canada, low income seniors do not have time to wait for years to see increases to the guaranteed income supplement. Senior adults have invested in our communities for most of their lives, making them better places in which to live. They deserve to have their basic needs met with dignity and compassion.

As Bill C-43 stands, our senior adults in subsidized nursing homes may never see the guaranteed income supplement at all. Ironically, the nursing home operator or the province could become the recipient. Why are safeguards not put in place, ensuring provincial programs will not claw back part of the GIS increases?

Low income seniors in my riding frequently tell me they are struggling to put enough food on their tables. The GIS increases do not go far enough or occur fast enough to provide a substantial benefit to the low income senior adults of Canada. Senior Canadians deserve better.

The Conservative Party will continue to hold the Liberals to account for wasteful spending. Over a decade of Liberal waste, mismanagement and scandal has clearly revealed that billions of dollars sent to Ottawa would have been better managed if they had been left in the pockets of Canadians.

Our low income seniors could have had the means to live their sunset years with dignity and respect. With more gas tax revenue, our towns and cities could have had the resources to maintain roads and highways. The way Bill C-43 was put together was a very crafty way of doing it, so Kyoto would be passed.

I must speak to the Atlantic accord briefly because it is a very important aspect that needs to be pushed through to help the people on the east coast. The Liberals are holding the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia hostage by linking the Atlantic accord provisions, which most members in the House of Commons support, with Kyoto measures, with which many in the House of Commons have voiced concerns. The Atlantic accord provisions in Bill C-43 could be passed in one day if the Liberals would table stand-alone legislation.

It is critical that this game playing with the futures of Canadians be stopped. The fact that the Kyoto measures have been put in are a great concern. The Liberals knew the majority of the House would not approve their Kyoto measures if they were presented in stand-alone legislation. That is why they attached them to Bill C-43. This move has, at the very least, delayed legitimate budget measures from implementation and may have even put their implementation at risk.

There are things in traditional budget bill measures that are very important and there are things that need to be put through, but when other aspects of a bill are linked together that cause grave concern, then obviously a responsible government would ensure that these are taken out and put in a stand-alone position.

The Conservative Party does not play games with the well-being of Canadians. It is high time the Liberals stopped playing politics and followed the lead of the Conservative Party by acting in the best interests of Canadians. All Canadians deserve better.

Having seen the events that have happened in the House since the beginning of the session, it is high time that serious consideration be given to taking a closer look at legislation that would be better for Canadians and not manoeuvring legislation, so that pet projects get to be put through, regardless of what Canadians think.

Presence in Gallery

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon with second reading of Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill. This will be followed by consideration of Senate amendments of Bill C-29, the patent bill, and Bill C-12, the quarantine bill.

We will then return to second reading of Bill C-43, the budget bill, and eventually the third readings of: Bill C-23, the HRDC bill; Bill C-22, the social development bill; Bill C-26, the border services bill; and Bill C-9, the Quebec development bill.

Tomorrow we will begin with Bill C-43. If this is completed, we will then return to the list just given.

Next week is a break week. Since it happens to coincide this year with Passover, I would like to take this opportunity to extend to Canadians of the Jewish faith best wishes on this holiday.

After today there are 35 sitting days for the House before its scheduled adjournment on June 23. The government hopes that the House will be able to complete all stages of Bill C-38 and Bill C-43 by that date, which means that the bills will have to go to and be reported from committees in time for report stage and third reading in that limited time. That is why we have given priority to these bills in order to arrive at the supply votes.

The government is obliged to designate by that date 6 of those 35 days as allotted days or opposition days. Since we do not face the logistical and timing difficulties that I have just described vis-à-vis these two major bills, it seems logical and sensible to ask the House to deal with those second readings before proceeding with business such as opposition days, which are not followed by subsequent legislative stages.

If the members opposite would not be so sneaky in trying to change the Standing Orders, in fact, we could perhaps have the kind of dialogue that the hon. member is suggesting we have.

Natural Resources

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals would love to see the 24 clauses passed without scrutiny or due diligence because that is the way they operate.

First of all, the Prime Minister had to be pressured into promising the deal. Then it took months of more pressure from us and the provinces to get an agreement. The government refused to bring forth stand-alone legislation. Then the Liberals eliminated our opposition day when we could have debated this. Now they are playing around with Bill C-43. Why does the government not want to give the provinces their money?

Canada Grain Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to talk about equalization, which is a government program, the basis of which is the measurement of fiscal capacity, that is, how much money a province can raise each year to fund programs and services.

In the case of Saskatchewan, it is about 16% of Saskatchewan's revenues that will be equalized and impact heavily on its level of entitlements. Saskatchewan is the happy beneficiary of non-renewable resources and has benefited in particular from the strong rise in energy prices resulting in lower equalization. As energy prices rise, more money is generated, and therefore the province's equalization entitlements decline. The happy result was that in the year 2003-04 Saskatchewan became a have province joining Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario.

One of the features of the equalization program is the floor provision which protects provinces from large annual declines in equalization. It provided over $100 million in benefits to Saskatchewan in the year 2002-03. The floor provision protects the finance department in Saskatchewan from ups and downs that would otherwise impact negatively on its budgeting process.

Non-renewable resource revenue is forecast to be $1.4 billion in 2004-05, twice the amount of the $700 million figure projected in the 2004 budget. As I said, the idea here is to protect against volatility, so that treasurers going forward can analyze what revenues they can reasonably expect. In the negotiations with the premiers and Prime Minister, that was effectively taken care of with a guaranteed floor by the Government of Canada which essentially bought the risk of the entitlement.

In the case of Saskatchewan, the Government of Canada has taken action to improve the operation of the crown leases tax base and in March 2004 Saskatchewan was compensated with a one time payment of $120 million. In budget 2005, Bill C-43 will provide a further $6.5 million adjustment to Saskatchewan in 2005-06 for the same purpose.

Saskatchewan's situation is relatively prosperous. In addition to receiving the $590 million in additional entitlements this year out of the equalization program, Saskatchewan will happily be running an economy at 3.4%, a debt to GDP of 19.3%, which is substantially better than pretty well anyone else in the country. The national average is about 25.1%. This will be its 11th consecutive surplus budget this year and the unemployment rate is at 5.5%. As we can see, its situation is substantially improved over that of pretty well any other province in the country, let alone the situation where the folks in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia find themselves.

This is a program that is working tremendously to the benefit of Saskatchewan in particular. The Minister of Finance has done an extraordinary job in addressing those particular items that affect Saskatchewan in unique ways.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, questions certainly come to mind after listening to what the member for York South—Weston said this morning in the House of Commons.

Bill C-43 is a bill that has some flaws in it. As we all know the Atlantic accord provisions could be passed in a day in the House if they were stand alone legislation.

I heard the member across the way say that he believed in people and in investing in people. The people in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia have some big concerns at this point in time and the Atlantic accord could be free standing legislation.

Could the member tell me why all this was linked together? Why was the Atlantic accord linked to the bill at the present time, when the people from the east coast have such grave concerns about having the legislation passed, in view of the fact that the Kyoto measures are also linked to it and most members in the House do not agree with that part of the bill?

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43 and the budget provide a series of measures that are absolutely not in tune with Quebeckers' priorities. Let me just quickly remind the House that the government's management of the EI plan has been a disaster. Bill C-43 does not in any way respond to the concerns of Quebeckers.

With the Kyoto protocol, once again the polluter-paid principle is being applied instead of the polluter-pay principle, at the expense of all Quebeckers and indeed all Canadians.

Budgetary forecasting by this government has been abysmal. A Conservative member mentioned that within a few weeks time, they went from a $1.9 to a $9.1 billion surplus forecast. It is outrageous.

The Liberal government very often accuses the Conservatives of having a hidden agenda. How can they have a hidden agenda when the Prime Minister talks about it every day in the House?

Bill C-43 does not in any way meet the needs of Canadians and Quebeckers. Could the Conservative member tell us more about the impact of this bill on his constituents?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on February 1 I rose in the House to speak to hon. members about the policies and priorities that I believe should have been reflected in this budget. My comments today may reflect the disappointment that I feel in the lack of acknowledgement of what I felt were very obvious and valid suggestions. Much like the first few months of the government, there has been so little action on the real issues that affect Canadians.

The Liberal minority government across the floor is sinking deeper into crisis with nothing to fall back on. There is no defence review. There is no international policy statement. There are no solutions to something that is very important in my riding, and that is the issue of BSE. We are nearing the 24 month stage of this crisis. We have seen no results.

Canadians have rightly lost faith in their elected representatives. At a time when real leadership should shine like a beacon in the fog, so many ministers are making announcements with no real plans, giving speeches with no real substance, and spending money with no real strategic vision.

In February I directly addressed the issues in the international cooperation portfolio. In February the world was just coming out from underneath the shock of the tsunami aftermath in southeast Asia. In the cool light of hindsight, there were so many lessons to be learned from Canada's response to this disaster. The government did not have a coordinated plan to react. It did not have a grasp on the seriousness of the devastation.

On the eve of unveiling the international policy review, there is an opportunity to decide who we are and what we do in the world. I believe we have been on the eve of this policy review for several months now.

What is clear is that we will not be able to meet the expectations of the world or of Canadians under this budget. Do not be fooled by the well-intentioned words of the Minister of International Cooperation. The department is not growing under the minister or under the Prime Minister. In fact, Canada's official development assistance spending has systematically been gutted under the Liberal government.

There are some damning facts from the OECD. It monitors the world's commitments to development assistance. A peer review of Canada looked back on a decade of Liberal rule, and the OECD pointed out that the ratio of its official development assistance, ODA, to gross national income has been halved. Rather than going up, it has been halved, down to .22% of gross national income in 2001 from .45% in the early 1990s. I might mention that it was the former Conservative government that got it up to the .45% level.

Canada ranks 19th out of 22 development assistance committee members in terms of ODA. Those are not stellar records. This is all based in terms of official development assistance as recorded against gross national income.

Put very simply, the government has reduced our foreign aid budgets by half since it has come to power. This is not good enough. In fact, it is unacceptable. The 8% annual increases that it has suggested are just not good enough. This will not even return Canada to our former levels of generosity in the next decade.

Finally, I want to bring to the attention of the House to the shocking news released by CIDA itself only a few weeks ago. Despite the damning rebuke of falling aid levels by the OECD and commitments to raise spending levels by the Liberal government, CIDA's most recent statistical report stated that Canada's ODA spending for 2003-04 amounted to some $2.7 billion, which represented only .23% of gross national income.

We have not moved anywhere in three years. We have fallen behind in the 11 years of Liberal government and we have fallen off the radar screen in the world.

Clearly international aid suffers under Liberals, but it has flourished under Conservatives, so rather than try to help the government find its way out of this mess, I want to address the budget bill as it stands before us.

As my colleagues have said, the Liberals should have brought at least three separate bills forward instead of trying to bully members of Parliament into passing a mish-mash of legislation all in one bill. By dividing the bill into three parts, the House would have had the opportunity to consider Kyoto measures on their own merit, the provisions to implement the Atlantic accord, and traditional budget bill measures with appropriate seriousness.

This bill just shows how arrogant the Liberal Party has become after a decade in government. It is time the Prime Minister stopped governing like he has a majority and starts governing in the best interests of Canadians.

The Liberals knew that the majority of the House would not approve their Kyoto measures if they were presented in stand-alone legislation, which is why they attached them to Bill C-43. This move has, at the very least, delayed legitimate budget measures from implementation and may have even put their implementation at risk.

The Liberals have also shown their true national unity colours in the bill. The Liberals have become toxic on this topic. They are extending their ability to alienate Canadians on our eastern shores by linking the Atlantic accord provision, that most members in the House of Commons support, with the bill to pass Kyoto. Essentially, they are holding the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia hostage with their devious ways. The Atlantic accord provisions in Bill C-43 could have been passed in one day if the Liberals had placed it in stand-alone legislation.

The Conservative Party does not play games with the well-being of Canadians. It is high time the Liberals stopped playing politics and followed the lead of the Conservative Party by acting in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

In the last election, the Conservative Party committed to $58 billion in new spending and tax reductions over five years. Instead of following the leadership shown by the Conservatives, the Liberals have lined the pockets of their friends with taxpayers' money, hidden massive surpluses, and failed to address the real problems facing Canadians.

Many of the steps taken by the Liberals in the budget, as reflected in the budget, do not go far enough or occur fast enough to have a substantial impact on the well-being of Canadians. The personal tax relief measures in the bill are insufficient and are back end loaded. They amount to a reduction of no more than $16 next year. We will not have trouble spending that tax reduction. It is all of $192 when fully implemented by 2009.

The inadequate productivity enhancing measures in budget 2005 illustrate that the government is not taking warning signs that Canada's high priority programs could be put in jeopardy if comprehensive steps are not taken to grow the economy before the demographic crunch.

Some of the measures in this bill are not reflective of how they were presented in the budget document. The Liberals have once again been caught behind their false numbers. The budget document was not telling Canadians the truth about how much surplus money is available in funds for priorities.

Last week, Parliament's four experts on budgetary estimates reported to the finance committee that on average their surplus projections, parliamentary numbers, showed a surplus of $6.1 billion. That is already double what the Liberals claimed in budget 2005. This is the same pattern we saw last year with the 2004 budget, where it started out at $1.9 billion and in fact, the reciprocal was $9.1 billion when all of the smoke cleared.

The Conservative Party will work in committee to strengthen the bill, so that it is more reflective of what hardworking Canadians want and deserve.

The Conservative Party will continue to hold the Liberals to account when spending is unfocused and wasteful. Over a decade of Liberal waste, mismanagement and scandal has shown that billions of dollars sent to Ottawa would have been much better managed if they were left in Canadians' pockets.

Budget Implementation Act

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal budget tabled on February 23 is unacceptable, because it ignores the priorities of Quebeckers. For the past 12 years, this Liberal government, no matter who was at the helm, has not taken any concrete measures to fix the problems with EI, adequate funding for health and higher education, financial aid for students, agriculture, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, culture, foreign aid, to mention just a few.

Once again, there is nothing in the February budget to fix these problems. So it comes as no surprise that, having voted against the budget, I will also be voting against Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled inParliament on February 23, 2005, which is now before the House.

The Bloc Québécois has always acted responsibly. We worked to make changes to the throne speech and, immediately after the budget was tabled, we presented the government with a series of amendments. This Liberal government has rejected these improvements, particularly for EI and correcting the fiscal imbalance.

With regard to EI, I have met with women's groups in my riding and they have confirmed the discrimination they are facing because the Liberal government has imposed overly restrictive rules denying them access to EI benefits. We cannot say it enough: the EI fund belongs to the employers and workers, not the government.

In light of this minority government, the Bloc Québécois has taken an important step in its fight to improve EI by putting it back in the hands of its real owners: the workers and employers who contribute to it. I want to thank my colleague from Chambly, who has done an excellent job as the EI critic. After much diligence and hard work, the adoption at second reading of Bill C-280, introduced by the Bloc, has put us one step closer to our goal of preventing the federal government from raiding the EI fund at will in order to satisfy its obsession with paying down the debt.

I also meet youth for whom access to the workplace is not always easy. They are often faced with precarious jobs with irregular hours. Even though they work hard, they are often among the first to be laid off and, as they have not accumulated enough hours, they are not entitled to employment insurance benefits. Why is this government so stubborn that it refuses to lower EI eligibility requirements to 360 hours?

Young people are not the only ones suffering from the decisions of this federal government. Workers who are close to retirement are losing their jobs. In the riding of Drummond, the situation in recent years is quite revealing. I will just mention the sometimes brutal closing of textile plants. Many people who have spent almost their entire working lives in these jobs find themselves with nothing when plants are closed because of an administrative decision.

Let us not forget that this is the government that put an end to the program for older worker adjustment, the POWA. The current human resources minister, the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, will certainly respond that pilot projects are underway. I will simply remind her that, while pilot projects are going on and on, many men and women are going through tough times because of the Liberals' decision. Recently, an organization from our region, Les 45 ans pour l'emploi, wrote to me to ask for the reinstatement of the POWA. The same request has been made to me every time a business has had to lay off workers.

My reply has always been the same, that the request was on the table but the Liberal government continued to turn a deaf ear to their needs, in its arrogance toward the needs of older unemployed workers.

As for agriculture, a large part of my riding is agricultural, with field crops and beef and dairy operations, for example.

Agriculture is in crisis, and has been for a long time. The past 24 months may have been marked by the mad cow crisis, but field crop producers have also been suffering.

I believe the government has a duty to assist agricultural producers who are having to cope with the mad cow crisis, particularly with compensation to achieve a floor price. But instead, its actions are timid and inadequate, so much so that the farmers have recently decided on a $7 billion class action.

As for the field crop producers, I have met with them in my riding office. Despite the representations they made last years, they have received nothing tangible to counteract the trade injury they are experiencing. They continue to suffer from the federal government's withdrawal from their sector.

At their meeting with me, the farmers of my region again told me of the very difficult, even unbearable, situation being experienced by Quebec and Canadian grain producers. Why? Because prices remain terribly low and do not even cover their production costs, which just keep on increasing. Then there are the concrete interventions by the American and European governments, which have been subsidizing their agricultural sectors for a number of years.

What is Canada's reaction? Over the past 10 years of Liberal reign, while the present Prime Minister was the Minister of Finance, Canada chose the path of withdrawal from the agricultural sector, including the grain producers. Would anyone be surprised to learn that support to the agri-food sector went from 3.9% of the federal budget in 1991-92 to 1.6% in 2001-02, at the same time as Quebec grain producers were recording negative net incomes? When they came to Ottawa they hit a dead end with a Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food who did not want to listen.

I also hear regularly from the young people of Drummond about their environmental concerns. I will take this opportunity to thank and congratulate my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for the excellent work he does on the environment.

The quality of our environment concerns each and everyone of us. Indeed, we must strive to improve things and every action is important. The recent announcement by the environment minister concerning the voluntary approach accepted by the automobile industry will not result in the attainment of objectives in the area of greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Who, in the final analysis, will foot the bill? It will be the taxpayers who will have to pay instead of the large polluters, because this government has opted for the polluter-paid rather than the polluter-pay principle. As to the implementation plan for the Kyoto protocol presented on Wednesday, it is overly timid.

In terms of social housing, the federal government has totally ignored the repeated requests of the Bloc. Why not use the surpluses of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which total $3 billion, in order to build new units of social and community housing?

Needs are great: such is the opinion of the representatives of the aid network Le tremplin, of the Fédération des coopératives d'habitation and the Office municipal d'habitation de Drummondville. On December 31, 2004, in Drummondville, the eligibility list consisted of some 172 applicants, the great majority of whom were receiving employment insurance or old age security benefits.

It is hard to find adequate housing with an annual income ranging from $9,000 to $13,000. The government must make a commitment to devote 1% of program spending to the development of housing.

Much more needs to be said, but I will conclude by saying a few words on the treatment given to our seniors. Any improvement of their financial situation is a good thing. However, part 23 of the bill does not in any way correct the injustice done by the Liberals to the most vulnerable members of our society when they unfairly deprived them of their guaranteed income supplement. The government is still refusing to give seniors full retroactivity, setting the limit at 11 months.

The members of the Bloc Quebecois are committed to continuing to pressure the government until seniors in Quebec and Canada get all the benefits to which they are entitled.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-43, a bill reflective of the arrogance of the government. Before I speak to specific financial items, let us discuss why this piece of legislation is so large and includes items that should be put forward as stand-alone legislation.

I refer to the Atlantic accord, a promise made to the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, that is buried in this legislation.

The Prime Minister feigns support for this accord, but holds the provinces hostage by linking it, or perhaps I should say burying it, in the bill. The accord should be presented as stand-alone legislation. The government has dictated to the country for too many years and this level of legislative manipulation must stop. I and the Conservative Party see it, and the people of Canada agree.

The other item lumped into the bill is the so-called Kyoto plan. This conniving government knew the Kyoto measures were distasteful to the majority of the House, so it piled them into the bill to delay legitimate budget measures or at least put them at risk.

Let us turn to the budget measures in the bill. We should ask ourselves of the unfocused and wasteful practices of the government and allow Canadians to decide if the people handling our purse strings have the right stuff.

Certainly in the areas of projecting surpluses we have been woefully represented in the past and in the present, and using past behaviour to predict future ability, the government will not be able to predict correctly again.

Let us speak of our surplus predictions which in fact continue to result in the overtaxation of the Canadian people to the tune of billions and billions of dollars each year.

If honest business people in the country were to inadvertently overcharge their customers, I believe in each case an attempt would be made to find the customer who has been overcharged and rightfully refund the difference. However, the government chooses not to attempt to return this overtaxation to its rightful place. It uses it at its whim.

I may have just made two mistakes. I compared the government to the honest business people in Canada and with the current reputation of the government, I am afraid I have insulted the business community. I also said that if persons were inadvertently overcharged and the surpluses were inadvertent; however, I do not believe these surpluses were inadvertent.

That having been said, about the inability of the government to predict financial outcomes, is the reason why the Conservative Party continues to ask for the creation of an independent parliamentary budget forecast office. The government has announced so many items in the budget which will simply not occur for years to come. Most, if not all, of the tax relief in the budget is back end loaded. It will not be a benefit to the hard working people of Elgin—Middlesex—London and indeed all of Canada for several years.

The government has made announcing an art form. Every piece of news is announced again and again, and sometimes even again and again. Canadians continue to be retold each idea. Is this the trial balloon method? Does the government simply announce plans to the Canadian people in budgets and throne speeches to test the drive of Canadian voters with its schemes?

It announced this year's tax relief schedule for some time in 2009 to provide some perverse guidance as to whether anyone out there likes it or not. If they do not, it does not really ever take place anyway. I suspect that a great many items in the budget fall into this category.

The personal tax relief measures in the bill are insufficient. They amount to a reduction of no more than $16 next year and if we can wait until 2009, there are plenty of paltry goodies for us. This is a bait and switch game that the taxpayers of the country do not want to play.

Let us discuss tax cuts. I have already mentioned the personal tax cuts. Let us discuss the increase in the guaranteed income supplement, as paltry as it is, and the years of waiting it will take for it to come into effect. It may all be for naught as provincial governments allow for clawbacks or seniors in subsidized nursing homes will have this amount simply taken by the nursing home. Is this how we honour our seniors?

Let us discuss the air travel security charge. This is a tax on business, tourism, and on travelling Canadians. A meagre reduction of this tax will not result in any meaningful difference in airline fares. This continues to be yet another tax grab by the government.

Here is an example of the changes. The basic tax for flights in Canada is now $4.67. This is a reduction from $6.54. That is $1.87 per flight. Wow, I can buy a cup of coffee. Wait, no I cannot because airport rents in Canada are so high that any savings must be eaten up by increased airfares to cover these rents. What happened to the airport rent reductions?

The Conservative Party members in the last election set plans and priorities for both tax cuts and investments committing nearly $58 billion over five years. They were told by the government that they were being irresponsible, that the Conservative Party was just wrong. However, just 10 or 11 months later here we stand with a budget to almost the exact amount we had said.

Not only were Canadians being told it was affordable all along, again we have the arrogance and manipulation that only this government can be right. If anyone else finds a better or more responsible way, they are wrong, at least temporarily wrong until the government takes their ideas to make them its own. So again, it was just a political ploy at election time to discredit the Conservative Party and to prevent Canadians from electing a good, honest government.

This brings me to the area of management and I may repeat some, but it needs repeating. We as Conservatives have asked the government for tax relief for low and middle income Canadians. It has become more and more evident of late that despite bragging about great reductions in taxation, Canadians continue to say “show me the money”. Despite stated reductions in taxation, the hard-working people of Elgin—Middlesex—London and the rest of Canada have less money in their pockets.

We must find a way to both offer needed services for the citizens of this great country and to stimulate growth of our economy. We must ensure that all money taken from Canadians in the form of taxes or taken in payroll deductions or in fees by the government is treated with the respect it deserves.

We must remember the source of these funds: the pockets, the wallets, the bank accounts, and the piggy-banks of Canadians. These funds belong to the people, not the finance minister. It is the job of the government to wisely collect, account for, and prescribe spending that this country needs to support its people remembering that the money belongs to the people. We must ensure that only the amount needed to accomplish the needs of Canada is taken from citizens and that the habit of huge surplus budgets must end. We must, as suggested, implement a fully independent process for forecasting the government's financial situation.

The government has proven that either through deceit or ignorance it cannot be trusted to take billions and billions more from the taxpayer. If we just leave these funds with Canadians in the first place, we will save the cost of collection and influence the disposable income of all Canadians. The government must also ensure that tax dollars and other funds sent to the government must also be treated with the respect they deserve. We must erase waste. The government has a legacy of waste, mismanagement, and now corruption.

Canadians value their earnings more than the government. The waste of the sponsorship debacle, the gun registry fiasco, and budget errors, all have permanently set into the minds of all Canadians. Many Canadians cringe each time they send money or have it taken from them. They think of the wasteful way in which it is about to be spent.

Canadians are fully aware of the hoax of our employment insurance funding. So many young, low income earners are stolen from on every paycheque, EI deductions are made for a program they can never use. Employers then pay matching contributions into a fund that should be used as an emergency support fund to assist workers. Out of no fault of their own, the government uses their money as it sees fit.

In summary, let me say that this bill and this budget have some glaring faults.

It is a disservice to the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to have the Atlantic accord lumped into this bill. The Conservative Party continues to believe that its separation into stand-alone legislation would be best for Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

The Conservative Party and most of this Parliament would like to see the Kyoto measures separated from this budget so they can be discussed on their own merit or lack thereof.

If one practises something long enough, one gets good at it. Over a decade of Liberal waste, mismanagement and scandal, billions of dollars sent to Ottawa would have been much better left in the pockets of Canadians.

The Conservative Party has said that it will strive to make this minority Parliament work so long as it is in the best interests of Canadians. Currently this bill is not reflective of that principle. We will work to try to turn this bill into legislation that is in the best interests of Canadians.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the opposition day.

On Friday, we will return to Bill C-43, the budget bill. If it is completed, we will proceed with Bill C-40, respecting the WTO.

The first item of business on Monday will be Bill C-40. If necessary, we would then return to the budget bill, which contains all the initiatives that I know Canadians support from coast to coast to coast, like the Atlantic accord, the new deal for cities, and the increase in payments to seniors through OAS.

We will then return to the second reading debate of Bill C-38, the marriage bill, which will be the first item on Tuesday. When that business is completed, we will return to departmental bills: Bill C-23, Bill C-22, Bill C-26 and Bill C-9.

Next Wednesday shall be an allotted day.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to the 2005 budget implementation bill, Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget which was tabled in Parliament on February 23.

As chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, I am making it my duty to insist on having this bill passed as soon as possible in order to be able to respect the wishes expressed by Canadians.

The finance committee in its pre-budget consultation report entitled, “Moving Forward: Balancing Priorities and Making Choices for the Economy of the Twenty-First Century”, made 33 prebudget recommendations to the Department of Finance when it tabled its report in December 2004.

This report was prepared based on the testimony the committee heard from individuals, groups and associations from across Canada. The report was not based on my personal views, nor the members' on the committee, but a collection of views of different industries and sectors. Budget 2005 includes many of the committee's recommendations, and I would like to speak on a few of these.

For example, the budget implementation bill would create a $700 million trust for the provinces and territories to invest in early learning child care programs and services. This amount is the 2004-05 and 2005-06 portion of the $5 billion over five years committed in budget 2005. This was similar to the committee's recommendation 27.

I will not go through all the committee's recommendations, but I want to highlight how many of the budget implementation items were recommended by the finance committee. Again, the finance committee's recommendations were based on all-party agreement by members.

The budget implementation bill also would increase the guaranteed income supplement benefits for low income seniors by $2.7 billion over five years. That recommendation was similar to recommendation 29 in the prebudget report.

The budget implementation bill would also provide $600 million in federal gas tax revenue sharing for 2005-06 for municipalities to support environmentally sustainable infrastructure projects, which was similar to the committee's recommendation 9.

The budget implementation bill would also establish a new agency under Environment Canada to manage the $1 billion climate fund which will provide incentives for the reduction and removal of greenhouse gases, which was similar to the committee's recommendation 8.

The budget implementation bill would also increase the amount that Canadians can earn without paying federal income tax. That was similar to the committee's recommendation 24.

The budget implementation bill would also increase the annual limits on contributions to registered retirement savings plans and other tax deferred retirement savings plans. This was not a committee recommendation, but was included in the Liberal portion of the report.

The budget implementation bill would increase the child disability benefit supplement to the Canada child tax benefit. This was similar recommendation 28 of the committee report.

The budget implementation bill would allow for a longer period for the existence of and contributions to a registered education savings plan in certain circumstances where the plan beneficiary would be eligible for the disability tax credit. This was similar to the committee's recommendation 28.

The budget implementation bill would increase the maximum refundable medical expense supplement. This was similar to the committee's recommendation 28.

There is a clause for emergency medical services, which I think is a slight technicality, that we did not address in committee. The tsunami relief was not an issue when the committee held its consultations.

The budget implementation bill would eliminate the corporate surtax and reduce the general corporate income tax rate. That was similar to the committee's recommendation 12.

The budget implementation bill would extend the scientific research and experimental development tax incentives to SR and ED performed in Canada's exclusive economic zone. This was not exactly pinpointed to what the committee recommended, but it is very similar to recommendations 17 and 18 in its prebudget recommendations.

We have the air traveller's security charge. We did not address it because we left that up to the transport committee.

One that is interesting is the budget implementation bill would address the phase-out of the excise tax on jewellery. This was addressed in a separate report on two occasions, one in the last Parliament and one in the last session before the House broke for its Christmas break. The finance committee again tabled a separate report in which it recommended exactly what the finance minister has proposed on the excise tax on jewellery. Therefore, we need to have this budget implementation bill approved and adopted.

Another area that the budget implementation bill would provide for would be to extend the application of the 83% goods and services tax/ harmonized sales tax for the rebate for hospitals to government funded non-profit entities that provide health care services traditionally performed in hospitals. This is very similar to what the committee recommended in recommendation 30. We recommended any type of help that health institutions could be given, they would take it. This one was very well received by the health care service people.

The budget implementation bill would amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to facilitate the future addition of greenhouse gases to the list of substances under the act. This would allow the Minister of the Environment to regulate emissions and implement the proposed large final emitter regime and emissions trading system.

The budget implementation bill also would establish a technology investment fund to provide companies regulated under the proposed large final emitter regime with a compliance mechanism that encourages investments in greenhouse gas mitigation research and development.

It would also provide an additional $300 million for the green municipal funds, $150 million of which would be used to help communities clean up and redevelop brownfields, abandoned sites where environmental contamination exists. This is very similar to what the committee recommended in recommendations 7 and 8 and also what the Liberal Party highly recommended in its separate report.

The budget implementation bill would also introduce a new employment insurance rate setting mechanism under which the EI commission would have the power to set the premium rate, taking into account the principle that the premium rate should generate just enough premium revenue to cover program costs. This was one of the recommendations the committee made in recommendation 25.

There are other areas that the budget implementation will address and that is the offshore agreements with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, which were signed on February 14. The committee did not address this because it happened after the committee tabled its report.

There would be a transfer of $100 million to the province of British Columbia to battle the mountain pine beetle.

The last item I have on my list is to create a $100 million trust to help the territories meet the goals of the northern strategy, a joint initiative between the Government of Canada and territorial governments aimed at improving the quality of life of northerners. I do not think any member of the committee would have been opposed to that.

If I go through the list of recommendations, I have a list of 33 recommendations. If I go quickly through the list I can say that of the 33 recommendations of the finance committee, 7 recommendations from the committee were not addressed in the budget. Again, the finance committee is made up of members of all parties. The report was not dominated by only the Liberal members, but all members of the House.

The government is one that wants to govern. It has shown the openness and transparency to govern. If I am asked how, I would say by listening to what Canadians wanted.

Canadians told us what they wanted during the prebudget consultation when we prepared this book. The book was very detailed and provided the finance department with details of what Canadians told us. The finance department did a good job of listening to us. We owe it to Canadians to vote on Bill C-43, get it to committee and get it back in the House so the people of Canada can benefit from budget 2005 adopted by the finance minister.