Bill C-13 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2006

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006

Part 1 amends the Excise Tax Act to implement, effective July 1, 2006, the reduction in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the federal component of the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) from 7 to 6 per cent. It also amends the Act to provide transitional rules for determining the GST/HST rate applicable to transactions that straddle the July 1, 2006, implementation date, including transitional rebates in respect of the sale of residential complexes where transfer of ownership and possession both take place on or after July 1, 2006, pursuant to a written agreement entered into on or before May 2, 2006. The Excise Act, 2001 and the Excise Act are amended to increase the excise duties on tobacco and alcohol products to offset the impact of the GST/HST rate reduction. The Air Travellers Security Charge Act is amended to ensure that rates for domestic and transborder air travel reflect the impact of the GST/HST rate reduction. Those amendments generally apply as of July 1, 2006.
Part 2 implements income tax measures proposed or referenced in Budget 2006 to
(a) reduce personal income taxes;
(b) increase the child disability benefit;
(c) increase the refundable medical expense tax credit;
(d) eliminate capital gains tax on charitable donations of publicly-listed securities and ecologically-sensitive land;
(e) reintroduce the mineral exploration tax credit for new flow-through share agreements entered into before April 2007;
(f) expand the eligibility criteria for the disability tax credit;
(g) expand the list of expenses eligible for the disability supports deduction;
(h) expand the list of expenses eligible for the medical expenses tax credit;
(i) clarify the eligibility of home renovation and construction expenses for the medical expenses tax credit;
(j) double the amount of disability-related and medical expenses that can be claimed by a caregiver;
(k) introduce a tax credit in respect of adoption expenses;
(l) introduce a tax deferral for shareholders of agricultural co-ops;
(m) reduce corporate income taxes;
(n) eliminate the federal capital tax; and
(o) extend the carry-over period for non-capital losses and investment tax credits.
Part 3 amends Schedule I to the Excise Tax Act to repeal the excise tax on clocks, items made from semi-precious stones and items commonly known as jewellery, effective May 2, 2006.
Part 4 amends the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act to facilitate the establishment of taxation arrangements between the government of specified provinces and interested Indian Bands situated in those specified provinces. It also amends the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act to provide transitional income tax measures consistent with negotiated agreements.
Part 5 amends the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act, 2001, the Air Travellers Security Charge Act and the Income Tax Act to harmonize various accounting, interest, penalty and related administrative and enforcement provisions. These amendments will apply based on an implementation date that is the later of April 1, 2007, and Royal Assent. It also amends the Excise Tax Act to confirm that debt collection services that are generally provided by collection agents to financial institutions are not financial services for GST/HST purposes and are therefore taxable for GST/HST purposes.
Part 6 enacts the Universal Child Care Benefit Act to assist families by supporting their child care choices through direct financial support to a maximum of $1,200 per year in respect of each of their children who has not attained the age of six years. It also makes consequential and related amendments to the Income Tax Act, the Employment Insurance Act, the Children’s Special Allowances Act and the Old Age Security Act.
Part 7 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to determine the amount of the fiscal equalization payments to the provinces and the territorial formula financing payments to each of the territories for the fiscal years beginning after March 31, 2006 and to authorize the Minister of Finance to make an additional fiscal equalization payment to British Columbia and Newfoundland and Labrador, and to make an additional territorial formula financing payment to Yukon and Nunavut, for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2006.
Part 8 provides for a total payment of $650,000,000 to the provinces and territories for the fiscal year 2006-2007 in respect of early learning and child care. It provides for payments to the territories for the fiscal year 2006-2007.
Part 9 authorizes the Minister of Finance to enter into an agreement to provide protection to mortgagees in respect of mortgage insurance policies that are provided by a mortgage insurer that is approved by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to sell mortgage insurance in Canada. It also fixes the maximum amount of such protection and determines how that amount can be changed.
Part 10 extends the sunset provisions of financial institutions statutes by six months from October 24, 2006 to April 24, 2007.
Part 11 amends the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, Public Service Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act to change the existing formula by which adjustments are made to a contributor’s annuity.
Part 12 enacts the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Act, the purpose of which is to create the Corporation for the Mitigation of Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts. The corporation will provide contributions to regional organizations that will fund projects that mitigate the existing or anticipated socio-economic impacts on communities in the Northwest Territories arising from the Mackenzie gas project. The Part also provides that a payment of $500,000,000 may be made to the corporation and adds the name of the corporation to the schedule of certain federal Acts.
Part 13 amends the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Agreement Act to permit the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to carry out its purpose in Mongolia and to allow the Governor in Council to amend, by order, the schedule to that Act. It amends the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act to increase the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation’s legislative borrowing limit from thirty million dollars to fifty million dollars. It also amends the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act to create share capital for the Public Sector Pension Investment Board

Budget Implementation Act, 2006

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I have been listening quite closely to the speech the hon. member made. I know the hon. member for Edmonton--Sherwood Park is, as he says, reluctant to get up on points of order.

In this case the member for Markham--Unionville has been careful to avoid calling the minister dishonest or suggesting that somehow the minister had lied. It appeared that the budget was the thing that to him was offensive. That is the test in my view. Documents can be incorrect. Budgets include more than a speech in the House. Budgets include quite a lot of material that is published with them and tabled with them. The hon. member is helping me out by waving the book in his hand. Yes, those are budget documents and there may be things that are not accurate in them or things which in the hon. member's view are dishonest. That is what he has stated and he was very careful, in my view, to avoid saying that any member of this House was dishonest, which would have got him into real trouble.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre said that the member is very close to the line, and I agree. It would be better if members refrained from using this kind of language, but we do have freedom of speech in this House and members are able to use it and we have had it bandied about in the House for some time now. I caution hon. members, of course, to make sure that they are not making these statements about other hon. members because those comments would be unparliamentary. I do not believe the member for Markham--Unionville has quite crossed the line in his comments.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for confirming my view that the budget is not an hon. member, dishonest though it may be, though it is in fact.

I will move on now to the second theme, that the budget has no vision. It is a dishonest budget without any vision. When the parliamentary secretary says that the budget creates an environment for growth in a competitive tax system, that is a total joke.

A responsible budget must answer the following question: how can a country of 30 million people compete with the world's giants like China and India? This budget says nothing about that.

In the area of taxes, this budget does the opposite of what should be done. In all other areas the budget does absolutely nothing.

As far as taxes are concerned, the only difference between this budget and our plan is that income tax will go up so that the GST can go down. Every economist in this country, except perhaps the Prime Minister, agrees that increasing income taxes and reducing consumption taxes is the worst policy in the world. If we want to have a productive economy, full growth, savings and investments, if we want to be competitive in the world, this is the worst thing we could do, period.

This issue has another dimension. In reality, Canada will not be able to compete with China's and India's low salaries. That is not our vision. That is not what we want. What we need is our brains, research, innovation and new ideas. The budget provides nothing for this.

This budget is nothing but an insult to students in post-secondary education and to those working in research and innovation. While the Liberals allocated $2.5 billion to research and development over five years, this budget allocates only $250 million. It is an insult. It is nothing.

The insult is worse yet for students pursuing post-secondary studies. This is what we would have done: grant $6,000 to each student taking post-secondary education over the span of their four years at university or college. What is this government doing? It is giving a tax break on text books needed for university studies to the tune of $80 a year. We are talking about $6,000 compared to $80. That is the difference in how much this government and the Liberals value students and their parents who work hard to pay for tuition fees.

There is nothing in this budget to support the Canadian economy, which is facing intense competition with the world's new giants.

The third point is that this is a meanspirited budget. It plays to the political base of the Conservative Party. I believe it will fail. It is a crass attempt to take money from people who are unlikely to vote for the Conservatives and put money into the pockets of those whom they hope will vote Conservative. It is as simple as that.

For example, can members in the House please tell me why it is only the lowest income tax rate that was increased? This is the only way to hit those who earn $35,000 or less and it is the lower incomes that were hit by the tax hike because they are less likely to vote Conservative.

Can members tell me why it is only sports playing families as opposed to music loving families that get the tax break? I suppose the sports playing families are more likely to vote Conservative, but even they will not be very happy when they find out that their $500 tax credit is not worth $500; it is worth more like $80.

The social engineering by the Conservative Party favoured activities like sports, which get money, yet unfavoured activities like music do not, let alone the person who has a difficult time even affording to buy a basketball.

Why do the aboriginals get shafted? Why is their $5 billion taken away? I suppose it is because they are not likely to vote Conservative. Better to put the money into the pockets of the Conservative base.

Why do the Conservatives take away money from the supplement to the child tax credit? The lowest income, mothers of young children, get much less of the $1,200 because the supplement is clawed back. Again, they are not likely to vote Conservative, are they?

Why, apart from the fact that the finance minister wants to put homeless people in jail, does the budget talk about cutting off their funding? I suppose, apart from the government and the minister thinking they should be in jail, the homeless will probably not vote Conservative.

Why does the government skate close to the edge on returning to deficit? It takes away the prudence, that cushion, to protect us from going into deficit. It is less kind to future generations, the ones who benefit from the debt paydown. Any responsible economist knows that in a time of an aging population, it is even more important than normal to pay down the debt. Why do the Conservatives not care about future generations? It is simple. Future generations will not vote in the next election.

The Conservatives do not care about the environment. Why do they slash and burn expenditures on the environment? Everything except the special measures with direct benefit to the brother of the Minister of Finance. That one gets money, but everything else is slashed. I supposed the environment will not vote in the next election.

This is a dishonest budget. It does not tell the truth, the black and white truth about what is happening to income tax rates. It is a visionless budget. It does nothing for the future of this country. It is a meanspirited budget. It takes money out of the pockets of the least privileged, simply because they are unlikely to vote Conservative, and put the money into the pockets of the Conservative base.

My last point is that it will not work. It will not work because Canadians, like that gentleman from Brandon--Souris, are intelligent. The government underestimates their intelligence. Canadians will know when they get their pay stub in July that their income tax rates have gone up. They will not believe this dishonest budget because they will see it in black and white on their pay slips.

This dishonest budget will not resonate with Canadians. Indeed, polling shows that two-thirds of Canadians question the motives of the budget. Two-thirds of Canadians already believe that the budget is designed to get a majority, and not designed to be good for Canada.

I believe that Canadians will react negatively to this dishonest budget. Canadians will react negatively to a fiscally irresponsible and socially destructive budget that contains no vision for our future and that risks returning into deficit.

Finally, Canadians will react extremely negative to this crass, politically opportunistic budget which takes money from the homeless, the aboriginals, and the lowest income Canadians, to put it into the pockets of the Conservative base.

Canadians have a basic sense of fairness, decency, and a desire for vision for this country. We as Liberals are delighted, come the next election, to fight the Conservatives on a visionless, dishonest, unfair and duplicitous budget. We are convinced that Canadians will be with us.

[James Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting after hearing a speech like that, when the purpose of the House is to actually have intelligent debate about legislation. All the member opposite for Markham—Unionville did is attack motives with black helicopter conspiracies about why we put forward this budget.

The fact is that this budget will help Canadians. It is good for the economy and it is good for every region of the country. The government is lowering taxes for every Canadian in every income group through lower sales taxes and a lower income tax that is going from 16% to 15.5%. Net taxes for every single Canadian will be lowered.

The member is right in one sense, Conservatives are pushing forward this budget to speak to our base. Our base is the entire country and the Canadian people. The polls show that the country is responding well to this budget.

This is one thing that I found very interesting. Since January 23, when we have been on this side of the House and the Liberals are now on that side of the House, perhaps for hopefully a very long time, the Liberals all of a sudden have all these great ideas.

We have noticed in question period and in their speeches, such as the one we just heard, that the Liberals say that they promised to do this and the Conservatives are doing that. It does not matter what a Liberal promise is, it matters what gets delivered. The Conservative government is delivering to Canadians.

I see the member for Malpeque promising, while in opposition, with vim and gusto about what a great plan the Liberals now have for agriculture. For 13 years, when he was on the government side, the Liberals and he failed Canada's producers and agriculture sector. In the budget we put $1.5 billion into the agriculture sector. This is good for Canada's economy.

The member for Markham—Unionville talked about how the Liberals had all these great plans for Canada's youth. We are giving a $500 tax credit for the cost of amateur sports, to encourage physical activity, to help youth and support Canadian families.

I know the Liberals believe in a government run nine to five day care. We believe in empowering parents, so that they have more power and choice in how they want to raise their kids, and how they want to build their own families, not a government run bureaucratic day care empowered by the Liberals to manage people's families.

My question for the hon. member is, why does he not get it, Canadians support this budget? It is going to become law and Canada is going to be the better for it.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the budget will become law because the Bloc members would otherwise lose so many seats that they will support it. That is a fact. It is also a fact that two-thirds of Canadians question the motives. They believe that the government is acting only to get elected and not for the good of the country.

I am saying to the government that this will not work. Canadians will not believe the government. The member has once again repeated the fiction, the terminological inexactitude that income tax was cut, when in fact the gentleman from Souris and all Canadians, when they get their paycheques in July, will know that it went up. The member cannot even tell the difference between up and down.

I am not sure that Canadians like the “government knows best” social engineering characteristic of the government. The government is making value choices for families. The government says sports are worth--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. I know hon. members are enjoying the debate, but we must be able to hear the member who has the floor.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the member for Markham—Unionville that this is a meanspirited budget. It does very little for hard-working families. The member is right. It is clearly an attack on the most vulnerable in our community.

I think the Conservative government has simply taken a page out of the Liberal government's record on how to write a budget. The Liberal government has never presented a budget that was any more friendly for the vulnerable in our community. I am thinking about the hard-working seniors in my community. They have worked hard all their lives. They have done everything right and yet they are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet.

There is nothing in the budget for seniors in any of our communities. Yes, the government talks about some income tax credit that will benefit very few seniors in my community of Hamilton Mountain. Where is the real increase to public pension benefits? Where is the increase to CPP? Where is the long awaited increase to the OAS and the GIS? Those are things for which seniors have been clamouring for years. They did not get them under the Liberals. It is another missed opportunity under the Conservative government as well.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some of what the hon. member has said makes sense, but she is a little bit short on facts. The Liberals did increase the GIS in a substantial way, so she does not know her facts.

It is also the case that the NDP members have lost all credibility in this area because they have sacrificed the child care system, the aboriginals and the environment for the sake of 10 seats in the House of Commons.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

We will move on now to statements by members, but members need not worry. We will have four and a half more minutes of questions and comments when the debate resumes later this day.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C-13, the budget implementation bill for 2006.

It is never easy for those who follow our proceedings. This week, we voted on the budget. Once it is adopted, we have to be able to implement it. Implementing certain parts of the budget often requires legislative amendments to other acts of Parliament. That is more or less what is being proposed in Bill C-13. Again, and I will explain this during my speech, it does not authorize spending in all areas. The amendments contained in this bill are necessary to implement the budget. I will explain that because it is sometimes a bit complicated to follow this legislative debate and other parliamentary proceedings. I believe that if we take the time to look at this bill closely, its objectives will become obvious.

The budget proposed a reduction in the GST. Part 1 of the budget implementation bill amends the Excise Tax Act so that the GST can be reduced from 7% to 6% as of July 1, 2006. Once we have adopted this bill, people will know that, as of July 1, 2006, the GST will be reduced by 1 percentage point, from 7% to 6%.

This reduction requires amendments to various acts, including the Excise Act, 2001 and the Excise Act, which makes all this a little complicated. But the main objective of part 1 of this bill is to reduce the GST by 1 percentage point as of July 1.

Part 2 deals with changes to income taxes. The budget included several tax-related announcements. Part 2 of Bill C-13, which we are discussing today, amends the Income Tax Act to implement the various announcements made in the budget. I will give all the provisions of the Income Tax Act that will be amended, and I will not read the section numbers, in order to simplify matters for the people who are watching.

First, the personal tax rate will be reduced by .5%. More specifically, the rate will be reduced by .25% in 2006 and .5% in 2007. The basic personal amount will increase: it will be $8,648 in 2005, $8,839 in 2006 and $8,639 in 2007.

The basic personal amount for common-law partners and spouses will also increase, allowing every Canadian to buy an additional coffee each week. That is the conclusion a number of analysts have reached. That is the decision the government made. I do have to mention, though, that there will be a reduction in income tax, amounting to $2 a week at most.

Bill C-13, which we are discussing today, will increase the child disability benefit to $2,300 effective July 1, 2006.

The refundable medical expense supplement will be increased to $1,000. Capital gains on donations of publicly listed securities and ecologically sensitive land will be eliminated. The mineral exploration tax credit will be reinstated. The eligibility criteria for the disability tax credit will be modified. The lists of expenses eligible for the disability supports deduction and the medical expenses tax credit will be expanded. The amount of home renovation and construction expenses for disabled persons or others who need assistance that caregivers can claim will be doubled.

A tax credit for adoption expenses will be offered. There will be tax deferrals for shareholders of agricultural co-ops. There will be corporate tax cuts. The corporate tax rate will be reduced from 21% to 19% by 2010. The capital tax will be eliminated on December 31, 2007.

Lastly, the carry-over period for non-capital losses and investment tax credits will be extended.

This second part deals with the changes to the Income Tax Act.

It must be understood--and I say this primarily for the benefit of our citizens who are listening--that when the time comes to discuss or to vote on a budget, the government proposes a number of topics. People need to understand that, when it comes to our support of the government's budget, the Bloc Québécois remains faithful to the principles that brought it here to this House, namely, to defend the interests of Quebeckers.

Clearly, the Bloc Québécois' primary objective continues to be resolving the fiscal imbalance. In a moment, I will cite a few figures that were music to the ears of the Liberal Party of Quebec, but that are far from the cure-all. Yet, at least this government decided to acknowledge the fiscal imbalance. When it was tabled, the budget was accompanied by a 135-page document on achieving a fiscal balance between the provinces and the federal government. The concept of the fiscal imbalance is rather simple: Ottawa has too much money, which generates a large surplus in relation to the amounts available to the provinces.

We must always bear in mind that the federal government does not look after our everyday concerns. It is important to understand that. The federal government does not look after the everyday concerns of men and women in Quebec and Canada.

Health, for example, is an area of provincial jurisdiction, as is education. We want to ensure that our families, our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren have the education necessary to do what needs to be done to advance the economy. That comes under provincial jurisdiction.

Highway maintenance also comes under that jurisdiction, as do water and sewer systems, waste collection and all sorts of areas affecting our everyday life. Tap water is an area of provincial jurisdiction, because municipalities come under provincial jurisdiction.

Resolving the fiscal imbalance is among the Bloc Québécois' objectives. Therefore, the Conservative government's stated intention to resolve it within a specific timeframe will do for this year. But, in the 2007 budget, the government will have to clearly state that it is committed to resolving the fiscal imbalance. That was one of our reasons for supporting this budget.

In addition, the government pledged to look into the whole issue of older workers. We will recall the mass closures of manufacturing companies for various reasons, including globalization and emerging economies such as India and China, which are competing with us a lot. In many cases, the employees of these manufacturing companies had been working for 10, 15, 20 or 25 years, without necessarily approaching retirement. As a result, their age—they are often over 50—makes it difficult for them to find new jobs in other companies.

We want an older workers assistance program like the POWA to be put in place. The government promised to put one in place. Granted, no funds were earmarked for that in this budget. But the government made a firm commitment to look into and measure the costs of a program to assist older workers. We know that there is enough money in the EI fund, which employees and employer pay into, to establish such a program. A seed was sown in budget 2006; let us hope that, over the course of 2007, the federal government will successfully deal with the older workers issue and, with its next budget, resolve the fiscal imbalance.

Bill C-13, which has been tabled in the House today, represents the implementation of certain provisions of the budget, including those requiring amendments to certain acts. I gave the example of part 2, which deals with amendments to the Income Tax Act. Part 3 amends the Excise Tax Act by repealing the excise tax on jewellery, clocks and items made from semi-precious stones, effective May 2, 2006.

This budget contains a multitude of small provisions and, let us not forget, has returned $14 billion to taxpayers. All these small measures represent a few dollars per week, just enough to pay for a coffee I must admit.

The measures in a number of clauses are applicable to certain portions of industries or businesses. For example, part 3 repeals the excise tax on jewellery under the Excise Tax Act.

Part 4 amends the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act. Once again, this will facilitate the establishment of tax arrangements between the governments of specified provinces and interested Indian bands situated in those provinces.

Among other things, it will also give a certain governmental autonomy to Yukon first nations resulting in better fiscal arrangements between the first nations and the provincial governments in terms of payment of taxes.

Part 5 contains another amendment affecting taxation under the Excise Tax Act, Excise Act, 2001, the Air Travellers Security Charge Act, and the Income Tax Act, in order to harmonize various accounting, interest, penalty and related application and enforcement provisions. Again , this is to facilitate the application of a portion of the budget in legislation affecting very specific parts of certain industries.

Part 6, to which the Bloc Québécois made a significant contribution, deals of course with the universal child care benefit, this $1,200 amount that will be paid to families as of July 1, 2006 for each child under six years of age.

Members will recall the questions that the Bloc Québécois put to the government when it announced this benefit because it was going to be taxable and it could have an impact on other benefits such as EI benefits and children's special allowances.

Even though the government maintained its decision to make the universal child care benefit taxable, it is amending the Income Tax Act, the Employment Insurance Act and the Children's Special Allowances Act so that this $1,200 a year benefit does not affect the other benefits covered by these acts. In other words, this will ensure that adding $1,200 to the lowest income in the family will not cause a reduction in EI benefits or in children's special allowances.

Again, we can call this a victory for the Bloc Québécois. We would have liked for the benefit not to be taxable, but it is never easy with the Conservative Party. These people are slow to understand.

We hope that, next year, when those who will be receiving the $100 a month or $1,200 a year benefit get a T4 from the federal government, the government will understand that it should have listened to the Bloc Québécois and not given us only half of what we were calling for, which was a non-taxable benefit for families.

As I just explained, part 6 that relates to the universal child care benefit deals with the implementation of this measure.

Part 7 of Bill C-13 deals with the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements and makes some changes to the equalization formula. The Bloc Québécois has been consistently asking that certain parameters not be taken into account in the equalization formula.

An adjustment was made giving Quebec $5.539 billion in fiscal equalization payments this year, an increase of $185 million over the old formula. Again, for the Bloc Québécois, balancing equalization payments is part of correcting the fiscal imbalance. Quebec has thus gained $185 million. However, the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Charest, who still tends to give in to whatever the Conservatives want, was close to a historic agreement on equalization payments. We are far from it. I hope that Mr. Charest, in all his wisdom, will understand that with respect to correcting the fiscal imbalance, Quebec has a right to expect much more than the $185 million it will get this year. Even though the Conservative Party seems at least to have recognized that the Liberals' calculation of equalization payments was wrong, $185 million this year is not a whole lot. We hope that as it drafts its 2007 budget, the government will truly understand that correcting the fiscal imbalance means correcting the equalization formula.

It has to stop calculating—or not calculating—as part of provincial revenues, all the duties on natural resources that give some provinces certain advantages over others. It has to understand that Quebec has paid. Quebeckers, our fathers and grandfathers alone have paid for setting up the entire hydroelectricity concept in Quebec. Let that be understood. Since 1970, the federal government has invested $66 billion in developing fossil fuels. Just look at the Athabasca oil sands, the Hibernia project and other carbon-based development projects—or even nuclear energy—in which the federal government has invested, when it has not invested a dime in hydroelectricity development in Quebec.

You will understand that it is very difficult, in calculating equalization, not to take into account the revenues other Canadian provinces get from their natural resources. Once again, it is an aberration of the Canadian federation. In that respect, this would not be the first time Quebeckers are treated unfairly by the federal government.

Thus, part 7 allows changes to existing legislation to redefine equalization for 2006-07. This will provide a certain advantage. Once again, this is one of the reasons that motivated the Bloc Québécois to support the budget. Quebec would nonetheless benefit from an extra $185 million.

Part 8 talks about payments to the provinces and territories. We must remember that an agreement was signed between the Government of Canada—then led by the Liberal party—and the provinces on the whole child care network matter, which was called the early learning and child care network. It is a child care program. Hon. members will recall that agreements were signed. This case is not closed. As far as I know, the Government of Quebec, Mr. Charest, has not buckled to the federal government. It still wants this agreement signed by the former government to be upheld.

This year Quebec will receive $152 million to help it continue to establish its provincial $7 a day child care network. It is a longstanding request. This great project was skilfully piloted by the Parti Québécois. That said, Quebec's child care network is now an example the world over. People come to Quebec to see how we came up with this. Other Canadian provinces seem to want to have the same service.

Because we live in a time where work-family balance is important, families need to be able to have their children cared for in a network of child care centres with qualified staff. The men and women who work in the child care centres in Quebec are qualified. They are paid fairly for the work they do. They provide children with some measure of education and enable their parents to work. This is more or less the principle on which the Parti Québécois based the world's best network of child care centres. We in Quebec take pride in that.

Obviously, we are proud that the federal government is taking part in that program this year and honoured its commitment by signing the agreement with the Government of Quebec. The problem is that the Conservative government has decided to terminate that program in 2007.

Clearly, the Bloc Québécois will vote on the budget provisions one by one, year by year. We will not necessarily support the federal government's budget next year just because we support its budget this year. We will see; we will consider each budget on its own merits. Bloc Québécois members have always acted reasonably and responsibly. That is the way we do things, and that is how we succeeded in being elected again in 51 out of 75 ridings in Quebec.

Quebeckers place their trust in the Bloc Québécois because of its unique, responsible way of defending their interests. I hold the deep conviction that regardless of what is said or discussed and even what the polls say, when a future election is held, large numbers of Quebeckers will once again entrust responsibility for federal policy to real Quebeckers who defend their interests. And only the Bloc Québécois members do this.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for illustrating all aspects of the Conservative budget and demonstrating that the Conservative Party did a good job.

The question I would like to ask him concerns specifically the $1,200 that will be given to mothers, and I would like to take this opportunity to wish all mothers a Happy Mother's Day. My colleague wants the $1,200 to be given to the Quebec government, which would then administer the sum.

Why would he chose this rather than give Canadian mothers the choice they are entitled to, that is, to receive that money and to do what they would like with it? Would he deny women this right, namely, to make their own choices when they receive the $1,200?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member congratulates us on our positive reaction to the budget and subsequently claims that if we vote on the budget, we are voting against the $1,200.

By supporting the budget, the Bloc decided to support the $1,200. What we asked was that this amount be non-taxable, which the Conservative government refused. The Bloc's message to the Conservative government is that it was the one that decided to give the $1,200 per child per year to families with children under six. The federal government and the provinces signed an agreement to establish a national child care network, although Quebec is already ahead of such a network. Continue to pay and to respect that agreement. If the government wants to give $1,200 to all such mothers, well hooray for Mother's Day. Everyone will be delighted. However, the Quebec government must continue to receive the available and necessary money so that a network can be established while keeping the fee at $7. The federal government's actions must not force the Quebec government to increase its day care fees to $25 a day.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member presented a very good outline of the various acts and provisions and how the budget implementation act will work. I thank him especially for mentioning jewellery and microbreweries which will help the Yukon. He also made wonderful comments on how many of the provisions that the public sees as being so great will amount to about a cup of coffee. This happens many times when people analyze a budget.

However, I think the member went overboard when he said that the Bloc is defending the interests of Quebec. Last June when his party voted against Bill C-48, the Bloc voted against public transit, affordable housing, training, post-secondary education, and foreign aid. Quebeckers believe in all those things and the Bloc betrayed them. He said that people are being too complimentary and are bending to the Conservatives. The Bloc itself is doing that by supporting the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable.

Quebeckers do not believe in doing this on the backs of students. Quebeckers do not believe in increasing income tax rates for the poor, in abolishing Kelowna, in abolishing Kyoto. How could the Bloc members possibly vote for this budget? They have given two reasons, one being older workers. We all agree with that. A study has already been done and a pilot project is working. Yet we get weak answers from the minister that the pilot project has to be studied again. The Bloc got nothing.

On the fiscal imbalance, the member said in his speech that Quebec received $155 million in increased equalization. My riding of Yukon received none. His province lost three times more than that on day care. It lost hundreds of millions of dollars on day care and received a promise from the government that it would study the fiscal imbalance. Is taking money away from Quebec going to solve what the Bloc believes is the fiscal imbalance?

Could the member tell me why the Bloc supported the budget?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot get over my Liberal colleague criticizing me for wanting to resolve the problem of older workers, given that the Liberals did not do a thing in 13 years to deal with the EI problem. I have a great deal of difficulty understanding where my Liberal colleague is coming from.

He, however, will understand why the logic of the Bloc Québécois always remained the same. The Bloc is asking that the fiscal imbalance be resolved. As I said earlier, the federal government does not deal with any of the real everyday problems people are facing. Health, education, drinking water, garbage, transportation and highways are all areas of provincial responsibility. That is why the Bloc's main objective never changed: to take the surpluses in Ottawa and give them to the provinces.

The problem is that the Liberal Party never acknowledged that there was too much money in Ottawa and not enough in the provinces. At least, the Conservative Party appears to be willing to recognize that fact. We are giving it a chance. The Conservative Party has set a 2007 deadline for showing what it will do. In the interest of Quebeckers, the Bloc is prepared to wait until 2007. But the problem better be resolved, though.