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

[Some hon. members]

Nothing.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Absolutely nothing.

What about people in rural Saskatchewan, where there is no licensed day care facility? What did they get under the previous Liberal government? Absolutely nothing.

It goes on. Let us talk about the transit passes, the almost 16% credit that people across the country will get for any mode of transport they choose to use. We have to look at the totality of the package. That is a fantastic measure to improve our environment as well. As for the members opposite who say this is not going to encourage anyone to ride public transit, they clearly have not been in their ridings and they have not been listening to their constituents. My constituents are loving that measure. They think it is very positive.

As for money for farmers, that question is just a softball question, and it is almost as though one of my own members gave me this question, because no matter which way we look at it, it is $1.5 billion more than that party, the previous Liberal government, committed to our producers. Yes, it is not a panacea and it is not a cure-all, but it is real money for farmers, money that is going to keep people on their land and enable them to keep farms that have been in their families for generations.

That member is $1.5 billion short.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a tough act to follow.

I suppose those members who have been here longer have noticed that my number of interventions in the House has really decreased in the last year and a half or two years. It used to be that I was up all the time on everything.

I was asked the other day why I have turned really quiet. I responded by saying that we are now surrounded by very capable new members. I just feel I do not want to dominate the proceedings. I want to give them a chance to develop their debating skills as well and they are doing just fine.

My hon. colleague from Palliser has done us proud in the last little while, and I really appreciate that. It is such an honour to be here with all of these good quality, highly principled people who want to do what is good for this country.

As members know I taught math for many years. One of the things that really disturbs me is the lack of mathematical knowledge by the members on the other side. Somehow they cannot get it into their heads that when they compare two numbers, and most of us would look at it and say this number is less than that one, they call it a tax increase. They are just out of it. What they are failing to take into account is the fact that the income tax rate on the lowest category is 16%. The update that provided for that to be reduced has never been passed by this Parliament.

The fact of the matter is that even though the Liberals say that they did this and it was announced in their budget, it has never had the approval of Parliament. They cannot say that the tax rate has been increased.

Even if the tax rate had been increased and let me take that stance just for their benefit for a few milliseconds. Let us say that 15% would have been approved and it would be in place, we are talking about 15.5% now. My question to the members opposite is very simple, who instead of listening keep heckling here.

[Some hon. members]

It was approved.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Just listen to the master math teacher for a few milliseconds, if I may suggest.

How much money is this? I will take $35,000 as an example. The $35,000 at 15.5% is equal to $5,425. It is curious that if we were to charge a rate of 15%, we would come up with exactly the same number if the taxable income is $36,167, which is about what it would have been under the Liberal plan. It is actually fairly close.

All of the individuals earning income and paying income tax under our plan have an additional $1,000 that they can earn tax free because of the benefit for employment. We have now another $1,000 that we are not paying tax on at all. Zero.

As a result, the 15.5% on the amount that is remaining is actually less tax than if we paid 15% on the larger amount. All they have to do is to put on their math caps for a second and let it sink in. That is how it works. One number is not bigger than the other because of the tax rate. It is actually smaller because of the fact that we are paying on a lesser amount. When one adds to this the fact that this will benefit all families, this is a tremendous thing.

I am a little older now and I do not know whether I should announce it to everyone, but it was just yesterday that I turned 67. It is a long time since we had young children running around the house, but I still remember when my wife and I decided that she would be a full time mom. We decided that the best care for our children was parental care. In order to accommodate that choice, I had to take on the teaching of some night classes in order to pay my taxes.

In order to live on my income alone, we made sacrifices to make that happen because it was important, but there was no recognition for it to speak of in the tax act. We just made the sacrifice with after tax dollars.

I took on teaching a night class at NAIT, where I worked, in order to supplement our income so we could pay our bills. I used to tell people that on Tuesday nights I was working for Trudeau. On Thursday nights I was working for my family. That is because about half of my incremental income went to taxes, so not only did we have the loss of my wife's income because she was a full time mom, we also had a penalty because when I did that extra work, I had to pay tax at the higher rate.

I am so happy to be a part of a political party that looks at the value of a tax system for families and is saying that it will allow those families to make a real choice. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the absolute best child care that children can get in those early formative years is the care of mom and dad. There is no doubt about that. There is a lot of data available if we were to look for it, in fact it is available, that proves that to be true.

Mr. Speaker, I can read body language. I taught for 31 years. When I see somebody sitting like this, I know he is ready to go, so I will now interrupt my speech and hope to continue it at the next sitting.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Before I declare what time it is, I would like to join with all members of the House in wishing the member for Edmonton--Sherwood Park a very happy birthday.

I would also like to wish a happy Mother's Day to every mother who is in the House and to every mother in Canada.

I would especially like to wish a happy Mother's Day to a very special lady in Saint-Isidore, Ontario, my mother, Anna Galipeau-Secours.

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)

The House resumed from May 12 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, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

When the bill was last before the House the hon. member for Edmonton--Sherwood Park had the floor and he had three minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks. I therefore call on the hon. member for Edmonton--Sherwood Park.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to begin the debate this week in this exciting new Parliament with a new government that has a forward looking vision for the country and not a backward looking one like the Liberals of the past.

I might also mention in passing that I may hold the record for the longest interrupted speech. I do not remember which Parliament it was or the exact dates but I recall being in the middle of a speech when the end of the day came and my speech was resumed just a few days less than a year later. I began that speech by saying, “When I was interrupted, this is what I was saying”.

I do not think I will have time to review everything I was saying last Friday but I was talking about families and the fact that the government has a vision and recognition that parents make the best choices for their children. I put forward the proposition that the best caregivers in the world are the mothers and fathers of children, which is what we are promoting with our budget and policies.

I had the privilege this past weekend of attending several functions but the one that touched my heart the most was a bicycle and run fundraiser for people with cerebral palsy. This touched my heart because it reminded me so much of my sister who had cerebral palsy and spent her whole life without ever being able to speak. She was totally dependent and lived for 55 years. She passed away six year ago. It was a wonderful privilege to be with these people who are raising money to look after family needs.

This budget has exactly the same vision. We need to do a better job than the Liberals have ever done in providing for families who have these special needs. I do not think people who have not experienced it have any idea of either the mental or emotional pressures or the financial pressures on families that have members with disabilities and need total care.

In this budget I am very pleased that the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister had the foresight and wisdom to increase the maximum annual child disability benefit from $2,044 to $2,300 effective July 1. That is one of many good things in this bill. I urge all members in the House, whether they are for the government or against it is irrelevant as long as they want good things, to support the budget implementation bill.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I share the member's enthusiasm for family but why is it the government decided to eliminate the young child supplement under the Canada child tax benefit program of $249 right out of their pockets? Why is it the childhood allowance that is being provided is a taxable benefit that will not translate into dollars in the pockets of low income Canadians relative to high income Canadians according to the Caledon Institute? In terms of families generally, why is it the government increased the income tax from 15% to 15.5% on the first tax bracket, which will impact low income Canadians?

Those are three examples in the budget of how low income and modest income Canadian families will be worse off. Why is it the government does not have any compassion for low and modest income Canadian families?

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is just the opposite. It is finally a compassionate Conservative government that is addressing the issues facing families.

The member said that these benefits are taxable and that there will be less in it. Many families do not pay income tax because they are living in poverty. The GST reduction benefits them because with what little money they have they will have less GST to pay.

The benefit of the new $100 child allowance is taxable but that is reasonable. If people are making enough money that they are in a high tax bracket, then that should be taxable income. Why should certain people not have to pay taxes on it? We have increased the threshold so the total tax bill will be less, notwithstanding what the member said.

The benefits and the tax rates that we get in this package actually result in less taxes being paid by every individual and every Canadian family in the country. The member across the way has his numbers wrong. The fact is that most people who will benefit from this will pay less taxes in total than they would have under the Liberal plan.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, that was a nice try at a defence but it is just not true.

Wealthy people who have a spouse making no income can have that money and it will not be deducted. Therefore it inordinately affects poor people. Poor people who do not have income are getting other benefits that are then clawed back. As the member remembers, the Caledon Institute cited that a poor person could get as little as $200 of the $1,200, which is 55¢ a day and covers day care for 14 minutes.

The Liberals provided so much out of the national child benefit to support parents staying at home. The Conservatives are saying to Canadians that for 14 minutes a day, 55¢, they can quit their job and stay at home.

Perhaps poorer people will get a little more money in total but the fact that the government would increase the income tax level for poor people and not do that for others, the fact that it would remove the child tested income supplement as part of the national child benefit that affects poor people and the fact that this is discriminatory, that corporations and people who do not need the break get much more of a break than other people, is really unconscionable.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that by increasing the thresholds all Canadian families will be paying less income tax.

Under our plan there will be some 600,000 Canadians families off the tax rolls entirely, while the Liberals kept ripping them off. Even though they lived in poverty by the government's own definition, the Liberal government was still taxing them and charging them income tax. Under our plan, over 600,000 Canadian families will be off the tax rolls and that is a real benefit.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I am pleased to speak on the subject of Bill C-13, the bill to implement certain provisions—those concerning taxes—in the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance nearly two weeks ago.

In light of this bill, part of this budget is positive, but the Bloc Québécois considers part of it to be very negative. As we have said, eliminating the fiscal imbalance is, of course, not part of the bill to implement fiscal measures. Rather, it is a commitment on the part of the government—a commitment that seemed firm two weeks ago—to settle this issue by the next budget in spring 2007 at the latest.

When a friend or an acquaintance promises you something and puts it in writing, it is difficult for you to say you do not believe him. Spoken words may fade away, but written words remain. You have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The fiscal imbalance is Quebec's top priority. Reaching comprehensive, definitive, short-term solutions to this issue was one of the things we demanded from the new government. That is why we supported the budget. Otherwise, we would have been inclined to vote against it because the other measures it puts forward do not coincide with Quebeckers' top priorities and issues.

As for the fiscal imbalance, the Prime Minister's disappointing statements this weekend cast some doubt. We hope that this is only temporary and that the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party will pull themselves together and speak more firmly about eliminating the fiscal imbalance.

On the weekend, the Prime Minister said that the provinces had not agreed among themselves, thus complicating the debate and making it harder to reach a solution. This is the first thing he said on the weekend. I remind him, simply, that there was no consensus because of one province, Ontario. That day, the representatives of Ontario left the meeting of the Council of the Federation whining that Ontario was not getting any benefit from its membership in the Canadian federation and that there had been a considerable shortfall every year. As Ontario does not receive equalization payments, it was shortchanged by the group statement, which concentrated on the reform of equalization payments.

I remind Premier McGuinty—I think everyone knows it—that, if there is one province that benefits from federal economics, it is Ontario. Year after year, it generates incredible trade surpluses, because Quebec, the Maritimes, the West and British Columbia buy goods and services from Ontario much more often than Ontario buys them elsewhere in Canada. Federal economics is very profitable for Ontario. It is not a poor province. It is rich thanks to its trade relations with Quebec and the provinces of Canada. So Mr. McGuinty can stop whining that Ontario is losing while the other provinces get special treatment. It is totally wrong. I hope the Prime Minister will put Ontario in its place when the day comes to propose a definitive solution to the fiscal imbalance.

In addition, the Ottawa area and the involvement of Ontarians in the public service and contracts awarded by Public Works and Government Services warrant an examination. There are more research centres on the Ontario side than on the Quebec side. Mr. McGuinty is bellyaching without cause. He has no reason to complain about Ontario being given poor treatment. Ontario wins on all counts through its membership in this system.

If Ontario continues to whine like this, the Prime Minister will have to be firm and come up with a solution that will be accepted by all Canadian provinces, including Quebec, to correct the fiscal imbalance.

The surprising thing about the Prime Minister's speech this weekend was that he was setting the scene by suggesting that the federal government has much less of a surplus than in previous years.

In that context, Quebec and the provinces would not want appear too greedy in their demands.

I would simply like to remind the Prime Minister that we are following him closely and we will stay hot on his heels until he finds a comprehensive solution to the fiscal imbalance. Such a solution will involve reform of federal transfer payments in the areas of post-secondary education, health, welfare and so on. They will be transformed into transfers of tax fields that are much more predictable and stable, and much more likely to deliver stable tax resources to Quebec and the provinces so that they may meet their core mandates.

Second, correcting the fiscal imbalance must be based on equalization reform. In calculating the per capita equalization payment for Quebec, the reform should ensure that the base is the average of the 10 provinces; that is, the tax capacity of the 10 provinces to collect income tax from their citizens and not the average of only 5 of the 10 provinces. If this is to be representative of our entire country's wealth, in order to determine whether equalization payments should go to any province, we need a true average, not an average that has been miscalculated for the past 25 years, based on only 5 provinces.

Parameters such as property tax must also be changed. Something is wrong here. For 15 years, Quebec has been fighting against Statistics Canada's calculation method, which makes for muddled, incredibly complicated assessments worthy of the cleverest economists I have ever known. Yet it is easy to determine the actual property value of a province or Quebec using the real figures. This approach shortchanges Quebec in particular and gives an unrealistic picture of each province's land wealth. Reform is needed.

We must be guided by these two parameters as we reform the tax system involving the federal government, Quebec and the provinces, in order to correct the fiscal imbalance.

Once again, if the Prime Minister tries to backtrack, he will hear from us. He has claimed since he was elected that he always honours his commitments, but this is the most important commitment of all.

I am also referring to a major disappointment directly connected to the budget: the payment of $1,200 for every child under six.

My colleague from Trois-Rivières worked very hard to try to persuade the government, and I did the same with the Minister of Finance. We would have liked the $1,200 to be converted into a refundable tax credit, simply because the government would not be interfering in the jurisdictions of the Government of Quebec and the provinces with a direct transfer that impinges on the prerogative of Quebec, in particular, with regard to family policy, and because families would not have to pay tax on the $1,200.

The government opted for the suggestion to pay $1,200 in cash, $100 a month, for every child under six. It exempted the national child benefit from the cuts in family benefits. But the national child care supplement, which helps the most disadvantaged families, will be abolished starting next year.

I was rather struck by the speeches of my Conservative colleagues, the Prime Minister, even the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, who stated that their principal clientele consists of families with a stay at home parent. When we examine the specifics of the budget, it is precisely these families who will suffer because of the elimination of the national child care supplement. The family without day care expenses and by implication the one with a stay at home parent—the family focussed on by the Conservatives--will be losing out on $486 per year, plus income tax, because of the disappearance of this program next year.

With one hand they are giving and with the other they are taking away. They claim to be helping this type of family, but really it is the main victim of this budget. If this $1,200 transfer had been a tax credit, three things would have happened.

First, the $9.6 billion budget for this measure would have been respected, without going outside the fiscal framework. Second, low, middle, and moderately-high income families would have paid practically no tax on the $1,200 per child. Third, the families targeted by this measure would have benefited from it. Now we are in the situation where richer households are the main beneficiaries. This is not acceptable. They cannot say one thing and do another. This is a major disappointment.

The Bloc Québécois has a message for families with regard to the $1,200: put aside a few hundred dollars because, next spring, there will be a nasty surprise when they fill out their income tax forms. At that point, after having spent the $1,200 per child, they will realize that they have to pay tax on that amount.

With regard to social housing, the Bloc would have preferred the government to be more generous. Clearly, the $800 million taken from the 2005 and 2006 surplus is a good start. Not a penny had been invested in social housing by the government since 1993. So $800 million is better than nothing. However there are billions of dollars—nearly $4 billion, I believe—going to waste at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. That money could be used to develop social housing. In any case, the Bloc has not waited for the government. My colleague from Quebec City, who has to compensate for the inertia and incompetence of the new members for the Quebec City region—in particular, Conservative members—will be tabling a bill which would put the CMHC surplus to use to build social housing.

Let us now speak of employment insurance. We were expecting at least some awareness of this issue on the part of the Conservative government. We know that it is not part of its core philosophy, but it seems to me that we have been fighting for employment insurance reform for quite a long time. When the Conservatives were in opposition, we even fought certain battles together. Sixty percent of the clientele, a figure which is rising where women and young people are concerned, has been excluded from the EI program since the previous government decided in 1996 to put the axe to it, tighten the eligibility criteria and set up a totally brutal program which strips the dignity from people already suffering from the scourge of unemployment. There is nothing on employment insurance.

The Bloc and the government have been discussing the POWA for three weeks. I myself have been in conversation with the Minister of Finance in particular. The aim was to persuade this government to reintroduce the program for older worker adjustment as it existed in 1997. This is urgent. In his budget speech, the Minister of Finance made a commitment to consider this program. It must not just land on his plate and stay ignored for years. He made a commitment to doing a feasibility study. As we see it, the purpose of a feasibility study is to estimate the annual costs of this program, to ascertain whether those costs could explode in more and more spending, year after year. This cost study must be done quickly.

In 1997, when the POWA was abolished, it was costing Canada $17 million per year. That money was used to rescue households composed of persons aged 55 and over who were victims of mass layoffs. Had this program been in place this year, its projected costs have been estimated at around $100 million for Canada as a whole. That is a generous estimate. In fact, the amount could be some $75 million or $80 million more than $100 million. That is not expensive, and it could help to prevent tragedies, especially in single-industry regions or regions that rely on virtually one industry, where there is only one principal employer.

Because of emerging countries and globalization, there are massive layoffs. It is obvious that companies have to re-organize, become more competitive, and prepare to face these new emerging countries and international competition. The victims of this, though, are often older workers.

Last week, a citizen from Acton Vale wrote to me about this. An Airbus employee, she had worked for 28 years for the same company. However, because of the need to upgrade and become more competitive, the company had to reduce its workforce, quicken the pace, and ensure that employees produced more than before, one and a half times more.

These people have given 28, 35 or 40 years of their lives to a company where the work is tough, like companies that manufacture textiles, clothing and footwear—military footwear in particular. They have devoted all those years to a company. They are tired out and on the verge of retirement at 55 years of age or more. They cannot find another job very easily because they have always done the same work—and their spouses have always done the same for the same company. So they find themselves in difficult situations. These people, who worked all those years, exhaust their meagre employment insurance benefits and are then forced to liquidate all their assets to survive the period between 55 and 65 years of age, when they can retire.

As a result, they lose all their dignity. After having contributed to corporate profits and to the development and growth of their regions, they find themselves terribly squeezed at 55 years of age. They are told they are on their own and no one shows any appreciation for them.

In my view, we should show more gratitude and compassion for them than we do now. I cannot believe that there is no way to find $100 million in a budget of $198 billion to help these older workers victimized by mass layoffs.

In the manufacturing sector, we expected to see an assistance plan to improve competitiveness and help these companies along. The sectors that are considered weakened, like furniture, clothing, textiles and softwood lumber, need a little help in view of all that has happened over the last few years. But there is nothing for them in the budget. That is a big disappointment for us.

The same is true for the Kyoto protocol. Canada is currently losing all credibility when it comes to dealing with greenhouse gas emissions. In economic terms we have always referred to the Kyoto protocol as a minimum minimorum accord. Minimorum is the smallest minimum on a curve. The budget needed to go much further in order to ensure that future generations are not penalized for the way we have destroyed the environment in the past.

This is an urgent problem around the globe. Mr. Suzuki, among others, keeps saying so. We have to implement measures that go further than the Kyoto protocol. We currently have a government that thinks that the challenge of achieving this minimum minimorum is too great.

There is another irritant. I will not have enough time to go over it all. Let us talk about the Canadian Securities Commission. For 15 years now they have been harping on about the Canadian Securities Commission, which, as hon. members know, comes under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. The federal government needs to keep its nose out of it. The Canadian Securities Commission would only promote Toronto and Bay Street. In fact, it is the only province that has been completely stuck on this idea for about 13 years now.

I could have mentioned culture, which is also a great disappointment. My colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Lambert, said enough about it. We expected $150 million, but got $50 million for two years.

If it were not for the firm commitment on the fiscal imbalance, we would have gladly voted against this budget. For the rest, we hope the government will understand and not go back on its plan for the fiscal imbalance, that it will implement measures on employment insurance, and set up POWA quickly, including the special EI pilot project, which will end on June 30.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

I listened carefully to his speech. His words were refreshing—he talked about a positive budget and a good start.

I believe this to be an accurate description of the past 13 weeks, unlike the past 13 years of Liberal powerlessness, inertia and incompetence with a Bloc opposition.

However, he left out one thing, and I would like to know his opinion about it. With respect to the fiscal imbalance, we know that our government took immediate measures: the $670 million that will soon be paid out to eliminate the fiscal imbalance, the 6% increase in transfer payments for health, and equalization.

What about equalization? How does my colleague think that equalization can be used to develop and improve the prosperity of Quebec and the rest of the country?