Bill C-48 (Historical)

An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments

This enactment authorizes the Minister of Finance to make certain payments out of the annual surplus in excess of $2 billion in respect of the fiscal years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 for the purposes and in the aggregate amount specified. This enactment also provides that, for its purposes, the Governor in Council may authorize a minister to undertake a specified measure.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Central Nova for sharing his time with me. I am sure my remarks will be much less exciting than his.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak to the budget today in its final stage. The budget has been without a doubt one of the most watched pieces of legislation in Parliament.

I would like to spend some time today speaking about how the budget relates to my critic portfolio, intergovernmental affairs, and how I think it could have better reflected the priorities of Canadians.

The provinces, which are part of this great federation, grew up a very long time ago. In fact, several of them were around long before Canada came into being in 1867. Since that time, they have come to assume responsibility for the programs and services that Canadians care deeply about.

In fact, it was on February 6, 1885, that Sir John A. Macdonald aptly described the division of powers that would come to characterize our nation. He stated:

All the great questions which affect the general interests of the confederacy as a whole are confided to the federal Parliament, while the local interests and local laws of each section are preserved intact and entrusted to the care of the local bodies.

The division of powers in Canada were clearly written into the Constitution and, consequently, have become enshrined by our history. Federal-provincial fiscal arrangements play a fundamental role in the delivery of the most important priorities of Canadians: health, education and social services.

However, the Liberal approach has served to undermine the very social and political fabric of Canada, endangering future funding for social programs and, frankly, jeopardizing federalism.

The Liberals have done this by using the federal government's ever growing fiscal capacity to control and manipulate the provinces with money and conditions. They pressure the provinces into developing expensive programs, raising the expectations of Canadians and then give them only cents on the dollar to pay for them.

We have watched the government and the Prime Minister, in particular, continue the dangerous game of pitting province against province, family against family. The government does this by signing side deals that simply epitomize unequal treatment.

The Liberal's budget continues these trends. It is an archaic way to conduct intergovernmental affairs, it fails to recognize the maturity, the strength and important modern role of the provinces. Most important, it fails to contain a national vision.

The most serious way in which this budget fails the provinces is in its complete failure to address the growing fiscal imbalance between the federal government and the provincial governments. Put simply, the federal government continues to collect far more revenue than it needs to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities. The provinces, meanwhile, are feeling pressures to not raise their taxes because in the end there is only one taxpayer.

I was fortunate enough to sit on the subcommittee of the finance committee that investigated the fiscal imbalance. This was a very enlightening experience. I sincerely wish that our recommendations could have been incorporated into the budget, as I believe they would have gone a long way to making this a lasting budget.

The Conservative Party of Canada agrees with the majority report submitted by the subcommittee on fiscal imbalance, which concluded that the fiscal balance existed and was a growing problem for all orders of government.

The Conservative Party of Canada, the New Democratic Party and Bloc Québécois unanimously agreed to a number of recommendations. The Conservative Party, however, went farther in its recommendations. It believes that any proposed solutions to the fiscal imbalance and changes to the equalization formula must be made with the following principles in mind.

They must reflect leadership with a national federalist vision. They must reflect a collaboration to ensure that changes to the equalization formula or proposals to address the fiscal imbalance are done in consultation with the provinces and the municipalities. They must also reflect the right of all Canadians to quality health care, education and social services regardless of where they live. They must also reflect the equality of all provinces. They must reflect the respect for the unique needs of Quebec within a collaborative federalist framework. Last but not least, they must reflect the belief that Canada's most essential national program, equalization, should be used for what it was intended, which is neighbours helping neighbours in times of need.

These principles are not reflected in the Liberal's approach to fiscal federalism. In a rush to buy votes before the next general election, the Liberals have abandoned any commitment to multilateral negotiations, disrespect of the need for a collaborative and comprehensive approach to fiscal federalism and undermine the security of important social programs.

The Liberal solution to the fiscal imbalance continues to be to deny that it exists and a reliance on a quick fix of patchwork federalism. The Liberals have abandoned fiscal federalism in the name of political expediency by signing a series of side deals and bilateral agreements with no national vision.

By signing these ad hoc bilateral side deals with provinces outside of the fiscal framework of the equalization program, the Liberals are ruining equalization, what I consider to be the most essentially Canadian national program. By abusing their federal spending power, disrespecting the constitution and approaching negotiations with provinces in an unfair and inconsistent manner, the Liberals have engendered mistrust between all orders of government and turned their back on collaborative federalism.

The Liberals have pitted province against province and Canadian against Canadian by neglecting the emerging fiscal imbalance between the provinces and the municipalities and the increasing pressure on provinces and municipalities to deliver core social services. The Liberals have now set cities against provinces and mayor against premiers.

In addition, our committee heard from witnesses who argued that the equalization formula must be revisited and reformed. A number of issues must be addressed, including the impact of the floor ceiling that was stipulated in the new equalization framework, reached in October 2004, and the treatment of resource revenues in the fiscal framework of equalization must also be revisited.

From those observations, the Conservative Party of Canada, in our recommendations, believes that non-renewable natural resources revenues must be removed from the equalization formula in order to encourage the development of economic growth in the non-renewable resource sector across Canada.

Additionally, the Conservative Party of Canada believes that the federal government should take a multilateral approach in examining the horizontal fiscal imbalance and equalization framework. Building upon the framework and resources already established by the provinces, through the council of the federation, we support the development of a consultative process which also includes representatives from the federal and municipal orders of government.

Most provincial governments clearly stated that the vertical fiscal imbalance has made it increasingly difficult for the provinces to engage in long term financial planning and to guarantee essential health and social programs. The Conservative Party of Canada believes that in order to help correct the vertical fiscal imbalance, the federal government conduct an indepth review of all tax fields, federal fiscal transfer mechanisms and consider transferring an appropriate level of income tax points to the provinces.

Most important though, for the state of federalism, the Conservative Party of Canada recommends that if the federal government initiates new spending in areas of exclusive provincial or territorial constitutional jurisdiction, it should have an agreement from the majority of the provinces to proceed and that provinces should be given the right to opt out of the federal program and continue to receive federal funding so long as the province offers a similar program with similar accountability structures.

However, the budget is about more than just fiscal federalism. It is the spending plan for the actions of the federal government. We have been consistent with regard to our position on Bill C-43. In committee we were able to make it better legislation and as a result, Canadians will be better off. The Conservative Party of Canada carries the sole responsibility for making this stronger legislation and we are proud of that.

By keeping in tax relief for our nation's largest employers, we have secured Canadian jobs. By making our environmental legislation more accountable, we have helped prevent future scandals. We will always fight for a made in Canada solution to the environmental issues of our time. We led the charge to remove part 15, the CEPA provisions, from this omnibus spending bill and we attempted to ensure that the government could not purchase foreign Kyoto credits to ensure that money stayed in Canada to support our environment.

On committee, we also fought for accountability and ensured that the Liberal appointed advisory board, which is administered under the Canadian emission reductions incentive agency, will make its advice public.

Furthermore, I look forward to the future when Canadians will have a Conservative budget, a budget that contains real tax cuts for Canadian families. That was something that was truly missing from this major spending initiative. We on this side of the House will always remember, and Canadians agree with us, that without fiscal restraint the social programs we cherish cannot be maintained and sustained.

Sadly, this is not the only budget bill that we are debating in the House. When the Prime Minister struck a deathbed deal with the NDP giving away the fiscal accountability and responsibility in exchange for a few NDP votes, the House was left with two budget bills. The House and the Canadian people can be assured that we will continue to hold the Liberals accountable for their undemocratic, wasteful, out of control spending contained in Bill C-48 and the other billions of dollars of announcements since then.

We kept our word to Canadians. We helped move this budget through committee and made important amendments to make it a better budget for Canadians. It was the Liberal Party that slowed the passage of the budget by filibustering to avoid a confidence vote until it had bribed opposition members to support it.

I look forward to the budget passing so that we as a country can move forward.

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

Madam Speaker, this is a great day for the New Democratic Party in the House today. We are in the final stages of the approval of Bill C-43, the budget implementation act, which has been changed, altered and fundamentally transformed into a document that Canadians appreciate and welcome. We are talking about a budget bill that has had the benefit of input from a cooperative approach in this minority Parliament.

We have had input from the Bloc and the Conservatives. I want to add my astonishment at the members of the Bloc who today oppose Bill C-43 yet again. They have stood in this House time and time again, joining with us in calling for a reduction in corporate tax breaks.

The Bloc is a party that has been tireless in working with New Democrats in committee, in the House, raising questions and concerns about tax havens. In fact, tomorrow we will discuss a motion brought before to the committee by the Bloc on how we deal with the money that leaves Canada because of lucrative loopholes and the permission granted corporations in moving money outside the country.

It is with a great deal of shock and astonishment to hear, yet again, that the Bloc is not prepared to support a most progressive budget that has been fundamentally altered. The New Democrats chose to ensure it was more reflective of Canadian needs. The budget guarantees we can invest in projects and areas that would reap benefits for Canadians over many years to come. That is one extremely difficult situation to assess this evening.

On the other hand, for days on end we have heard the Conservatives say that the budget, with its changes with respect to corporate tax reductions and the elimination of yet another benefit for corporations, will bring the country to rack and ruin, It will cause the country to go bankrupt and jobs will be lost, It will cause huge problems with the dollar and inflation will spiral out of control.

We have heard those arguments time and time again without any basis in fact and without any statistical evidence to support such conclusions. Yet, lo and behold, Conservatives supported the NDP amendments to Bill C-43. Conservatives in the House joined with us to call for the elimination of corporate tax reductions. We cannot believe it. Did anyone ever think that we would get to this day?

We know other issues are at stake here in terms of the Conservatives. They have flip-flopped so many times on the budget bill that it is hard to keep track. They were for it five minutes after the budget bill was introduced. Then they were against it a little while later. They then were for it, then against it, now for it. It is hard to keep track.

I am sure it must be very difficult for the Conservatives to sit in this chamber tonight and have to support a bill that has been fundamentally altered by the NDP. I think they had a hard enough time agreeing with their leader on February 23, when he walked out of the chamber and supported the Liberal's budget bill without even a cursory glance at it, never mind the fact that they have to support the bill now that it has been fundamentally altered by the NDP. However, we are glad for their support.

I do not know if they have seen the light of day. I do not know if they have changed their minds in terms of the benefits of investing strategically in our country and not continually supporting corporate giveaways. I do not know if they have had a complete transformation.

At this point we will not question their motives. We will accept their support. We will work with them to help them see the light of day in completing this better balanced budget project and have them come around to our view and support Bill C-48. That legislation takes the money we save by eliminating the corporate tax breaks and puts it into areas that create jobs, improve programs for Canadians and enhance the quality of life in the country

Perhaps there is hope. Before the end of this process, maybe will convince the Conservatives that this was an important contribution for Canadians and one that makes sense in terms of the future of the country.

The concerns of the Conservatives over the budget were certainly heard from their buddies in the corporate sector. We heard from the C.D. Howe Institute, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the Chamber of Commerce. They spoke the Conservative line. They spoke with one voice, suggesting that this little change in the corporate tax rate would create disastrous consequence for the country. They did not tell the whole story to Canadians. They did not acknowledge the fact we were talking about 1.15% of total federal spending. That is the amount of money we are taking away from the corporate sector, which continues to benefit to the tune of $9 billion every year to the year 2010.

Therefore, let us remember to keep this in context. Canadians need to hear the whole story. They need to know that we are talking about a very small adjustment in terms of the corporate sector. That is 1.15% of total federal spending. We are talking about a project that amounts to 0.02% of GDP. We are talking about $2.3 billion this year and next year. That is $2.3 billion of a GDP of $1.14 trillion.

Let us please have the Conservatives apply some logic to this debate. Stop the Mickey Mouse mathematics. They should start to understand that we are speaking about project that will enhance jobs, create investment opportunities and improve competitiveness. At the same time it will bring some necessary relief for Canadians who are trying to find the money to send their kids to university, or trying to find safe secure affordable housing for their families or trying to ensure that there is less smog and less pollution so their kids suffering from asthma have a chance to breath and to lead normal lives.

We are talking about something that is relatively small. As New Democrats, we would have liked to have seen a better budget than the one we achieved, but we did make a step in the right direction. We have improved the federal Liberal budget, as announced on February 23, in significant ways that will enhance the quality of life for many Canadians and help bring some hope to Canadians who have suffer through some very difficult situations.

Budgets should be about growing the economy. They should be about taking care of the needs of Canadians. However, the budget the Liberals introduced on February 23 did not do that. It did not address those pressing needs of Canadians. It did not ensure investments in strategic areas where the economy would grow at the same time the needs of Canadians would be addressed. Its flaws and shortcomings clearly outweighed its advantages.

We understood that almost immediately upon assessing the federal budget and made plans to try to change it, unlike the Conservatives who accepted it, walked out of the chamber and said “We'll go with it”.

The Conservatives are yelling that they abstained on it. We do not know what the Conservatives are doing these days. One minute they are voting for it, the next minute they are abstaining, the next minute they are opposed, the next minute they are voting with the NDP.

It is a strange world in this place. As I said on many occasions, the Conservatives are suffering from a case of sour grapes and NDP envy. They would have liked to have been in the driver's seat like we were. All but their leader would have liked to have been in a position of trying to influence the federal budget, instead of abdicating responsibility for change. They walked out of this chamber and accepted it as it was. We did not accept it. We worked to change it. Canadians sent us a message to try to make the minority Parliament work and to do the best we could for Canadians. That is what we have tried to do.

When we first saw the budget on February 23, we were quite shocked at the fact that there was another $4.6 billion set aside for corporate tax cuts. We did not expect to see that. As I have said on many occasions, the Prime Minister promised in the last election not to pursue any more tax cuts until program funding had been restored to some level close to that which was the operational amount before the cuts began in 1995.

Canadians woke up after February 23 in utter disbelief. The budget contained $4.6 billion in corporate tax cuts, yet their household income had decreased by 38% since 1989. Food bank use had increased by 8.5% in the previous year. The gap was still growing between the upper and lower rungs of the income ladder. They saw youth unemployment at over 13%, but no federal action to relieve high tuition across the country. There was a housing shortage, but not a penny for affordable housing. There was no sign of a comprehensive housing strategy.

They knew Canada had signed on to Kyoto. At the same time they knew that pollution had risen 20% instead of dropping. A watershed health care accord had been signed, but the drug costs and out of pocket payments were still rising. The Bank of Canada governor said that the economy was at capacity, but unemployment was still hovering around 7% and 40% of the jobless could not access benefits.

Something had to be done. We could not just continue to pursue the same course of action with more tax cuts for the corporations and the wealthy without seeing no results. We saw little investment in the economy and very few jobs were created. When profits were booming, reinvestment was disproportionately low. Between 2001 and 2004 the percentage of available cash flow reinvested in capital assets dropped from nearly 100% to only 66%.

Investment spending as a percentage of GDP dropped from 13% in 1998 to less than 11% in 2004. Many economists commented on this situation. Many have said that the lower corporate taxes fall in Canada, the less business invests in new capital. Even the Minister of Finance hinted at that in his speech in Halifax to the chamber of commerce this past week. He suggested that despite all these tax breaks over the last number of years and despite record level profits, investment had declined. It had not kept pace with the kind of benefit the Canadian government had expected.

It was time to try another way and that is what we proposed. Take that small amount of money, which reduced the corporate tax break from 21% to 19%, and invest in education to ensure accessibility for Canadians to higher education, invest it in housing, ensuring some measure of decent, affordable housing, invest it in the environment, ensuring some measure of clean air and public transit to help bring down greenhouse gas emissions, and invest it in some assistance to meet our international obligations for poverty on a worldwide basis.

Many economists have suggested that we will achieve much more by investing strategically in those areas than simply giving another tax break to the corporations.

I know the Conservatives, despite their vote, are still preoccupied with the notion of giving more tax breaks to corporations in spite of record level profits. I cannot believe their tune does not change despite the most recent statistics. Today's business report shows corporate profit surging 21% in the first quarter. Statistics Canada reports show that corporate profits continued to rise in the first quarter of 2005 with operating profits rising 3.4% to $51.5 billion.

I cannot believe the Conservatives continue to stick to their narrow focus of the economy when the TD Financial Group issued a report entitled “Canadian Corporations are Riding the Profit Surge”. It also said that with few exceptions, corporate Canada is flush with cash.

In that context, knowing that the corporations are flush with cash, that profits are surging and Canadians are suffering, surely it makes sense to try to do what we can as parliamentarians to give Canadians a chance, to give Canadians a break and an increase in their wages. Surely it makes sense when we know that investing in affordable housing not only meets a social need but actually creates thousands of jobs. In fact, the estimates for the $1.6 billion promoted by the NDP in the budget process would produce 26,000 jobs, if not more.

Does it not make sense, when looking at the economy, to invest in areas where young people will have access to higher education and be able to use their talents to develop our economy? Does it not make sense to invest in public transit, which ensures jobs, provides accessible transportation for citizens and helps us bring down greenhouse gas emissions?

Why would we not do what makes the most sense in terms of all of our needs as a society? Why would we not look at those areas where we can get the biggest bang for the buck?

It is time we actually put to rest the myths perpetrated by the Conservative Party with the support of its cheerleaders, the Chamber of Commerce, the taxation federation and the C.D. Howe Institute. I am not sure if they are the cheerleaders of the Conservatives or if the Conservatives are the cheerleaders of those right wing organizations, but together they represent a very small voice on the Canadian political scene. The vast majority of businesses, economists and Canadians know that when we invest in areas that create jobs and build a future for Canadians, then that truly is the most efficient and cost effective way to go.

It is important to note many of the studies. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives show that over the next five years revenue coming from corporate income taxes will drop as a percentage of total revenue from 15% to 11%. We should put that in perspective. I hope the Conservatives are listening to this. This is Statistics Canada information. This is not coming from the NDP or some policy organization. This is Statistics Canada information showing that corporate tax as a percentage of total revenue is dropping significantly while personal income tax is rising from 45% to 65%.

Finally, I should point out that we seldom hear about the flip side of corporate tax holidays, which is the cost to individual Canadians. For example, it would cost every Canadian about $400 a year more to maintain public services at roughly the same level as they were five years ago. Even without adjusting fully to make up for the 9% cut in corporate tax rates between 2000 and 2010, plus the elimination of the surtax and capital tax, it would be a total of $12.6 billion in 2010.

We have found a better way. It is a first step. It is the combination of Bill C-43, which would eliminate these corporate tax cuts, together with Bill C-48, which would invest that money in housing, education, the environment and international aid. Together it is a package that produces a better balanced budget for which Canadians can be proud. I hope the House will get on with it and support both so Canadians can reap the benefits of this progressive agenda.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier did the same thing his colleagues did, he tried to attack the NDP instead of the government.

I want to ask him a few questions. Why was the Bloc Québécois so interested in having an election? Did the leader of the Bloc Québécois want an election because he was doing well in the polls? Did he then want to go to Quebec as the leader of the PQ? Is that why? I do not know what led to this.

I can understand when the Bloc Québécois members say they will vote against Bill C-42. However, how can they vote against Bill C-48, when $1.5 billion will go to help students and reduce student debt? Quebeckers are included in this agreement, because we are all Canadians and we are all part of the confederation. So how can they vote? The member can attack the NDP because there is nothing for EI.

The member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier says that our negotiations were piecemeal. I am looking at the Bloc motion from last week, which we voted on this week, and it reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, due to the increasing number of factory closures associated with globalization, the government should establish a strategy to help older workers who lose their jobs, a strategy that should include income support measures.

I can tell you that it was not globalization that took the fish away from Baie-des-Chaleurs. Not even partially. This motion was a piecemeal motion. It is all in how you interpret it.

How can the Bloc Québécois vote against $1.5 billion for affordable housing all over Canada when there are people living in the street? Some Quebeckers are congratulating us, and thanking us. How can the Bloc Québécois vote against Bill C-48? I can see the Conservatives doing so, since they do not want money to go to ordinary people, to affordable housing, to students, to young Canadians with debts. That is against their philosophy.

But, it is quite another thing for the Bloc Québécois to vote against Bill C-48. I cannot even imagine how they can vote against our amendment to the budget. I do not understand it at all. They are not working on behalf of the Quebeckers to get the money to them that they so badly need. They should be on our team if they want to get all that. I would like to hear the member's comments on that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This bill enables the government—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Points of Order

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to correct my reply to the critic from the Bloc. I referred to a number that is incorrect.

In fact, the Bloc is not supporting the government by refusing to vote for Bill C-48, and therefore $500 million, one half a billion dollars, would not be able to come to the Canadian aid budget. I made the comment, $500,000. My apologies.

International Aid

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I am at an utter loss because it was that party, that critic and that member who all joined together to vote against the $500,000 that would come to my budget as a result of Bill C-48. If that is their point of departure I can add very little wisdom to the whole issue.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is not what I am asking. Even with the $500 million set out in Bill C-48, Canada will achieve 0.7% of GNP only in 2028, at best, if those are recurring funds. Otherwise, that objective will not be reached until 2035.

Does the government understand that if it wants to achieve 0.7% in a realistic timeframe, that is, by 2015, it must implement the committee's recommendations?

Bill C-48

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc's position on Bill C-48 is not only incomprehensible but indefensible, because it will deprive individuals and institutions in Quebec of the support they need.

How will students be told there will be no extra help for them with post-secondary education? How will FRAPRU be told that it will no longer get additional support for affordable housing? How will Transport 2000 be told that it will get no extra help?

The Liberal Government of Canada will help—

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Bloc Québécois joined with the Conservatives to delete all the clauses of Bill C-48. In voting with the Conservatives against C-48, the Bloc voted against additional funding for Quebec in areas that are very important to many Quebeckers.

Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs clarify for the House how Quebec stands to benefit from Bill C-48?

Main Estimates, 2005-06

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infrastructure

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

Mr. Speaker, sadly, last night, the Conservatives and Bloc combined forces to remove all the relevant clauses from budget Bill C-48 at committee.

The Leader of the Opposition claims that his party is just as committed to the new deal as we are. How can he say that, and then turn around and instruct his party, as the Bloc has also done, to take the $800 million earmarked for public transit out of the budget bill? This is funding that cities need now.