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

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

moved 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.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour to stand and introduce Bill C-13, the budget implementation act. The purpose of Bill C-13, of course, is to implement the measures announced in budget 2006.

The measures contained in this bill were outlined by the finance minister in his speech in this House on May 2. These measures will make a real difference to Canadians, because in implementing this year's budget, Bill C-13 focuses on our new government's promises and priorities, delivers real results to people and lays a solid foundation for Canada's future.

Before I talk more about how budget 2006 and the measures in this bill fulfill our promises to Canadians, it is important to note first that this government is aware of the variables involved in budget planning. I am talking about variables such as changes in commodity prices, especially in the energy sector, or the variable of an appreciating dollar under pressure from global current account imbalances, reflecting, for example, developments in the U.S.

That is why our new government's budget plan is based on and delivers fiscal discipline. It does this by providing a clear, responsible agenda to build a better Canada, starting by addressing the five priorities set out in the Speech from the Throne. These priorities are: cleaning up government by improving accountability; lowering taxes for working Canadians; protecting Canadian families and communities; supporting parents' choice in child care; and delivering the health care Canadians need by developing a patient wait times guarantee with the provinces.

I would now like to illustrate just how budget 2006 has supported each of these priorities and the promises we made to Canadians with respect to the priorities. At the same time, I will also show how the proposals contained in this bill fit into the big picture of helping to build a solid foundation for Canada's future.

First, budget 2006 responds to this government's priority of improving accountability. This budget builds on the reforms of the federal accountability action plan, the very first piece of legislation introduced by our new government.

Improving accountability means, for example, that our budget decisions will be implemented over the next two years. In contrast, Liberal plans were spread out over five years and most of the measures barely took effect until the back end of those five years. Of course, anything or nothing might happen if promises are made that will not be kept for five long years. By contrast, measures in the bill before the House today have been introduced by our government because they are affordable now, ready to be implemented now and will take effect by next year, not half a decade from now.

Also, budget 2006 proposes to restrain the growth of spending, which exploded upward to increase nearly 15% a year under the Liberals. It commits to a new approach to overall expenditure management. We are determined to ensure that programs are not just feel-good programs thrown out there for show in some kind of smoke and mirrors exercise, but that they really focus on results and deliver value for Canadians' hard-earned money.

To achieve better expenditure management, the President of the Treasury Board will identify $1 billion of savings in 2006-07 and in the next year, 2007-08. That is only one-half of 1% of total government spending in savings per year, but we think it is important that we continue to look for ways to save Canadians money. In the fall, in just a few weeks' time, the President of the Treasury Board will report his findings of where these savings can be achieved.

Also, our budget plans to reduce the public debt by $3 billion each year. As a result of this plan, the goal of lowering the debt to GDP ratio to 25% will be achieved one year earlier.

Budget 2006 also announces that the government will consider allocating a portion of any year-end surplus over $3 billion to the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan. Of course, one of the main benefits of this action would be to improve fairness for younger Canadians by lowering contributions in the future for future generations of workers, and it would also help to fund the huge unfunded liability in those plans.

Financial reporting will be improved, with one example being federally funded foundations, which are now hidden from the taxpayers who fund them. This will be consistent with recommendations from the Auditor General.

This government recognizes that Canadians pay too much tax. According to the Fraser Institute, while the average family's income has gone up 1,100% since 1961, its taxes have shot up a whopping 1,600%, outstripping the growth in income. Budget 2006 delivers more tax relief for people than the last four federal budgets combined. It puts twice as much resources into tax relief as it does into new spending.

We feel this is only fair to Canadians who work hard to fund the programs of governments. In fact, 90% of the tax savings that we offer in this budget will go to individual Canadians and their families.

We just have to look at the budget measures proposed in Bill C-13 that will put more money in the pockets of Canadians. To begin with, this bill delivers on the government's commitment to cut the GST by one percentage point, down to 6%, effective this July 1. This GST cut will benefit all Canadians by close to $9 billion over two years from that one reduction, even those who do not earn enough money to pay personal income tax. Very importantly, to provide relief to low and modest income Canadians, the budget keeps the GST credit at current levels even though the GST is being cut.

That is not all. Bill C-13 also proposes a comprehensive plan to reduce personal income taxes for all taxpayers, starting with an increase in the basic personal amount. That is the amount that an individual can earn without paying any tax. We want to make sure that this amount grows each year and remains above the currently legislated levels into 2006, 2007 and beyond.

In concert with this plan, Bill C-13 also proposes to permanently reduce the lowest personal income tax rate from 16% to 15.5% effective January 1, 2006. It also confirms that the rate will be 15% from January 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006. Together, these measures will provide personal income tax relief of almost $2.8 billion in this coming fiscal year, 2006-07, and a further $1.9 billion in 2007-08.

We need to affirm and remind ourselves that working Canadians are the foundation of Canada's economic growth. However, choosing to work also means additional costs, costs for everything from uniforms to safety gear to home computers and various supplies. In recognition of these costs, budget 2006 will introduce the Canada employment credit. This is a new employment expense tax credit for employees' work expenses. The credit will significantly increase the amount of income that working Canadians can earn without paying federal income tax, to almost $10,000 by 2007.

Taken together, these measures will deliver almost $20 billion in tax relief for people over the next two years. As a result, about 655,000 low income Canadians, or two-thirds of a million Canadians, will be removed from the tax rolls.

Budget 2006 also recognizes that creating an environment for more and better jobs and for strong economic growth depends on having a competitive tax system. The engines of our economy, our wealth creators, both large and small, should not have to go into the market square with the ball and chain of heavy taxes tied around their ankles.

Budget 2006 proposes the tax relief that we promised to Canadians. In fact, the same promises were made by the former government, but they were never delivered. We will deliver tax relief that will enable Canada's businesses to go into a fair fight with their competitors. Bill C-13 proposes a significant business tax relief plan that will reduce the general corporate income tax rate from 21% down to 19% by January 1, 2010. The bill also proposes to eliminate the corporate surtax for all corporations in 2008 and eliminate the federal capital tax as of January 1, 2006. That is two years ahead of schedule.

These proposed cuts will allow Canada to regain the solid statutory tax advantage that we had prior to the 2004 tax changes with our biggest competitor, the United States. We are lowering taxes for working Canadians and also for Canadian job creators.

Another of our government's five priorities is to protect Canadian families and communities. Canadians are proud of our country and our country's tradition of safe and security communities. We will take vigorous measures to keep our streets safe and our borders secure. To ensure that Canada remains safe and secure, budget 2006 allocates funding to hire 1,000 more RCMP officers and additional federal prosecutors to more effectively deal with drugs and gun smuggling. The budget also proposes to arm border officers and eliminate work alone posts. We want to stop the bad guys, not provide them free passage into our good country.

The budget provides needed funds to further improve Canada's pandemic preparedness. On top of that, budget 2006 commits to a total investment of over $5 billion to strengthen Canada's security forces, starting with more than $1 billion coming over the next two years.

Perhaps the priority that is most widely talked about in the 2006 budget is the universal child care plan. Hon. members will no doubt all agree that one of the most important investments government can make is to support families as they raise their children. That is why budget 2006 announced the kind of investments that will make a real difference to parents by providing more choice in child care for families with young children.

As a result of these budget measures, total direct federal support to families will be approximately $11.7 billion for this fiscal year, with the vast majority of benefits directed to low and middle income families. An integral part of that support for families is contained in Bill C-13. Specifically, it proposes $3.7 billion in funding over two years for the universal child care benefit, which will give all families $100 per month for each child under six. This benefit will help some 1.5 million families with over two million children. As well, budget 2006 proposes to invest $250 million each year, starting in 2007, in a new planned and practical initiative to actually increase the number of child care spaces for those who need them, by 25,000 each year.

The fifth priority of the new government is to ensure that all Canadians receive necessary medical treatment within medically acceptable waiting times. Budget 2006 includes a commitment to work with the provinces and territories to develop a wait times guarantee for medically necessary services.

Budget 2006 also announces new allocations of the $11.3 billion in equalization and $2.1 billion territorial formula financing for this year. These new allocations are based on the latest available fiscal and economic data. They give certainty to the provinces and territories and ensures that they will all benefit.

Six provinces and one territory will benefit directly from this decision compared to what they were advised, back in November 2005, they would receive. The government is also providing one time adjustments to fully offset the equalization and territorial formula financing declines that would have been experienced by two provinces and two territories under this decision. Bill C-13 sets out payment levels based on this new data and provides the funding for these one time adjustments.

Budget 2006 goes above and beyond our five priorities. For example, the government recognizes the difficulty some Canadians face when they must deal with a disability. In 2003 the technical advisory committee on tax measures for persons with disabilities was established to provide tax advice for persons with disabilities. The committee released its final report entitled “Disability Tax Fairness” in December 2004. It made 25 policy and administrative recommendations.

The government endorses the work of the committee. Budget 2006 proposes to fully implement these policy recommendations. Indeed, the bill goes beyond the committee's recommendations. Here are the measures proposed in Budget 2006 to assist Canadians with disabilities.

Bill C-13 proposes to increase the maximum annual child disability benefit, effective January 2006. This benefit is a supplement to the Canada child tax benefit for children in low and modest income families who meet the eligibility criteria for the disability tax credit.

Effective July 2006, the bill also proposes to extend eligibility for the child disability benefit to middle and higher income families caring for a child who is eligible for the disability tax credit, including now all families that are currently eligible for the Canada child tax benefit base benefit.

We will also increase the maximum amount of the refundable medical expense supplement for the 2006 taxation year. The supplement improves work incentives for Canadians with disabilities by helping to offset the loss of coverage for medical and disability related expenses under social assistance when recipients move into the labour force.

The government understands the challenges that families can face when dealing with a disability. The Minister of Finance will appoint a small group of experts to examine additional ways to help parents save for the long term financial security of a child with severe disabilities. We have asked these experts to provide their recommendations very quickly, within six months, because we intend to move ahead to support Canadians with disabilities.

On still another front, this year's budget works to improve the environment in which we live. This includes funding to assist and build support systems. For example, Bill C-13 encourages charitable donations by eliminating the capital gains tax on donations of listed securities to public charities.

Unlike the previous Liberal government, which talked a lot about the environment while greenhouse gas emissions rose under its watch to 30% above the target, our government is committed to concrete actions that will deliver real results in Canada. We do not believe in spending billions of dollars offshore to keep on polluting here at home.

We will preserve natural areas by proposing to exempt donations of ecologically sensitive land from the capital gains tax.

These are only a few examples of the ways in which this new Conservative government is keeping its promises to stand up for Canada and for working class Canadians.

As members can see, the government's first budget takes real action to keep promises and address core priorities. The measures contained in the bill would make a real difference to Canadians.

In summary, budget 2006 focuses on the priorities of Canadians, the measures they elected this government to deliver. The budget does deliver real results for Canadians and does so in a financially and fiscally responsible way. I therefore encourage all hon. members to accord the bill swift passage in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, the day after the budget, my office received a call from a constituent from the riding of Brandon—Souris. He was very puzzled why the budget said his income tax rate would go down when in fact it would go up. He had called his constituency and was told that he had been duped by the media, and in fact the tax rate would go down. He said to my office that he had been duped into voting Conservative in the last election, but as a consequence of this lie, he had been un-duped and would subsequently no longer be voting Conservative.

Real Canadians do not care whether tax rates are legislated or done by ways and means or orders in council. This is Ottawa talk. What people care about is the taxes they actually pay. As sure as day is day and night is night, if we look at our tax form, if we read the budget, it is abundantly a fact that Canadians will pay a 15% tax rate at the lowest rate in 2005 and 15.5% next year. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

Will the parliamentary secretary, at least in the interest of transparency, honesty and accountability, acknowledge this basic fact?

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to say that under this budget every single Canadian will have lower taxes. In fact, the budget delivers twice the tax relief even if the Liberals had kept their promise, which they rarely were able to do.

What the member likes to do is torque one little piece of our package and make some assumptions on that instead of doing the honest thing, the true thing, and looking at all the measures taken together. All these measures taken together leave working class Canadians far better off, and they know it. In fact, the budget delivers $20 million in tax relief over just two years back into the hands of Canadians.

The member likes to twist numbers and talk about them in isolation. He knows, and Canadians know, which is even more important, that middle and lower class income Canadians are better off under this plan because it contains real tax relief and a number of other measures instead of being robbed for wasted projects by the Liberals. We are going to be fiscally responsible in a way that provides real tax relief to all Canadians.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Tory budget seems long on corporate tax cuts, and I count three or four specific items, but short on corporate tax fairness.

In the first Tory budget, why did the Conservatives not do something about what is called, in the language of accountants, tax-motivated expatriation? This is a nice way of putting what are considered to be sleazy, tax-cheating loopholes where corporate tax fugitives create dummy companies in corporate tax havens so they do not have to pay their corporate taxes in Canada. The most egregious example about which most Canadians know is our former prime minister. He very conveniently tore up all the tax treaties with all the other tax havens except for the one country where he himself had all the dummy companies of Canada Steamship Lines so he could be a corporate tax fugitive and avoid paying his fair share of corporate taxes.

Why did the Conservatives choose not to plug this last corporate tax haven, which is being exploited? My figures are that it is costing Canadians $15 billion worth of lost revenue?

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will set aside the temptation to talk about the former prime minister, but I will say it is important for us to remember that both small and large corporations in this country are the engines of wealth creation and they are job creators. It is important that they have a fair tax regime in order that they continue their work to build the Canadian economy and provide a higher standard of living and prosperity for our country. We want to make sure that is done.

We want to make sure that our tax regime is fair for the companies doing business in Canada because there is a huge incentive for them to move elsewhere. Capital is now international and we have to balance the need for fair taxation in our country with the need to attract investment and attract job-creating activity, wealth-creating activity. We try to strike the right balance.

My friend and I might have some debate about the right balance and whether we have struck it. I think that is a very important and fruitful discussion, but balance is important. That is what we strive to deliver and I believe this budget goes a long way toward doing that.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary mentioned the tax reductions in the budget as being larger tax cuts than what were in the last two budgets of the Liberal government.

She failed to mention that in 2000 the Liberal government introduced and implemented the largest tax cut in Canadian history of $100 billion. That was focused at income tax reductions which every serious economist in this country has said is the way that we should proceed, that if we are going to reduce taxes, we should reduce income taxes. The Conservative government has decided to reduce the GST because it is politically expedient.

The member also failed to acknowledge the economic performance under the Liberal government. She was not very gracious in her remarks about that. I wonder if she would reflect upon that and recall that during our Liberal government tenure we had consistent economic growth of 3% per year. We introduced and implemented the largest tax cut in Canadian history. We paid down $55 billion in debt. We eliminated a $42 billion deficit. The economy produced the lowest level of unemployment in Canada's history in the last 40 or 50 years.

I am wondering if the member has forgotten those particular elements because we hear often about the last 12 or 13 years of the Liberal mandate.

Maybe the member could acknowledge those in her remarks when she replies, but if she does not, I wonder if she would comment on the two year horizon that the government is working on in terms of its fiscal plan. Is that because the Conservatives do not really want to outline for Canadians what their plan is beyond that? Certainly the press and very good analysts are speculating that another $20 billion in cuts are coming from the government. I am wondering where those cuts are going to come from and is that the reason the current government is on a two year horizon instead of a five year planning horizon?

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would advise Canadians to be extremely wary of opposition speculation. It is seldom either accurate or fair. The opposition has an agenda to scare Canadians. We have seen this over and over, especially during the election, and usually not based on a shred of truth.

The two year planning horizon is because Canadians are tired of promises down the road, that five years from now they are going to really get something, but hardly any of it happens now. Canadians want to know that if the government promises something, it will be now and they can count on it, that it is going to be this year, that it is going to be in the next few months. That is reasonable. The Liberal promises are made for half a decade down the road, but anything can happen; there are all kinds of variables. If the promises are made and kept now, quickly, then Canadians know they can take them to the bank. That is important.

The member bragged about the fiscal record of his government. I would be very careful if I were the member. Under the Liberal government spending increased 15% a year. In the last year how many Canadians had a 15% increase in their incomes so they could fund that kind of spending increase by the Liberals? If the spending increase had given them something useful in some respects, that might have been a different thing, but what did the public see? They saw money squandered and wasted for cronyism, pork-barrelling and corrupt practices.

When Canadians see that government is not managed in a fiscally sound way using their money overall, they get concerned. They are not willing to send money to Ottawa to be wasted, squandered and mismanaged in schemes that are not fair to all Canadians.

The member has a lot to answer for as part of a government that really destroyed Canadians' trust in many ways in the operations of government. That is why the Conservatives are keeping their promises now. We are keeping them in a short timeframe. We are putting into place good fiscal management, sound fiscal practices and more transparency and accountability so that taxpayers can actually see that their money is being properly used. I would ask the member opposite to applaud that because it is right for Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the remarks of the parliamentary secretary made abundantly clear, this is a dishonest budget. It is a visionless budget. It is a mean-spirited budget that tries in a blatant way, and it will be unsuccessful, to play to the Conservative political base.

I think few things are more important than basic honesty. As a constituent from Brandon—Souris discovered on budget day, the budget contains a lie. It says that his income tax rate will go down when in fact it will go up. Whatever the dollar amounts involved, that is irrelevant compared to the basic honesty of a budget document and speech which is entirely lacking from the basic point that it said the tax is going down when the tax is going up. Nothing else matters except for the budget which does not tell the truth. There are other ways in which this is a dishonest budget.

The Indian affairs minister stands in question period in his sanctimonious way and defends his funding to aboriginals when a finance official said only in the last couple of days that the government will have five billion additional dollars, approximately, as a consequence of its reneging on the Kelowna accord. The Conservatives did it. It is confirmed by the officials and they do not admit it. That is dishonest.

They have reneged on the Canada-Ontario agreement. They have reneged on the EnerGuide program, which is a highly efficient program and which really hit one low income individual who had already committed to $3,000 and the government is not following through.

In terms of the point my colleague made, it is disingenuous of this budget to ignore the $100 billion tax cuts delivered in 2000. The Conservatives say that the Liberal government would not deliver over a period of five years. Every penny of that $100 billion has been delivered to Canadians in lower tax cuts. That is a fact. Check the budget documents. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the Conservative government has given more tax relief than the Liberals did.

If the numbers are calculated correctly, one will find that in the years since the government balanced its budget in 1997, the Liberal government tax relief amounted to $16 billion per year as opposed to this budget's $6 billion per year. Those are facts. The $16 billion has been delivered. It is not a fiction and so I think the Conservative government is once again being disingenuous with this dishonest budget.

The Conservatives are breaking promises. Many Canadians were looking forward to capital gains relief. Nowhere is that to be seen in this budget.

[Larry Bagnell]

A promise is a promise.

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

Well, they have broken their promise on this and in many other areas. That is my first point. It is a dishonest--

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The House knows how reluctant I am to rise on points of order, but the Standing Orders explicitly state that one cannot cast aspersions or imply the dishonesty of other members. By the words the member is using, he is doing that to our Minister of Finance. I think, Mr. Speaker, you should at minimum ask him to desist, or at least you should ask him to withdraw the previous words and get on with a proper debate on the budget bill.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I will hear the hon. member for York South--Weston on the point of order.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, they characterize the whole Liberal Party as dishonest. At least the member, if it is true, was only alleging that one member was dishonest.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the same point of order.

I was just about to rise to add my voice to that of the hon. member from Edmonton. I have actually been counting and my Liberal colleague started by using the word “lie”. He used the word “dishonest” three times. He used the words “does not tell the truth” twice. He used the term “government is not following the truth” twice. I do not know how much closer one can get to using unparliamentary language. He certainly crossed the line from my standards and from the standards of the NDP caucus.

[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.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my view is that the Bloc Québécois made a really bad deal. I honestly believe, and I say this with all due respect, there was more on the table that it could have used its bargaining power to achieve. This is a missed opportunity not just for the Bloc but for all of us, because in this minority Parliament the three opposition parties have all the power. We have the bargaining leverage, but it was given away. All negotiations stopped the very moment the leader of the Bloc Québécois walked out of this room and, in front of the microphone and the cameras, said, “I support that budget”. Negotiations ended. Kyoto, good-bye.

We could have forced the Tories to accept Kyoto had the Bloc only held its ground and stayed tough. It did not for some reason. It is beyond me. I cannot see the benefit. At least when the NDP traded our support to prop up the Liberal Party, we held our noses and supported the Liberal Party but we traded it for $4.8 billion worth of spending.

Some people argue that the Liberals did not follow through with their promise, but in fact the Tories are fulfilling the promise the Liberals made by putting that money in trust to fulfill Bill C-48. We got something for our vote. The Bloc got nothing for its vote. It is like the Jack and the Beanstalk story, where we trade the family cow for three beans, none of which sprout.

I have a great deal of respect for my friend and colleague from the Bloc. Will he tell me, though, what did the Bloc get for this to sell out so early and to sell out on all of his opposition colleagues?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been attempting for a while to explain to my colleagues that the real problem with the entire federation is the large amount of money in Ottawa and the small amount in the provinces.

One day, they will understand that the fight led by the Bloc Québécois for Quebeckers is, at the same time, a fight for all Canadians, who see, when they use their roads, drink water from the tap, have household garbage problems and health and education issues, that the root of these problems is that there is too much money in Ottawa and not enough in the provinces.

That is what we are trying to do and, for the first time, we have a government that seems to be interested in resolving this imbalance. Thus, we are giving it a chance.

As for the rest, I would say to my NDP colleague, that this budget has done more for workers than the NDP has been able to do. Although it supported the Liberal budget , the NDP obtained nothing for workers. However, we have obtained a commitment from the government to analyze and solve the issue of older workers. I am speaking of all those individuals who, because of globalization and emerging markets, are losing their jobs after 15, 20 or 25 years of service and cannot find other work because they are over 50 and are having trouble. It will be a Bloc Québécois victory when an announcement is made in this regard. I hope he will applaud at that time.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate on Bill C-13, the government's bill to implement the budget.

I had been cautiously optimistic that both this bill and the budget before it might have contained some good news for my community of Hamilton Mountain and, indeed, for all working families across Canada. After all, with this government's fiscal capacity, this budget was a huge opportunity to invest. From its own books, we know that the Conservative government has an $8 billion surplus this year and $83 billion in surplus money over the next five years.

There has never been a better opportunity to invest in child care, education, training, and the environment, yet the government chose instead to squander over $7 billion of that $8 billion on tax cuts and subsidies to oil and gas companies. It is no wonder that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

My colleague from Winnipeg North, who is also our party's finance critic, released information yesterday which clearly indicates that while the rich are getting richer, most Canadian families have seen their real incomes shrink since 1989. The fact is that the average income for the majority of Canadians, before taxes and transfers, is lower today than it was in 1980. Most Canadian families are poorer, and the recent federal budget will not be helpful in fighting this family income crisis.

The Conference Board of Canada reports that while the average CEO experienced record growth in total compensation, at about 20% a year, most Canadians are working longer and harder for less pay and a smaller piece of the pie. It is simplistic, naive and even manipulative of the federal government to tell people that tax cuts will fix the problem.

What Canadians want and deserve is an investment in the things that matter most. Unfortunately, in that regard this budget is a missed opportunity.

The only real investment is a re-announcement by the government of the money that the NDP budget delivered for working families in the last Parliament. We secured $1.6 billion for housing. The Conservatives re-announced that spending by allocating $800 million to affordable housing, $300 million to northern housing and $300 million to off reserve aboriginal housing. Even at that, they are still $200 million short of investing the full amount of the $1.6 billion that the NDP budget delivered.

Similarly, the NDP secured $900 million for public transit and energy retrofit programs and another $400 million under Bill C-66. That totalled $1.3 billion, the exact amount the Conservatives re-announced in their budget.

In yet another re-announcement of NDP money, the government reduced the $1.5 billion commitment to post-secondary education from the NDP budget by 33% to just $1 billion. Even worse, instead of letting that money go to tuition fee reductions, to which it was originally assigned, the Conservatives have redirected the money solely to bricks and mortar instead. Investments in infrastructure will do nothing to protect Canadian students from skyrocketing debts and surely will not ease the barrier to education that rising costs represent.

When it comes to foreign aid, the government has also failed both Canadians and the international community. The Conservatives' budget simply re-announced investments made in the NDP budget. Even at that, it reduced our country's contribution from the $500 million the NDP had secured last year to a mere $332 million. We are falling further and further behind in honouring the millennium development goal and meeting our commitment of committing 0.7% of GDP to foreign aid.

Let us be clear about this. Meeting these commitments is not a matter of altruism. It is the most practical response Canada can offer to reduce global economic inequality, the single most important contributor to international instability and insecurity. It is time that Canada stepped up to the plate and lived up to the commitments we made when we supported the more than 50 United Nations resolutions at the General Assembly, as well as other votes, all of which supported the 0.7% target.

In my riding of Hamilton Mountain, more and more people are joining the campaign to make poverty history. I wear a white bracelet as a symbol of solidarity with all others who are committed to helping the world's poorest and most needy people.

While I am speaking about our international obligations, let me take just a moment to speak about the crisis in Darfur, which the government fails to address altogether in its recent budget. New Democrats are on the record as urging the government to use Canada's influence to insist that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council respect and support the right to protect.

Members of the Security Council, including China, Russia, France and the United States, must put an end to their self-serving delays and their lip service and act now to apply international pressure on the Khartoum regime to end the violence in Darfur by respecting the arms embargo mandated under Security Council resolution 1591. Canada must encourage the UN to consider the deployment of a UN-led peacekeeping force to join the AU in trying to stabilize and improve conditions for the people of Darfur.

Beyond the UN, there are measures the government can take that will have an immediate impact. The first step must be to increase the funding to the world food program for emergency aid. I am sorry to say that funding for this program was slashed by the Liberal government from $20 million in 2005 to just $5 million in 2006. This can be corrected.

Second, Canada must strive to ensure that development is not diverted to the Sudanese government, but rather that it reaches the people in need. This country's record on foreign aid had been one of steady and shameful decline. That is why the NDP ensured the inclusion of half a billion dollars for foreign aid in Bill C-48, our budget amendment of last year, to help those suffering in countries such as Sudan. Those funds are now available and should be used.

Third, Canada must increase its direct aid to the African Union.

Finally, the government can and must take immediate steps to support target sanctions against government leaders.

There certainly is no shortage of international need for Canadian leadership. Unfortunately, such leadership thus far has been sadly lacking. In fact, the government has not demonstrated any better leadership in dealing with domestic issues.

As I said earlier, this budget is one of missed opportunities. Let me give members just a few more examples.

Although I have addressed issues of poverty in a global context, allow me to take just a moment to reflect on the increasing poverty at home. In my hometown of Hamilton, one in five people live below the poverty line. Twenty-five per cent of those are children, but we all know that children are not poor. It is their parents who are poor. Hamilton families need help now.

We need to invest in our manufacturing sector to ensure that we will continue to have decent paying jobs in our community, yet Bill C-13, the budget implementation bill, is silent on this issue. It offers neither a steel industry strategy nor an auto sector strategy.

Nor does Bill C-13 do anything to provide funding for decent paying public sector jobs for professions such as nurses or nurse practitioners, who are so crucial to improving our health care system. Similarly, the doctor shortage remains unaddressed. In fact, as I will return to later, the entire budget is largely silent on one of the top of mind issues for most Canadians, and that is health care.

Continuing on the jobs front for the moment, decent paying jobs also are not being supported by adequate training and retraining opportunities in this bill. Without such support, it is impossible to build and maintain the skilled workforce that is essential to supporting the 21st century economy.

Of course, there is the double-barrelled impact of not supporting our municipalities with money for infrastructure renewal and housing. Not only does this curtail the number of building trade jobs in our communities, but it also adversely impacts the ability of cities like Hamilton to provide residents with the services they deserve.

In short, there is nothing in this bill to offer hope to working families. It is simply a missed opportunity.

What about those whose careers are behind them? This budget offers absolutely nothing to our seniors. They have worked hard all their lives, they have played by the rules, and yet they are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet.

Despite a compelling report entitled “Aging and Poverty in Canada”, by the government's own National Advisory Council on Aging, the Conservatives have done nothing to address any of its key recommendations. Instead of offering income tax credits that will do nothing to improve the lives of most Canadian seniors, the government should lift seniors out of poverty by increasing the guaranteed income supplement to at least the low income cut-offs recognized by Statistics Canada.

Instead of proposing to pump $3 billion of taxpayers' money into the CPP for questionable purposes, the government should be using that money to raise the public pension benefits of all seniors. CPP has always been a “pay as you go” plan that does not rely on public money and, by the government's own estimates, CPP is going to be solvent for more than 75 years. It hardly needs a cash infusion. It is seniors who desperately need additional cash, not in the pension fund, but in their pockets.

With so many private pension funds currently in a state of underfunding, it would have been helpful if the government's only statement on this critical issue had not been to address debt servicing, but rather had focused on benefit security for workers and retirees made vulnerable by the solvency issues surrounding their pension plans.

I introduced a bill in the House on Tuesday entitled the workers first bill, which would put workers at the head of the list of creditors in cases of commercial bankruptcies. If the government really wants to do the right thing for seniors, I would encourage the industry minister to work with me so that together we could ensure quick passage of my bill for the protection of workers' wages and benefits.

There is one more pension issue that needs to be addressed immediately, but it is one that only got a promise of review and more study in the government's budget. That is the issue of survivor pensions.

At first blush, the budget documents that the minister tabled on May 2 seem to offer a faint promise of hope for parents and grandparents of children with physical, psychological and developmental disabilities. In fact, on page 105 the budget states:

An important consideration for parents and grandparents of a child with severe disabilities is how best to ensure the financial security of their child, when they are no longer able to provide support. The Minister of Finance will appoint a small group of experts to examine ways to help parents save for the long term security of a child with severe disabilities and provide their recommendations to the Minister within six months.

While the minister indicates a timetable for receiving initial input, he offers absolutely no timetable for action. In the midst of a minority government, that is a huge concern. Families are tired of waiting. They want answers now.

Moreover, I hope the small group of experts is not limited to actuaries only. This issue goes well beyond exploring options for private pensions and trusts and must include a full examination of all public supports, a new way of dealing with other moneys or assets left to survivors and a prohibition on clawbacks.

I look forward to engaging the Minister of Finance in a dialogue on this issue because action is long overdue. Action of course is also long overdue on a number of other issues but again, instead of dealing with these issues head on, Bill C-13 and the budget represent a missed opportunity.

Let me turn first to health care. If health care is one of the government's top five priorities, why is it barely mentioned in the budget? If it is so important, where is the plan? Where are the imperatives? How is the federal government going to work with the provinces? Where is that information? It certainly is not in the budget implementation bill.

As I have said in the House before, people in my riding of Hamilton Mountain remember only too well the last time a Conservative government turned its mind to health care. The last Conservative government in Ontario, of which the current Minister of Finance was then a member, threatened to close the Henderson Hospital, jeopardized access to home care and did nothing to address the unprecedented shortages of family doctors in the community. In fact, it laid the foundation upon which Premier McGuinty is now building his P3 hospitals and justifying the privatization of health care.

I had hoped that the Minister of Finance might have learned from his mistakes in Ontario and not repeated them here. However, his budget did nothing to expand public home care, an issue which not only impacts the most vulnerable families in the community but is directly linked to opening up beds in the acute care system.

The budget did nothing to reduce wait times for surgeries, which could have been done by investing in training and skills upgrading for health providers, particularly nurses and nurse practitioners.

The budget did nothing to act on the recommendation of the provincial premiers by enacting a national drug plan, which could have saved Canadians $2 billion a year.

In short, this budget should have been an opportunity to get serious about implementing the recommendations of the Romanow report so that governments like the McGuinty Liberals in Ontario would have to stop using the federal government as a scapegoat for proceeding with their ideologically based push toward the privatization of health care. However, instead of seizing the opportunity, this budget is just another missed opportunity.

The same is true of the environment. The Conservative budget and the budget implementation bill that is before the House today do absolutely nothing to address the profound environmental challenges that confront Canadians today. The silence is absolutely deafening.

When it comes to climate change, we have essentially lost yet another year on this most critical issue. It is showing up on the pages of Macleans, on the front page of The New York Times and across our communities, but it is not showing up in the budget. Canadians want this issue addressed. They recognize that the environment and wellness are inextricably linked. They know that environmental issues have a positive impact on our economy, but as of May 2 they also know that the Conservatives do not care.

Over many decades, and sometimes not deservedly, Canada has earned itself a reputation as a country that engages the international community in a positive way, whether it was through former prime minister Pearson's work in the UN or eventually through such treaties as Kyoto.

The Liberal Party of Canada as early as 1993 made commitments, Liberal promises if you will, to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but once in power the Liberals went about doing absolutely the opposite. In fact, emissions rose by over 25%, a record worse than that of the Bush administration in the United States.

Successive Liberal governments have not made the investments to improve the productivity and efficiency of the Canadian economy and to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that it promised to do. There was a deathbed conversion as the Liberals were starting to sink in the polls and only then did a plan finally come forward.

As an environmentalist, I can remember day after day the then minister of the environment saying that the Liberals had a plan, that it was coming, to just hang on and have a little patience. It literally took years. The Kyoto accord was signed in 1997 and the government said nothing until 2005. What did Canada end up with: a discussion paper about climate change. There were no targets, no timelines and no strategy whatsoever.

Now there is a Conservative government in power, a government that has only recently come to realize what most of the world has known for years, that climate change caused by humans is in fact happening and is in fact a threat to both our society and our economy. Yet the budget is devoid of a strategy for dealing with climate change. It is a budget that is being declared an absolute disaster by environmental groups across the country.

Instead of offering solutions and a concrete plan, it cut $1 billion from home retrofit programs that benefited both the environment and low income families across our country. When it comes to the environment, there is no more significant tool than the budget to make real progress. The message the government sent through its first budget is that the environment simply does not matter. The budget has failed Canadians both at home and internationally when it comes to the environment and it is yet another missed opportunity.

By this time in my participation in this debate, I have already outlined at least eight opportunities for meaningful action that were missed in both the budget and the budget implementation bill. Since the government was intent on cutting taxes rather than making meaningful investments that would help working families, perhaps that should not surprise me. There were two other missed opportunities that I would now like to identify which fall squarely into the tax cutting agenda and yet they too are nowhere to be found.

The first issue I would like to raise is the elimination of the goods and services tax on literacy materials. Yesterday I had the good fortune of seconding the introduction of Bill C-276, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, literacy materials. The bill was brought forward by my good friend the NDP finance critic and member for Winnipeg North, who shares my belief that literacy is a necessity and must therefore not be subject to taxes.

For many Canadians the added cost of the GST can be a real impediment and there are far too many barriers to literacy already. Removing the GST on books and audiovisual materials for literacy training in fact complements existing tax relief programs given to organizations that conduct literacy work.

In my view, the GST should never have been imposed on these materials at the outset, but when the Conservatives under Brian Mulroney brought in the GST, they failed to establish an exemption for literacy materials. Despite the fact that the Liberals had 12 years to redress that issue, they failed to seize the opportunity and left the GST in place throughout their term in government.

In this minority Parliament we have the opportunity to do the right thing. Let us act together to remove the GST from all literacy materials. The measure would pay for itself. In our knowledge based economy the bar is being constantly raised higher on the base of skills needed to access decent jobs, to function in daily tasks and to participate in social and political life, and yet despite our technical sophistication, nearly 50% of Canadians still have difficulty working with words and numbers. It is in everyone's interest to raise Canadian literacy rates. As I said earlier, let us act now. It is the right thing to do.

Similarly, if the government is intent on governing through tax cuts, then I have another proposal that would also be the right thing to do. I had the privilege yesterday of seconding the introduction of Bill C-275, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act on feminine hygiene products. The bill was brought forward by my good friend the NDP finance critic and member for Winnipeg North, who shares my belief that taxes on feminine hygiene products are discriminatory.

Charging GST on feminine hygiene products clearly affects women only. It unfairly disadvantages women financially solely because of their reproductive role. Our bill would benefit all Canadian women at some point in their lives and would be of particular value to women with lower incomes. If a proper gender based analysis had been done when the GST was introduced, this discriminatory aspect of the tax would never have been implemented.

I urge all members of the House to support this initiative. I am confident that members of the Conservative government will do so because of their announcement of support last October when they pledged to deal with the tampon tax. Failing to--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to get my comments into the time allotted to me.

I compliment the member on her obviously well researched, albeit somewhat off track, presentation. She did refer to the government being silent on the environment and I have to take exception to that and I will point out a couple of reasons why.

In our budget we have outlined a $1.7 billion investment in new, cleaner transportation to get Canadians out of their cars and into public transit. That is an important initiative for Canadians to help end the pollution that we see in our cities.

Really important to me is that we will be moving to a 5% average renewable content in Canadian motor fuels. I am excited about this for a couple of reasons, for the benefit to the environment, which is important, but also for the benefit to our primary producers, our farmers. It will give farmers an opportunity to have one more market for their products to help them get through the terrible crisis they are going through right now and help the environment at the same time.

The government has also stated that it will review the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA, which will be the first serious review of it since 1987, and will also look at the Great Lakes water issue.

The government is fully engaged on the environment. The environment minister has started us down the right path.

The hon. member stated that our budget was silent on the environment. I ask her to comment on the points I made.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am really delighted at the intervention, because I ran out of time and now I have a whole whack more.

I understand that the Minister of the Environment this weekend will be in Bonn, Germany to chair a conference on climate change. I find it absolutely incredible that the government could send her there, given that the Conservatives have not bought into the Kyoto accord, that the budget offers no plan and that the single biggest tool for creating action on the environment, the budget, is largely silent.

While the hon. member raised a couple of points he would like me to consider, I would like the government to consider this: the EnerGuide program was cut. As of midnight, the level A audits are no longer allowed to be conducted. Not only does that hurt our environment, it hurts the lowest income families in our communities.

In my community of Hamilton, Green Venture has been conducting these audits on behalf of consumers and on behalf of low income families. It will have to potentially lay off up to four staff. This is completely counterproductive to the member's stated goal of wanting to improve the environment.

If the Conservatives are serious about wanting to address environmental issues, they should look at what they can do about the Kyoto plan, what they can do about energy retrofit programs and what they can do to encourage green industries. On none of those issues did their budget make a single bit of difference.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on her comments with respect to the budget, a budget that attacks the most vulnerable in our country.

I know she is a new member so I should cut her some slack, but she really has to do her research if she wants to appear credible when she talks about the environment. She said there were no targets, but Canada had set targets. Even her own member talked about the $1.1 billion that we invested. She just passionately defended one of our programs.

She should have listened to the speeches yesterday, if she were really interested in the environment and Kyoto. It was made quite clear that the Liberal government planned to implement 22 made in Canada plans and programs. These programs would have cut millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases. She cannot say that we were against biodiesel, considering the help we were giving for ethanol development, deepwater cooling, solar heating, wind energy, ground source heat pumps, photovoltaic, geothermal, landfill gas, biomass and low head hydro. We had one of the best auto agreements in the world to cut emissions. We were also in the process of developing legislation for large emitters.

A number of Conservatives have said they believe that climate change is somewhat of a natural phenomena. For the NDP to be unaware of these 22 programs and for them not to support environmental initiatives in what environmental groups said was the greenest budget in history is not a very productive way to support the environment.

I agree things could be improved. We could cut more greenhouse gas emissions. The emissions have gone up because our economy has been so successful, the greatest in the G-8. However, we have cut millions of tonnes. The NDP should support these programs. It should support these cuts and ask for even more.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hardly think New Democrats need to be lectured by a Liberal on environmental action. When the member's government was turfed out of office, emissions had gone up 25%, even more than those emissions under the Bush administration in the United States.

While I appreciate the member's more gentle comments at the beginning, when he congratulated me on my comments about vulnerable people in our communities, let me also use this opportunity to remind members that I have in fact done my research. We have talked to seniors in our communities. They are telling us that they are hurting more each day because their pensions, their fixed incomes, are not keeping up with things like increased property taxes, which would have been helped with some significant investment into municipal infrastructure. They are also being hurt by rising energy prices. With the cut of the EnerGuide program, these seniors have no hope of reducing those costs. We have to remember that public pensions have not been improved in any significant way.

As a House, we owe it to those individuals who built our country, who built our health care system, to ensure that they can retire with the dignity and respect they deserve.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the voters and the citizens of Wellington—Halton Hills for giving me the privilege of representing them on the floor of the House of Commons for the second time. I am truly honoured by this trust and the confidence that the people have shown in me and I am determined to act in a manner that is consistent and worthy of that trust.

I would also like to thank all the volunteers who assisted me in the most recent campaign. Many Canadians may not realize that there are literally tens of thousands of volunteers who help out. In any particular riding, there are hundreds of volunteers who assist in election campaigns. This is time that they take off work and it is time they take away from their families to participate in our democratic and civic processes. It is a commitment they make because they believe in the importance of our parliamentary institutions and in our democracy. I want to thank them especially for taking that time helping me and our government in that regard.

Anybody who has spent time in politics also realizes the enormous burden that our jobs and our work places on our families. I would also like to thank my wife Carrie for all the commitment she has shown over the last number of years in helping me with my work.

Budget 2006 delivers on our commitments. It is a balanced budget that focuses priorities and that delivers on many of the commitments we made in the most recent election campaign, including debt reduction.

In the recent election campaign, we made a number of commitments to the Canadian people. We broke them down into our key five priorities. I am happy to say that our budget delivers on many of those commitments.

Budget 2006 gives tangible expression to the things that we told Canadians we would do. During the election we said that we would commit to certain things. We have come to this House and we have done those things. There is no greater way to restore the trust and faith of Canadians in government than to do what we said we would do during election campaigns.

One of the government's top priorities is to enhance accountability to Canadians and transparency in government operations. The federal accountability action plan published on April 11 introduces a broad range of reforms, including the establishment of a position of parliamentary budget officer and a commitment to provide quarterly updates on fiscal forecasts for the current fiscal year.

The budget offers sweeping tax relief for individual taxpayers, totalling nearly $20 million over two years. That is as much relief as was provided in the last four budgets put together. Budget 2006 provides improved assistance to Canadians and their families, to the tune of $5.2 billion over two years. Budget 2006 invests $1.4 billion over two years in protecting Canadian families and communities, ensuring border security and enhancing public health emergency preparedness.

Over the same period, the budget will provide $73 million for making our financial system safer. The government is also committed to strengthening Canada's role on the international scene by investing $1.1 billion over two years in the Canadian Forces and striving to ensure the efficiency of international aid.

In this budget, the government pledges to take immediate measures to restore fiscal balance in Canada and respond to concerns in that regard, by implementing the ten year plan to strengthen health care and—in conjunction with provincial and territorial governments—developing and introducing a wait time guarantee for necessary medical treatment, among other things.

The budget is also good news for Wellington—Halton Hills. In our area, many farmers over the last year have faced particularly devastating economic circumstances, especially farmers outside the supply managed system. They have indicated to us over the last number of years that they do need help.

Our government has responded. In the budget we fulfilled our election commitment to put an additional $500 million annually into farm income support. Budget 2006 not only delivers on that commitment, but it goes beyond that. Our government has deep roots in rural Canada and we understand the plight that farmers today face. The budget responds to those dire needs of many farmer by putting an additional $1 billion in budget 2006 into farm income support.

The total additional financial support that the Government of Canada has committed to Canadian farmers is $1.5 billion for this current fiscal year.

I am very glad I can go back to the citizens and the farmers of Wellington—Halton Hills and tell them that our government is committed to Canadian agriculture and that we will deliver on those commitments.

Like all provinces, Ontario faces infrastructure challenges. Our government made commitments during the election to help provinces and municipalities with infrastructure. The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has delivered on those commitments. Budget 2006 puts an additional $6.6 billion into infrastructure support: $2.4 billion for the highways and border infrastructure fund; $2 billion for the Canada strategic infrastructure fund; and $2.2 billion for the municipal rural infrastructure fund, also known as COMRIF, in Ontario.

In addition, we met our commitment during the election to continue with the previous government's gas tax commitments by committing an additional $4.4 billion over the next four years to deliver that gas tax on a per capita basis to Canada's municipalities. In budget 2006 municipalities in the province of Ontario will receive $233.9 million as part of that commitment to fulfill the gas tax.

Another area that our government fulfilled its commitment on is the environment. During the election campaign, we committed to putting in place a 15.5% federal tax credit for public transit fees. We have delivered on that commitment.

We have also delivered our commitment to support the Canadian arts and Canadian culture by committing an additional $50 million over the next two years to ensure that arts and art institutions are supported. This money will go toward the Canada Council for the Arts to ensure that it can deliver and protect Canadian culture throughout our great country.

Finally, our government has been prudent in its financial planning and we have delivered $3 billion in debt reduction for the upcoming fiscal year. Our belief is that the best way to protect social programs is to run a good fiscal program and to ensure that the fiscal and monetary situation of the country is run in such a way that the Government of Canada has adequate resources in future years to deliver the programs that Canadians so value.

In conclusion, before I take questions from members of the opposition, as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister for Sport, I am very proud on some of the commitments that our government has delivered in the budget.

The budget offers immediate assistance to the citizens living in my riding of Wellington—Halton Hills and to all Canadians.

It offers a clean plan for the future to effectively address many of the serious challenges our country faces and represents a tremendous step forward in the right direction for our great country.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about the fiscal imbalance for my colleague opposite.

The Council of the Federation published a report recommending that equalization payments be increased by $5 billion per year and that another $5 billion be transferred to the provinces. This means that the provinces will get an additional $10 billion every year.

Given the recent announcements about reducing sales and income taxes, and additional investments in defence and prisons, as my colleague across the way pointed out, there is no more money. There is not even a contingency fund.

This leads me to wonder where the new money will come from to correct the fiscal imbalance. Given that there is no more money, there are no sources. And what the provinces want, is money.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Our government tabled, as part of the budget, a paper entitled “Restoring Fiscal Balance in Canada”. In it, one of the problems that we identified in years past under the previous government had to do with transparency in budget planning. The budget paper outlines one of the problems that we have had in recent years. The government consistently underestimated the sizes of the surpluses. At year end, March 31 each year, the provinces were always surprised at the amount of the federal surplus because the government failed to be sufficiently transparent in this regard.

For example, just before the 2004 election, Canadians were told that the budget surplus would be $1.9 billion. It turned out to be $9.1 billion, a difference of almost 400% to 500%. As a result, provinces felt that the government was not being transparent with them with regard to fiscal transfers of the federation.

Our government acknowledges the problems of the previous government with respect to transparency and budget planning. That is why we have set out to establish an independent budgetary office that would be part of the federal accountability act, so that there would be greater transparency and greater accuracy in budget planning.

We have committed to dealing with the question of fiscal balance. We have acknowledged that this is an issue across the country. Obviously, the previous government had mixed messages on it. On the one hand, it indicated that it was not an issue, but on the other hand, it signed the Atlantic accord and the May memorandum with the province of Ontario to address its concerns about fiscal and federal transfers.

Our government has said that we received the Council of the Federation report. We welcome its feedback in this regard. We have received the budget paper. We are looking forward to the expert panel on territorial and equalization financing, also called the O'Brien report, that the previous government commissioned. Over the course of the coming months in the summer, the government will consult widely with the provinces on this issue and in the fullness of time, the Prime Minister will be putting forward proposals in this regard.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question about corporate welfare, out of deference to the former leader of the NDP, Ed Broadbent, who coined that term.

I do not know if my colleague is aware, but Canada is the third largest producer and exporter of asbestos in the world. Even though most of the world is banning asbestos, we continue to subsidize and underwrite the costs of the asbestos industry in direct subsidies and in travelling the world challenging anyone who wants to ban asbestos by sending teams of Department of Justice lawyers to Rotterdam and The Hague. Anywhere they are trying to limit and contain the use of asbestos, we try to block them.

We even sent our lawyers to the WTO to block France from banning asbestos saying that we would lose the trade. Does he agree with me that asbestos, in all of its forms, should be banned first of all, but at the very least, we should stop underwriting and subsidizing this deadly substance, tobacco's evil twin, and stop these corporate serial killers from polluting the planet with asbestos?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources have been working closely together on this file in collaboration with our foreign counterparts to ensure that Canada's interests are protected in this regard. In the fullness of time, I am sure that the government will come to a determination on this issue.

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here to speak about this government's new budget. I am very proud of our colleague, the Minister of Finance, and his hard work over the past few months. He has tabled a budget that reflects all the priorities of Canadians.

I am referring to, among other things, how this budget will reduce the rate of taxation for all Canadians. This budget will put in place a good number of the true priorities of Canadians. It is the first time in several years that a budget has been able to accomplish this. I am very pleased to speak about this budget, today.

Speaking with the people from my riding, the feedback I am hearing is overwhelmingly supportive. It seems that Edmontonians know that the budget is good for their city, good for the province, and obviously good for Canadians. They support a focussed agenda that will actually get results for a change.

As someone who has stood before the House in the past to speak on budgets, especially being in the opposition, one of the key assessments that I have always had to make is to look at how the government's plans would actually affect the people who sent me here to represent them.

In the past, I will say as many have felt, it has been frustrating because despite a punishing tax regime that squeezed the average family, individuals and small businesses in my riding, people regularly had the sense that we were not receiving value for money.

The previous government would announce billions in funding, but for average people, for real people in neighbours in my riding, the only results they ever saw was a creeping tax burden, a rising cost of living, the occasional press release announcing a new program, but no real help or support that ever seemed to make a difference. This budget is different.

I am proud to say that our plan does more in one budget to help the diverse needs of people in my riding than the previous government was able to deliver in the last 13 years.

Individuals in Edmonton—Strathcona are hard-working people. There are students at the University of Alberta, small business owners, entrepreneurs on Whyte Avenue, and moms, dads and grandparents who put a premium on family.

I am happy to say that the budget speaks directly to their needs and it does so in a way that leaves the maximum amount of flexibility for individuals to pursue their own goals in their own way.

It is in the spirit of respect and acknowledgement of the fact that individuals not bureaucrats know best that our budget seeks to make life easier for all Canadians. The government does not and cannot better understand the needs of a third year chemistry student trying to balance work and study to afford tuition at the University of Alberta.

None of us here can pretend to know what is best for the restaurant owner trying to scrape the money together to expand on Whyte Avenue and we cannot certainly assume to better be prepared to tell the parents of young children in my riding how to raise their family.

In the past, the previous government sought to impose a one size fits all for its own solutions for these very real problems. Our vision is very different.

We do not pretend that because people have different needs that government does not have a role to play in making life better, but what we do say is that people know best for themselves and that government's proper role is a supportive one.

I am proud that the budget recognizes this fact and takes steps to position the federal government to help people achieve their goals and realize their dreams.

One of those groups is students. For every single one of more than 35,000 students attending post-secondary studies at the University of Alberta in my riding, the budget delivers significant and meaningful assistance in the most direct way possible by getting out of the way and leaving students with more money in their pockets for their own priorities.

Our new government will help reduce the burden on students in Edmonton—Strathcona by providing an immediate tax credit to help all students with the cost of their textbooks.

For a full time student at the U of A this will mean a textbook tax credit of about $520 per year. This is money that will be left in the pockets of students and go toward any number of needs from groceries to school supplies, a ticket home to visit friends and family, or to start paying down some of their debt.

Students need to be supported for their hard work in pursuit of academic excellence. That is why we took a bold move, that should have been done a long time ago, to exempt bursaries and scholarships from tax, so that when students are awarded some of the much needed financial assistance, they will not see that recognition clawed back to the federal coffers in Ottawa.

As I mentioned, I used to be a small business owner in my riding. I know firsthand the challenges faced by entrepreneurs and hard-working independent business owners who make our community so vibrant. Incredibly, I have long made the case to fix the problem. Government needs to do a lot less, not more.

We need to leave individual business owners more of their hard-earned money to invest in how they see fit. This will mean more jobs and a more robust economy as small business owners find they have more money to expand, to take on more staff, and also make key investments. The budget delivers on that.

Entrepreneurs in my riding will have an additional $100,000 of qualifying income for the small business tax limit. Not only does this mean more business income than ever before will be protected from punitive tax rates, but our government has moved to reduce the small business tax rate by 1% over the next two years.

In addition to helping small business owners, we knew that all Canadians, regardless of who they are or what they do, deserve meaningful tax relief. That is why the government is providing tax relief people can actually see, tax relief that will affect every single Canadian. We will be immediately reducing the GST by 1%.

The benefits of this commitment will be felt by every single individual in my constituency. I know, coming from a service industry business, the more that can be freed up in taxes, especially in the service industry, the more disposable income people will have to actually spend on particular items for their families or themselves.

For students, it means that the necessary expenses needed to get them to class will be cheaper. For business owners, it means customers will have more money to spend on their products and services and, more importantly, for families in my riding, it means an extra $400 on average every year that can be spent or saved as families see fit.

More often than not, government cannot spend money better than Canadians. This is a recognition that Ottawa can do more with less and that Canadians can do more with their own money. Instead of treating Canadians like a series of special interest groups, the budget recognizes that Canadians are individuals with their own goals and desires.

I am thrilled that my constituents finally have a government that recognizes the need to support their choices by leaving them with more resources to carve out their own destiny. By providing broad based and meaningful tax relief, our fiscal plan will make a real difference for every single person in my riding.

One point that I did not mention during the course of my speech relates to students and the link to small business. I know that one of the unfortunate restrictions in the past was that international students, who are now making up such a significant part of our student base across the country, were not able to work while they were spending time here in Canada. Often we would have those international students bring about $4 billion worth of investment into Canada every year by attending classes, taking up housing, and spending money when they came here to pursue their studies. Unfortunately, they were not able to work.

As we know, in the budget there was the announcement that we have opened up that process to allow those international students to actually pursue employment here in Canada while they are attending school.

As I mentioned, as a small business person in the service industry, I have noticed that there is a labour crunch right across this country. Many of the markets are finding it difficult to find people to work. Our budget will provide not only the chance for students to find work and raise some money to help pay for some of the costs that they incur, especially being away from home in an international location, but will also help fill the gap that we currently have in the employment market when it comes to the service industry by allowing some of those students to take up some meaningful employment.

I know that will make a huge difference to many people in my riding, especially when it comes to filling that labour shortage that many people are currently facing.

The budget is an excellent new start for the government. The budget sets some key priorities in the short term to achieve meaningful results. It sets a plan in place for the future, a bold vision that I think Canadians were so desperately needing after 13 years of mismanagement, corruption, and lack of attention to their needs.

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That this question be now put.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the wealthy and the big businesses of this country are very generous. They help a lot of people, but they did not ask for a budget that was built on the backs of students. I was amazed that the budget is such a slap in the face for students.

When the Liberals were in government, they created the biggest scholarship program in history with thousands of dollars for students. The last Liberal budget proposed $6,000 for every student for tuition. In fact, for poor students, the amount was doubled to $12,000. What do students get in this budget? They receive an $80 tax credit on books.

One of the Conservative members was asked during the budget debate what the government had done for single mothers and poor people. The member said that a single mother could go back to school with the $80 tax credit on books. I phoned my college bookstore and asked for the price of an average textbook. In fact, I asked for the price of three books. All three books were more than $80. I think the books cost $110, $120 and $130 each. I know that there are lots of books, so I wanted to be sure. I was told that the average book would cost $100.

The Conservatives are telling single parents that they can go back to school and the government will help them with three-quarters of the price of a textbook. This is embarrassing. I would not boast about this part of the budget because it is not a serious attempt to help students.

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member in this House, but it is funny when he says that the government promised a lot, especially after what we saw in the deathbed conversion process during the campaign, when the Liberals were coming up with policies we had never heard from them in the last 13 years they were in power. They never made any meaningful changes to help students.

The member talks about the bursaries or scholarships they implemented. It is all fine and dandy to say that was in fact done, but when students are taxed on that same income they are getting as bursaries or scholarships, it is almost doing reverse damage to them. That is why this government moved very quickly in the budget to remove that unfair tax on scholarships and bursaries. It should have been done a long time ago if the previous government really was committed to students, but it lacked the intention to do so.

Again, promises are all we heard from the Liberal government for over 13 years. I was in opposition for the last 9 of those 13 years, and there were some really great promises, let us face it. Did the Liberals actually follow through with any of them? I would say not.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things about this budget is what I think of as the lack in the opportunity to plug one of the most egregious tax loopholes out there. What I am talking about is what is called tax motivated expatriation, which is in fact the transferring of money offshore to tax havens, whereby companies can avoid paying their fair share of taxes in Canada.

I sense that the Conservatives are generally sympathetic and think this practice should be stopped. It was used most notably by the former prime minister when Canada Steamship Lines was set up in the only tax haven left. The Liberals tore up all the tax treaties except for the one haven where Canada Steamship Lines happened to reside.

If the Conservatives did not see fit to plug that tax loophole in this budget, would my colleague at least agree that companies that take advantage of these tax havens should not be able to get contracts from the federal government while they are taking advantage of this tax fugitive situation?

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague, especially in light of what we saw from the previous prime minister in taking advantage of that particular tax loophole. Obviously it was not the best way that Canadians like to see companies do business. I am willing to explore the idea of ensuring that contracts are done openly and transparently and given to the best people who are applying for those contracts with the federal government.

I think the member's question speaks to a bigger issue that we have to address, and I think this government has already taken a step to address it. That issue is the overall tax burdens that Canadians and business have been facing in this country for years and years. The only reason many of these companies look at ways to shelter their incomes and to move them offshore is that clearly we have had a regime in this country that has had very strict and very high levels of tax on businesses. That has affected competition, their ability to invest and their ability to actually look at ways to hide that income in other places.

I think we have moved in the right direction. We have to lower those tax levels. We have done so in this budget. We hope to continue down that track to keep our economy competitive and to stop that process of people looking at putting their money overseas.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for the great riding of Thunder Bay--Rainy River.

After 13 years of Liberal government, Canada's economic and fiscal situation is among the best in the world. I hope the government would agree that it is extremely fortunate to inherit the strong economic house that was built and fostered by the governments that preceded it.

The budget we are debating today is in large part a budget of small advancements that is rigidly tied, it appears to me, to an ideology that really is the architecture of small government. It is in large part a short-sighted budget, in my mind. It is a budget that values political expediency, as the member from Markham pointed out, instead of long term stability or progressive investments in the future of Canada.

Liberals believe the budget should have included, for example, a national child care system that offers quality and affordable child care to all Canadians. As well, it is a shame that the Kelowna accord, which finally turned a page and enabled Canada to move forward on improving the social and political situation of Canada's aboriginal people, was entirely neglected.

While the Prime Minister may want to focus his attention on five priorities, this country is far bigger than that. There are many challenges facing this country, as well as many opportunities. This is not the time to put on blinders and ignore the difficult issues that Canadians expect us to be working on.

That said, the budget is not entirely without merit. There are some very positive aspects. The Conservative budget, for example, talks about tax relief, and the kind that applies to all Canadians equally, sales tax relief. It is a positive way to encourage our citizens to become more productive.

Don Johnson, a tireless crusader for the arts and social causes, has long been an advocate of tax abatement for those who give stock contributions to charities. Thanks to his hard work and tireless advocacy, a total exemption for charitable stock contributions was included in this budget. That is a good thing.

My riding is a thriving bastion for small business. Over 95% of all businesses in Canada are small businesses. They are responsible for not only the spirit and drive we find in York South--Weston, but also for nearly half the jobs created in Canada every year. I am glad, and I am sure all members in the House are glad, to see that the threshold for small business income eligible for the reduced federal tax rate will be increased to $400,000.

We are also glad to see that the government has listened to the many members on all sides of the House and has pledged to support our police forces. Funding those who shield our municipalities and protect our provinces and our people is a noble and necessary pursuit.

At the federal level, the RCMP need to be equipped with the latest technology and capable of handling the most challenging of investigative tasks. This budget at least recognizes that there has long been a shortfall in the funding of the mounted police. An accomplished force with such a rich history and storied symbolism deserves the best we can offer.

However, I am compelled to talk about some of the shortcomings of the budget. I wish I could say more positive things about what is being offered the rest of Canada, but sadly there is not that much. This is a budget that fails the regions, fails our health care system, fails our first nations and fails the environment. I would like to expand on the reasoning behind this statement.

First of all, I would like to expand on how this budget fails our health care system. During the election, the Conservative Party made wait times reduction one of their five core priorities. During his budget speech on May 2, the hon. Minister of Finance said his government was “committed to implementing the 10-Year Plan to Strengthen Health Care”.

The Conservatives' federal budget provides no additional funding for wait time reduction, nor any explanation as to how their wait times guarantee will be implemented. What happened to the Conservative priority of fixing wait times? They promised to outdo the Liberals, yet their budget invests no more funding for wait times reduction beyond what the Liberal government already committed.

How will the Conservatives pay for their wait times guarantee? Will they download costs to the provinces and territories without giving them more funding to cope? Despite their criticism of the Liberal government's 10 year plan to strength health care, this plan has now become the core pillar of their health care platform. Now that the groundwork has been laid by the previous Liberal government, the Conservatives seem ready to claim its successes as their own.

It was the Liberal government that worked with the provinces and territories to establish benchmarks for medically acceptable wait times, to set reduction targets for key medical procedures, to create the $5.5 billion wait times reduction fund, and to integrate foreign-trained medical professionals to supplement shortages within the Canadian medical field.

The Conservative government seems to have overlooked not only one of its own priorities but the number one priority for Canadians: a better, stronger health care system.

The budget also fails our children and working parents. The Conservative budget fails to provide a real child care choice for parents. Twenty dollars a week for child care is simply not enough. Low income parents will also be losing the young child supplement of the Canada child tax benefit. The Conservatives are cutting $1 billion from the child tax benefit, which was supposed to reach $10 billion next year.

The budget fails our first nations people. The hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has implied that he has doubts whether the $5 billion for the Kelowna accord was actually budgeted for by the previous Liberal government. This commitment is so fundamental that it is vital to dispel any such doubts.

The previous Liberal finance minister has confirmed that as of November 24, 2005, the day of the first ministers meeting when the agreement was signed, the fiscal framework of the Government of Canada included a total of $5.096 billion to address obligations arising from the Kelowna accord.

In the Liberal government's 2005 economic and fiscal update on November 14, the importance of the then upcoming Kelowna meeting was specifically stated, together with an undertaking to provide the needed financing, and there was more than enough unused fiscal room in our framework to accommodate the expected sum. When the Kelowna meeting actually took place 10 days later, the money was booked.

The fiscal treatment of the Kelowna accord was quite similar to how we handled special federal funding of $755 million to help grains and oilseed producers in the farm sector. Although we are pleased that the Conservative government has proceeded with our $755 million commitment to help farmers, it is just as important that it also follow through on our parallel commitment to aboriginal peoples, delivering the funding that was most certainly set aside for this compelling purpose on November 24.

What looms ominously over the budget is the Prime Minister's commitment to cutting $1 billion worth of unidentified programs each year for the next two years. Does that means that the right hon. Prime Minister intends to cut these things: the northern strategy, which ensures that economic development opportunities are developed in partnership with northern Canadians; the Mackenzie gas project, which increases federal and regional capacity; and the oceans action plan, which improves oceans management and preserves the health of Canada's oceans?

This budget also fails the environment on the commitment to Kyoto. The government has eliminated climate change programs and is getting ready to pull out of the Kyoto accord. Its transit tax credit is costly and ineffective. It will cost almost $400 million over two years and will increase transit use by only 5%. This translates to a cost of $2,000 for each tonne of carbon dioxide saved, and that will be 10 to 100 times the cost per tonne under the Liberal project green plan.

The budget also fails Ontario. A year ago, the Liberal government and the Government of Ontario signed an agreement that would see Ontario receive $7 billion in federal funding. This money was to be used by Ontario's government to help convert coal-fired power plants to natural gas, expand public transit, augment funding for universities and community colleges, and bring the province up to the same level as the rest of the country in federal spending on immigration settlement and job training programs.

During the election, the Prime Minister promised to uphold this agreement and transfer every single dollar of the deal to Ontario. Yesterday we learned that the Prime Minister's Minister of Finance has written to his provincial counterpart and informed him that the money on its way to Ontario will be $3 billion short of what was promised. This is no way to retune the Ontario economic engine, which in fact transfers through equalization two-thirds of the total amount of money that goes to those fiscally disadvantaged provinces in Canada.

This budget fails Canada. This budget is all about short term gain in exchange for long term pain. The budget has failed all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for painting such a negative picture of our budget. I would like to draw his attention to this, though: by virtue of their attitude over the past 13 years, the Liberals came very close to ruining Canada because they did not recognize the fiscal imbalance. Today, the Conservative Party's budget does recognize that fiscal imbalance.

Since, by voting against the budget, the Liberals denied the existence of the fiscal imbalance, can my colleague explain why all Canadians acknowledge that it exists? By voting against the budget, the Liberals do not recognize the fiscal imbalance, when everyone knows that it exists. I would like to hear my colleague's answer about this fiscal imbalance that his party refuses to recognize.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us use a case in point. I would like to expand a bit on the case that I use in terms of Ontario.

We do recognize that there is a fiscal imbalance. More than that, we realize that if we do not invest in the manufacturing economy of the province of Ontario, for example, at a time when natural resource based economies are booming, that is the economic engine that in terms of our federal history has produced the kinds of prosperity that we have all enjoyed. That budget does not do it.

I do not know what the member means in terms of challenging this side of the House. This is not the side of the House that he should be looking at. He should be looking at his side of the House because it is that side, through this budget, that is not going to generate the multipliers, transform the economy to the extent that we create jobs in high value added activity such that there is more of the economic pie that we can then equalize across this great nation.

That has been the history. That is what the Liberal Party and Liberal governments recognized and that is what they did so well, that this budget is not going to do, and that is tragic.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is helpful to watch my colleagues point fingers at each other and blame one another for the recent state of affairs, or even the state of the nation, because they are both to blame to some degree.

It may be something of a cliche to say that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, but I now have the empirical evidence here that in fact this is true. The average total income for all families might be the best measurement of how we are doing economically.

The average total income for all family units from 1989 to 2004, in quintiles, was: in the lowest quintile, the bottom 20%, the standard of living went down by 9%; in the second lowest quintile, $30,000 a year, it actually dropped by 4%; in the third quintile, the standard of living dropped by 3%. These figures are for 1989 to 2004, so there were some Tory years and some Liberal years. The only quintile that went up is the highest quintile, which went up 23%. These are not left-wing pinko figures; these are statistics. This is the truth. This is what really happened. Canadians are not better off.

For all the equality measures that we talk about and the successive budgets that are designed to make Canadians' lives better for most of us, 60% of us at least, we are dropping and only the rich are getting richer.

I would ask my colleague, does he not agree that equality should be the goal here and elevating the standard of living of all Canadians should be the goal and that something has gone terribly wrong?

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is the best question of the day, and I do not mean that in a patronizing sense.

I would like to direct my colleague to the 10 year trend with respect to the income tax reductions that had been distributed through the surplus to those who fit into that very category he talked about. If he looks at that 10 year trend under the budgets that were brought forward by a Liberal government, he will see that while it has not been fast enough, there was definitely an improvement in those lower categories through the regime and architecture that the Liberals had supported.

That is not the trend nor the pattern nor the philosophy of the current government through this budget. It is going to go in exactly the opposite way.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my address in terms of the implementation of the budget, I will show what will happen in northwestern Ontario, particularly in Thunder Bay—Rainy River. There should be several good things, and rightly so, as the government inherited one of the best financial situations of any provincial or federal government in recent memory.

Nonetheless, when we think about what is good, what is bad, what is missing or what the Conservative government has adopted in continuing previous government policies, the first thing that comes to mind is how offensive the raising of the income tax rate for the poor is. People all across the country are offended, hurt and indeed embarrassed by hurting the poorest classes.

The cancellation of the early learning and child care agreements in northwestern Ontario means the loss of 1,400 spaces that were desperately needed. Of course, Ontario and indeed all those provinces across the country that uploaded the child care support will now be facing the fact that they will have to download them again and raise property taxes in those municipalities. When that starts happening, people will really know the serious effect of this.

The slashing of the forestry agreement from $1.5 billion to $400 million is of concern to many northwestern Ontario companies that have been struggling over the past number of years, and in particular are paying the penalty of not having a chance to get that $1 billion of illegal duties paid back to them and only get 78% of that. For example, the Ontario industry has paid 12% of all the duty submitted and of that provincial portion northwestern Ontario companies have paid nearly 60% of that total. That is nearly $300 million out of the communities in and around my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

When asked about how good the softwood deal was, yes it has been rejected many, many times in the past number of years and indeed the reason the previous deal was never accepted is that it is not going to help us. For example, no money will likely be returned in less than nine months, but more important to the people of northwestern Ontario, the provincial and federal governments will not be permitted to change forestry policies in any manner that could be interpreted as assisting the forestry industries because of the terminology of the anti-circumvention measure. This means that for northwestern Ontario producers who are pushing for regional energy, as we call it, once that became implemented by the provincial government, an American company could simply overrule it and roll that back.

When we talk about the impact on tourism of the passport restrictions, there are no programs in the budget to assist border communities and no funding to educate Americans and Canadians about these changes. Indeed for communities such as Morson in my riding which depend heavily on tourism, because of the FedNor program we were recently able to expand cell tower and broadband services. This will greatly enhance tourism because tourists can use their cell phones and computers. But tourists will stop coming. That has already begun to happen and we have to be on full alert about this. Many people in the United States actually think that the passport requirement is a Canadian program. On top of all of this, significant progress had been made by American legislators, mayors and reeves of border communities, and the tourism industry, so we did not have to roll over on this one.

In terms of the Trans-Canada Highway, the previous agreement signed last year with the province of Ontario should allow us to continue with federal-provincial funding for a national highway program. We look forward to that.

In terms of agriculture, my riding has a considerable amount of agriculture as it spans a seven and a half hour drive over two time zones. The beef, dairy, and grains and oilseeds farmers are somewhat dismayed that they will get less this year than they did from the previous government. That is a concern for them, particularly when we know full well the impact on the grains and oilseeds right now during planting season.

I congratulate the government for continuing the FedNor program. I believe the Conservatives understand its value and I thank them very much for that. We hope that the program will also allow the people of the town of Fort Frances and the Rainy River district to benefit with the purchase of the privately owned bridge. With the FedNor contributions and the ministry of transport's assistance, we are looking forward to some kind of help for the town of Fort Frances.

From the health perspective, the regional cancer research centre has received support already from the municipality, the province and the private sector. All it is waiting for now is the federal contribution so hopefully that will come shortly. The minister is welcome to come to my riding and make that announcement at his convenience.

Environmentally there is a very high degree of awareness in Thunder Bay, very cost effective programs and a great deal of community buy-in. The loss of a program such as EcoSuperior was a dramatic hit. It was enlisting strong community based support for environmental programs and awareness.

When talking about the hopper car deal, the FRCC, the people of Thunder Bay, the port authority and I had been looking forward to an agreement. Now that the deal has been turned back to the railways, this will hurt all the communities along the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway, and particularly the port of Thunder Bay. That has been greeted with considerable dismay.

We are also concerned about the lack of identification of the continuance of regional programs for such organizations as the CBC. This would greatly take the pressure off that station which services an area larger than France and a couple of other European countries put together.

If we have a goal of becoming the most literate nation in the world, support for literacy programs is conspicuously absent in the budget, particularly support for aboriginal literacy. I am hoping that is perhaps a small print item that we will hear more about in the next little while.

Ridings such as mine have considerable distance and travel times. The Conservatives have previously campaigned on and made many overtures in the House about lowering gas prices. The fact that nothing has been mentioned about that has many of my constituents calling me. Even people who had supported that party in the last election have expressed considerable dismay and have referred to articles quoting the current Prime Minister and many members of that party about gasoline pricing.

The absence of mention of health care in the budget is something which many people have mentioned. If the government will be continuing the health care accord, then that is very significant. It would be an understanding that that was a significant achievement and that the current government understands how well the previous prime minister and former minister of health had done in bringing people together to come to an accord. It was historic and appreciated indeed by the whole nation.

I do not have time to dwell on many other topics, but there are some that I would like to mention. The government deserves credit for the apprenticeship programs for small business. If there are plans to build a prison for $500 million and $500 million worth of operating costs, please put one in my riding. We would be glad to take it.

When we talk about a budget we cannot just be negative and cynical. Every budget tries to put the government's best foot forward. I hope that I have identified some of the shortcomings, some of the good things, some of the things that are missing. I hope that members in the House today understand that when we make a point it is to try to make improvements. If there is a shortcoming, members should not get all defensive, negative and hostile. They should just know that someone is trying to make it better and I would ask hon. members to understand that.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned 1,400 child care spaces in his region of the province of Ontario. He claims that those spaces will no longer exist. In truth, they never did exist. The reality is that after 13 years of Liberal government promises, of which he was a part, not a solitary child care space was created and billions of dollars were spent. There were no results, zero, zip and zilch, in that order.

Today we are confronted with a new debate. Do we continue with the path of the last 13 years where the Liberal government had promised $1 billion a year to create day care spaces, which 19 out of 20 children would not have received a solitary space? Let us do the simple math of one child care space costing $40 a day and multiplying that times the number of business days in an entire year. If one plays the math out, there would be enough money for about 1 in every 20 kids to have a day care space.

Automatically all the families who have a stay at home parent, or who rely on a family member to take care of children, or who send their children to a religious-based child care option, or who have a neighbourhood nanny, all those options, which polls show are far preferred by parents, would automatically have been excluded by that plan.

We have a choice that is very simple: a 1 in 20 chance at a government day care space for one's child or a 100% chance at a $1,200 a year choice in child care allowance. The choice is a universal system of $1,200 for every preschooler or an exclusive government run option, which gives a child care space to 1 in every 20 children.

Why does the member oppose the universal option of giving every child the opportunity of the $1,200 choice in child care allowance? Why is he—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if that is the hon. member's understanding of finance and history and he is in charge of the Treasury Board, that is like asking Colonel Sanders to take care of the chickens.

Clearly, history will prove that in 1993 the reason the child care program could not begin was because of the very sorry state of affairs the country had inherited. It took that many years to get out of that. The fact that we can get into a situation in our country where we are the leader of the G-7 is very significant.

For my riding, clearly child care spaces, which would have been created from the money that came from the federal government, is now being used by the provincial government to take care of the existing spaces for the next four years. It is essentially an uploading of that program.

Make no mistake about it, all municipalities are keenly aware of the hit they have taken in terms of early learning and care. They understand that those which had needs and backlogs which would have been addressed this year, in fact in January because the deal was signed, would have had those children in place. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and all people in every municipality understand what kind of hit they have taken.

In four years, after the money provinces are using to carry this through runs out and property taxes go up again, there is only one government that will take the full blame for hurting early learning and child care.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of the hard-working families of Palliser, on behalf of seniors, producers, small business people and students in my constituency who told me that during the last federal election, they wanted a government in Ottawa that would deliver responsible spending and real tax relief to put money back into their pockets after more than a decade of Liberal mismanagement.

Our government has delivered on that commitment with our first budget. When I went home after the budget last weekend, Palliser residents told me this was a good budget and that our government was on the right track.

We have delivered on our commitment to tax relief. In fact, the budget delivers $20 billion in tax relief over two years. As has been said by many members, that is more than the last four Liberal budgets combined.

If there was one thing I heard again and again on the doorsteps of Palliser residents during the last election campaign, it was that they were overtaxed. Is it any wonder that they felt that way? Under the previous Liberal government, billions of dollars were taken from Canadians through overtaxation and wasted on scandals and boondoggles such as the sponsorship program and a costly and ineffective gun registry.

Meanwhile, families in Palliser are working longer, paying more in taxes and saving less than they were 13 years ago, but I am proud to say that all that has changed under the new Conservative government.

The bottom line of budget 2006 is that every resident of Palliser, every family in Saskatchewan and every person across this great country will see real tax relief.

In the budget our government has committed to reducing the GST from 7% to 6%, effective July 1 of this year and creating a new $1,000 Canada employment credit, which starts effective July 1. We will reduce the lowest personal income tax rate from 16% to 15.5%, effective July 1. We will increase the amount that all Canadians can earn without paying federal income tax.

We will create a new apprenticeship job creation tax credit of up to $2,000 per apprentice. We will completely eliminate the federal income tax on all income from scholarships, bursaries and fellowships while creating a new text book tax credit for post-secondary students. I can not say how much I would have liked that to have been in place when I was a student while the Liberals were in power.

We will provide a physical fitness tax credit for up to $500 to cover registration fees for children's sport, which was very well received by parents with one, two or three kids in sports in my riding. We will double the amount of eligible pension income that seniors can claim under the pension income credit, the first such increase in more than 30 years delivered by the government and the Prime Minister.

As I said, budget 2006 delivers $20 billion in tax relief over two years. That is more tax relief than the last four federal budgets combined. For every $1 in new spending, we have delivered $2 in real tax relief back to Canadians.

As a result of these measures, residents of Saskatchewan will pay $250 million less in taxes in 2007. Families earning between $15,000 and $30,000 a year will be better off by almost $300 a year in 2007. Those earning between $45,000 and $60,000 will save almost $650. Those are real results for families.

Unlike the previous government, our government has focused spending on key federal priorities, Canadians' priorities, that will get results and provide value for taxpayers money.

I neglected to inform the Chair, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the excellent member of Parliament from Edmonton—Sherwood Park.

A significant example of this is the new universal child care benefit. As of July 1, Palliser families will receive $1,200 per year for each child under six. That is real results. That is real money in the pockets of constituents in my riding, not fictional spaces, not promised spaces. We heard promises for 13 years with no delivery. This is money in the hands of families. We will also spend $250 million, beginning in 2007, to create child care spaces.

We have also followed through on our commitment to make our streets safer and to reduce the crime epidemic that is sweeping our communities. We heard from the Liberal member opposite that he would welcome a prison in his riding. We can have that debate another time. I invite him to come on over and join us as we get tough on crime in the country.

Under federal Liberal and provincial NDP governments, my home province of Saskatchewan holds the dubious distinction of being Canada's crime capital. When I talk to seniors in Moose Jaw and families in Regina about the problem of crime, they have told me clearly that it is time to get tough on crime and tough on criminals.

During the last Parliament, I demanded many times that the former Liberal government get tough on drug crimes to address the crystal meth epidemic, which continues to sweep our province. The residents of Palliser indicated during the last election that they were tired of begging the Liberals to take action and that we needed a new government in Ottawa that was serious about getting tough on serious crimes. With the budget, we are keeping our word. We are cracking down on crime.

We will provide $161 million to put more RCMP officers on the streets. We will invest $37 million in my home city of Regina for the RCMP to expand its national training academy. This is great news for Regina and the province of Saskatchewan. We will provide $20 million for communities to use to develop programs designed to prevent youth crime. We will provide the money that is required to arm our border agents. We have delivered on our commitment to make our streets and our borders safer.

I want to turn now to agriculture and what budget 2006 delivers to agricultural producers, who are the backbone of Palliser's economy. Farming is part of our heritage. Farmers feed our cities and keep our rural communities strong. Falling prices and trade disputes are causing them real financial hardship. People are suffering. They are losing farms that have been in their families for generations.

Current insurance and income support programs are not doing enough, and we cannot allow this to continue. That is why our government will restore and sustain a strong, vibrant farm sector which provides the income farmers need to live.

One of our government's first actions was to accelerate disbursement of $755 million in payments under the grains and oilseeds payment program. We are now going further. In budget 2006 our government is committing an additional $2 billion in funding over two years, $1.5 billion of which will be allocated in this budget.

During the election we committed to an additional $500 million for farm support programs, and we are delivering on that promise. We will provide an additional $500 million per year for farm support. We will provide a one time investment of $1 billion to help farmers in the transition to more effective programming for farm income stabilization and disaster relief.

Unlike the previous Liberal government, which lurched from crisis to crisis on the farm gate without any real vision or commitment to improving things, our government has begun the process of scrapping the CAIS and replacing it with programs that are simpler for farmers and that will actually deliver results.

As the residents of Palliser understand and appreciate, the Conservative government has delivered on its key priorities. Families, seniors, students and working people will all see tax relief in this budget and new spending which addresses their priorities and improves their security. We have also addressed health care, which is of particular importance to the residents of Palliser. Despite being the home of Tommy Douglas, Saskatchewan continues to experience the longest wait lists in the country under an NDP government.

It is unfortunate that two parties did not support the budget. I do not know how they are going to go home and look their constituents in the eye and explain why they voted against real tax relief and real help for families in our country.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how that member is going to go home and tell the poor people in his riding that he is increasing their income tax from 15% to 15.5%. I invite all the people at home to look at their income tax forms. I would not have brought this up if he had not said it was a reduction. I ask people to look at their income tax forms, at the column with the lowest rate. It is 15% this year. On July 1 it goes up to 15.5%.

That is not the only reduction for low income people. The low income tax credit for young children has been removed. As for the $1,200, with cuts to that because of their income tax and other benefits they lose, it could be as low as $200 for low income people. The Caledon Institute said that, not the opposition. That is 55¢ a day for day care. How is the member going to tell stay at home parents that they will receive 55¢? The member for Nepean—Carleton just said it costs $40 a day and the government is giving 55¢.

The government is cutting culture by two-thirds of the increase it was going to get. How can government members be proud of that?

However, my question is about the broken promises, which seem to be adding up. Why was there so much talk about defence? Actually, I really enjoy our defence minister and I think he is a great minister, but he got scooped. Our party had larger increases for defence. After all the hyperbole, the Conservatives did not give such a big increase and there is no talk about equipment. The three icebreakers, which I was delighted to hear about, have vanished since the campaign promises.

I would like to ask the member about the capital gains tax promise that has now vanished from the budget.

The member also mentioned agriculture. The last part of my question is about how the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance had a prebudget meeting. I congratulate her for that. It was reported to me that when Conservative members asked her where the $1.5 billion was, as the member just suggested, she said, “Oh, we can't talk about that until it has been through cabinet”. Then the Conservative members asked, “Where is the money for this spring? How is this money going to flow?” The answer was, “Oh, we don't know that”.

The farmers need money for this spring. Not a single Conservative member yet has mentioned any possible mechanism by which the farmers will be able to get any of that $1.5 billion to stop the bankruptcies that are going on right now.

Just so we do not get the common question about what our government did, let us remember that statistically and financially in the last several years we gave the largest funding to farmers at any time in history.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to respond to some of those comments. If we look at the press coverage of the budget, what we will see from poll to poll is that Canadians love this budget. They love what they are seeing from this Prime Minister and this government.

Let us look at the tax relief. There is $20 billion in tax relief over two years, which is incredible, more than the last four Liberal budgets put together. We have to look at the totality of the package. We have to look at everything. There is the employment tax credit, for example. We have to look at all the ways that the government is putting money back in the hands of hard-working Canadians.

There is money for child care, the $1,200 a year. The member talks about how much that equates to per day et cetera. Let us look at how much money hundreds of thousands of families across this nation received under the previous Liberal government.

Let us count it up.

What about shift workers in this country? How much did they get under the previous Liberal plan? Nothing.

How about people who utilized a neighbourhood day care or a trusted family member? What did they get? Nothing.

What about mom or dad who chose to stay at home and raise children? How much did they get under the previous Liberal government?

[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?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse for his question.

I would just like to rectify one thing. I did not say that it was a very positive budget, but that it was a budget that included a commitment in a fundamental area for Quebec. I also added that we were keeping a close watch on the government. We are worried about the fact that, on the weekend, the Prime Minister backed down from his resolve to fix the fiscal imbalance. If I were in his shoes, I would not get too cocky or too arrogant, the way some of his colleagues have done. He did not do so this morning, but I wish to warn him. Our support for the government actually depends on this commitment.

Equalization, as far as Quebec and the other Canadian provinces that benefit from it are concerned, is the only program entrenched in the Constitution. This means that public services of equivalent quality can be offered from east to west in Canada. It is in the Constitution. On the other hand, in order to measure the ability of the provinces and Quebec to offer these uniform, equivalent services from east to west in Canada, there has to be a true measurement of the various governments’ capacity to collect taxes from their citizens.

At present, however, the equalization formula presents several problems, given that it is not meeting this objective. First of all, a Canada-wide average is calculated, which determines whether or not a province or Quebec is entitled to a per capita equalization payment. Currently, this average is calculated on the basis of five provinces. Why not take the 10 provinces into account? If we want to know the true fiscal capacity, the 10 provinces have to be weighed and each one’s fiscal capacity assessed in relation to this Canada-wide average established on the basis of the 10 provinces and even the two territories.

Furthermore, some parameters do not work. Unbelievable intellectual somersaults are performed to measure property tax, for example, when—it is easy to check—property tax is real in every municipality.

This is the sort of correction that has to be made to equalization.

I would simply like to remind my colleague of one last thing. The positive measures contained in the budget are acceptable as far as short-term transfers are concerned, for such things as post-secondary education. The amounts provided fall far too short of the mark, however, to correct the fiscal imbalance as the Prime Minister has undertaken to do. We are talking about $10 billion to $12 billion a year for all of Canada. Equalization that allocates $285 million more falls short of the mark.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member spent some time talking about the $1,200 child tax allowance. He suggested, as did the Caledon Institute, that the allowance was skewed in terms of the value of the benefit to wealthier Canadians than to average Canadians.

As a solution the member suggested that consideration might be given to including it as a refundable tax credit. I would like to ask him about this. With refundable tax credits, yes, the money would flow even if there was no income. The money would get there, but the recipients would have to wait until they filed a tax return and actually received the refund cheque or a reduced payment made when filing their taxes.

Maybe it would be better to make it part of the Canada child tax benefit program which is a non-taxable amount which is paid monthly and is streamed more to low and modest income Canadians. In fact, higher income Canadians would not even qualify for it. I wonder if the member would care to comment on the possibility of including it in the Canada child tax benefit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

In fact, the refundable tax credit would have been preferable to a cash transfer. However, I disagree with his statement that families should have had to wait until the end of the year, when they prepare their tax return.

I will give a good example. The government can determine family income levels when the time comes—and even in advance—to provide tax credits, GST credits, for example. Those credits are paid quarterly. The same principle could be applied with the refundable tax credit.

I heard the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance say that the Bloc Québécois does not want Canadians to receive a cheque with a flag on it.

They are aware of it, they started the propaganda with the Canadian flag all over the place, and more than once. But that is not the point. There could have been a refundable tax credit, payable by cheque with a Canadian flag or two—if they want 10, they could put 10 on—or even on a whole flag, but quarterly like the tax credit for the GST. That would be no problem.

The benefit would have been twofold: the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec would have been respected and the amounts would have been totally tax free. This is not currently the case.

As I was saying, the families not paying for child care, in which one parent stays home—the folks the Conservatives are targeting—will the big losers. They will get $486 less a year if they have two dependent children under six and were getting the national child tax benefit. This is what is incongruous in the Conservative approach.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his remarks.

This weekend, I spoke with families in my riding who said they were coming out behind with this change to the national child benefit supplement and this $1,200. This budget does nothing to help those families, not just in terms of child care, but also in terms of housing. Of course there is the $800 million that comes from last year’s NDP budget, which had already been approved, but no more, even though we know that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is making billions of dollars in profits.

This budget is also silent on the Kyoto protocol. We know that Canada is going to lose its credibility in that respect. This budget is a step backward in numerous areas.

My question to my colleague is this. Given that the Bloc supports a number of values that are important to me and to a lot of Canadians and Quebeckers, why and how could it have supported a budget like this, which is truly a step backward? I find that hard to understand.

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

: Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague shares our analysis from a social point of view, particularly with respect to helping the most disadvantaged families. I have just stated our point of view: we would have preferred to see this $1,200 payment in a different form.

However, there are two things I would like to say. Last year, we voted against the $800 million in the NDP budget because with that bill, the NDP got conned as if they were schoolchildren. There was no firm commitment from the government. It even said that there had to be a $2 billion surplus at the end of the year, and it also said: unless the government had other priorities.

The New Democrats were conned. They were patting themselves on the back about Bill C-48, when they had achieved absolutely nothing.

Second, when a friend or a colleague makes a commitment and makes a firm promise to carry out the projects that are dearest to our hearts, do we come down on them when that firm commitment has been given? We wait to see whether the commitment is honoured. That is our fundamental reason. Perhaps there are those who behave differently in society, but we are civilized people.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I take the floor today as the member for Beauce and as Minister of Industry to discuss the importance of the budget for my constituents and for all Canadians. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Wetaskiwin. My great thanks to him for expressing his point of view.

Last February 6, the Prime Minister formed a new government, a government that has a clear mandate to meet the important challenges facing all Canadians. The budget has given shape to many of our commitments, and we will continue to keep our word.

The first decision of this government has been to move quickly to enhance accountability to Canadians and ensure that government operations are more transparent. The federal accountability action plan, released last April 11, presents a wide range of reforms which were necessary after 13 long years of Liberal regime.

We promised to cut back the GST. The budget provides for a one-percent reduction of the GST as of July 1. We also promised to introduce the universal child care plan in Canada. As of July 1, Canadian families will receive $100 per month, or $1,200 per year, for each child under age six, to pay for child care expenses. In addition, there are concrete measures to improve health care and combat crime in Canada.

The hon. finance minister has tabled a budget which fulfils the commitments made in the last election campaign. Like the great majority of Canadians, I am very pleased to support this budget today. I would like the opposition to give the budget its support as well. In addition to respecting our priorities, this budget contains more tax reductions than the last four federal Liberal budgets combined.

Allow me now to speak of the budget measures which more particularly concern the department I head, the Department of Industry. First of all, the budget establishes a much more transparent planning framework, as it has a realistic two-year planning horizon, instead of the five years used by the former government.

Furthermore, it puts the government’s finances in order by providing for control over increases in the rate of spending. Our expenditures will target concrete, tangible results. Taxpayers’ money will be spent under strict guidelines, thereby helping us find ways to save.

For years, the previous government generated surpluses at the expense of taxpayers. It then looked for ways to use those surpluses and its tax revenues by interfering in provincial fields of jurisdiction.

This government, however, recognizes that this money belongs to Canadian and Quebec taxpayers, including the people of Beauce, and that it should be given back to taxpayers. Sound financial management also means that we must pay for costs from the past. Thus, the government intends to reduce the federal debt by $3 billion a year. Yes, you heard correctly, $3 billion each year. Our goal is to reduce Canada's debt-GDP ratio to 25% by 2013, which is one year earlier than planned.

The federal government's communication of financial information will also be improved, in order to give Canadians the transparency they expect from us, their elected members.

Let us take a moment now to talk about productivity and competitiveness, two terms that are very important to me as Minister of Industry. Tax rates have a considerable impact on the productivity and competitiveness of businesses in Canada, Quebec and the Beauce region. My background is in business and I know that every entrepreneur will have their own suggestions for dealing with the economic factors that affect their business. However, I can assure you that all entrepreneurs in my riding and throughout Canada agree on one thing: the importance of reducing the tax burden and the importance of reducing taxes. The 2006 budget does just that.

The new Conservative government's budget facilitates the competitiveness and productivity of Canadian businesses by leaving more money in the hands of entrepreneurs so that they can properly manage their business.

They know better what is good for their businesses than we do here in Ottawa. That is why we are cutting taxes so that they can reinvest this money and create jobs.

Canadian businesses are applauding our decision to cut back the corporate tax rate, which will fall from 21% to 19% by 2010. These businesses are also applauding our decision to eliminate the corporate surtax by January 1, 2008.

Some of these tax changes particularly affect small and medium-size businesses, which drive the economy in the regions and create jobs everywhere in Canada.

After years of half-measures and programs developed by the previous government that never kept its promises, and after listening to concerns of small and medium-size businesses about tax rates, our new Conservative government took action. It took action in this budget. First, we are going to raise the maximum revenue threshold for eligibility for the small and medium-size business tax rate from $300,000 to $400,000 by next January. Better yet, we are going to cut the tax rate for small and medium-size businesses to 11.5% by January 2008 and then cut it again to 11% by 2009. These tax cuts will enable businesses to create jobs and be more competitive on the international scene.

Our new government knows as well that the innovative companies which help our economy grow must sometimes work for years—sometimes many long years—before they are able to penetrate international markets. These companies will benefit from our decision to allow non-capital losses and investment tax credits to be carried over for up to 20 years. This includes the scientific research and experimental development tax credit, which is one of our government’s most important measures to support innovation.

Another important aspect of the budget is the support our government provides for research and development in Canada. This budget provides $100 million a year in additional funding for this area, which is crucial for the Canadian economy.

This new funding includes an additional $400 million a year for the three large granting agencies that support much of the research done in Canada. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council will each receive an additional $17 million a year, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council will receive an additional $6 million.

Beyond these commitments, our government has selected two other approaches to meet the needs of our research institutions. First of all, we are increasing the funding paid to universities to defray indirect research costs. The budget dedicated to indirect research costs will rise from $260 million to $300 million a year. Second, the government is undertaking to build a dynamic research community by contributing $20 million to the Canadian Foundation for Innovation’s Leaders Opportunity Fund for 2006-07 and 2007-08.

I am very happy to talk today and let the House know about an important commitment in our budget, namely fiscal balance. There is another reason why I am pleased to support this budget: our new government understands the importance of restoring the fiscal balance in Canada. Unlike the former government, our government’s budget contains a clear and precise road map for getting there.

Our government has been working hard since the first day and is fulfilling its commitments. We have already accomplished much for Canada in a short time. The 2006 budget shows that we are determined to get even more results for Canadians. This is why I am asking all the members in the House to support the budget.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned some good points, but I would ask him to refrain from silly rhetoric such as saying that the previous government did not keep its promises. We cut taxes by $100 billion in the biggest tax cut in history. The member is insulting his own party's tax cut of $20 billion if he goes down that road.

What I would appreciate the member confirming as the industry expert is what the Canadian tax rate is compared to the American tax rate. In the past, Conservative members have suggested that Canada was worse off. If we look at the chart on page 32 of the budget plan, we see that it suggests that with no changes or with the changes to this budget, in both cases, Canadian taxes and Canadian taxes for manufacturers would be lower than United States taxes, both under the previous regime and, even better, under this regime.

Would the member confirm that under the previous regime and also under his own tax plan Canadian corporations would have a lower corporate tax rate than the Americans?

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our latest budget contains tax cuts of $20 billion over two years. As I said earlier, it is very important for the competitiveness of the Canadian economy. If we make a comparison with the U.S. and the rest of the countries in the world, we realize that Canada is in a very competitive situation where corporate tax rates are concerned. This is a very important fact. As you know, capital is mobile in Canada; it goes where performance is the best. By having the lowest tax rates, rates that are competitive with the Americans, we are able to attract foreign and Canadian money that can be invested and that can create wealth in Canada. The tax cuts proposed in the budget will thus enable Canadians to keep an appreciable and substantial advantage over the U.S.

Regarding corporate tax rates, the reductions will also end up making our corporate tax system more competitive overall and not just on tax rates, which will enable our Canadian companies to increase their productivity.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have three simple questions for the minister on this budget.

First, since he seems to be quite familiar with figures in this budget, I would like to know what in terms of equalization will be the amount per capita that will be allocated to Quebec compared to the maritime provinces. It would be interesting to see whether the additional amount will correct the existing imbalance.

As far as the fiscal imbalance in general is concerned, this government promised to resolve it. I would like the minister to tell us how much we are talking about, how much it should cost—without going into details about the final negotiated sum. What can we expect from this government? We have already seen the Prime Minister go back on this issue over the weekend and that concerns us.

My last question has to do with the productivity of businesses. This is what I would like to know: for businesses that are currently having great difficulty, the manufacturing sector in particular where there are companies that are not making profits or paying taxes—what is in this budget to help them?

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague's first question on the advantages to Quebec in this budget with respect to equalization, the new budget ensures that Quebec will get $185 million more than it did last November, if we look at the state of public finances at the time. If we compare this to the previous budget of the former Liberal government, Quebec will receive $741 million more. This is quite advantageous.

As far as the fiscal imbalance is concerned, we are turning over a new leaf to resolve it. It should be noted that in our budget, the budget of the new government, in 2005-06, there is an $8 billion surplus, but we also have non-allocated surpluses. In an effort to be transparent, we are thereby showing all Canadians that the surpluses that were not allocated in our budget can be allocated to resolve the fiscal imbalance, resolve problems of productivity, problems the environment might cause, problems in several sectors. These non-allocated surpluses represent $600 million for this year and $1.4 billion for next year. This bodes well for the negotiations to resolve the fiscal imbalance.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to apologize. In my last intervention I quoted the wrong page. It was page 75.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The Chair thanks the hon. member.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be speaking on the government's budget implementation bill. I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-13, which will implement the provisions of the new government's budget that was passed in the House last week.

I want to begin by congratulating the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. I want to thank them for keeping their promises made to Canadians during the election campaign. This is one of the first steps in restoring accountability to our system.

Canadians are tired of being courted by politicians trolling for votes, only to be left in the lurch once the ballots have been counted. It is time to rebuild the relationship between voters and the government, and that rebuilding process began on January 23.

The Prime Minister has set out five achievable priorities and he has taken action on them. This budget puts the mechanisms in place to achieve those goals and one of the key elements of this budget is tax relief.

There are 29 different tax cuts that will deliver $20 billion in tax relief over the next two years. There is more tax relief in this first Conservative budget than in the last four federal Liberal budgets combined. To top it off, there is $2 in tax relief for every $1 in new program spending. That is a ratio that puts people over programs and it is a ratio that Canadians can feel good about.

For 13 years, Liberal budgets let Canadians down. Year after year, Liberal budgets featured little more than empty promises and wasteful spending. Canadians have been working harder and longer, and saving less, just to pay for Liberal scandals and boondoggles. Who could forget the sponsorship program, or the extravagant and ineffective long gun registry, or where the HRDC money went?

What did Canadians get for all their long hours of hard work from successive Liberal governments? They got to pay too much in taxes for too little in return and watch their tax dollars go to programs deemed wasteful and unnecessary. Finally, families are going to get a tax break, and this is near and dear to my heart. Families were promised help and the Conservative government has delivered.

This new government will increase the amount that all Canadians can earn without paying federal income tax. This budget reduces the lowest personal income tax rate from 16% to 15.5% effective July 1. On average, families will pay less personal income tax in 2006 than proposed by the Liberals in 2005.

This government believes that it is time to give back the hard-earned money that Canadians sent to the government and it is time to give that money back to Canadians. How are we going to do that?

First, there is the universal child care strategy, a key campaign promise and a throne speech priority. When it comes into effect on July 1, it will provide families with children under the age of six with $100 per month per child.

We are introducing a tax cut to promote physical fitness among children, effective January 1, 2007. This credit will provide up to $500 in fees for physical activity programs for each eligible child under the age of 16.

Aboriginal women, children and families will benefit from the $450 million aimed at improving education and socio-economic conditions, as well as water supplies and housing issues on reserves.

Low income Canadians, those whose incomes are too low to pay any income tax, deserve tax relief too, something our predecessors clearly did not believe in. All Canadians will benefit from the reduction in the GST, whether they are purchasing big ticket items like a new car or a new home, or if they are just purchasing everyday essentials.

Workers will benefit from the new $1,000 Canada employment credit starting July 1. This new tax credit gives Canadians a break on what it costs to go to work, recognizing that people incur expenses while they are going to work for such things as home computers, uniforms and supplies. This government has focused its spending on key federal priorities with programs that will get results and provide value to taxpayers for their money.

However, more than any other group in Canada, farmers have long borne the brunt of the Liberal lack of foresight on developing effective programs. Farming is part of our heritage. It is certainly part of my heritage and that of the majority of constituents in Wetaskiwin. For far too long, agriculture has been overlooked by Liberal governments. We promised help for farmers. We have delivered help for farmers, farm families and farming communities.

This government recognizes not only the importance of agriculture but the difficulties facing farmers today. To support Canadian farming communities, the government is providing $1.5 billion this year alone. This includes $500 million for farmer support, plus a one time investment of $1 billion to assist farmers in the transition to more effective programming for farm income stabilization and disaster relief.

Agriculture has received more money in this budget than any government has ever given to the sector in one budget before. Falling prices and trade disputes are causing farmers and producers real financial hardship. Current insurance and income support programs are not coming close to meeting the needs.

Canadian farmers need our support now more than ever. That is why one of the government's first actions was to accelerate disbursement of $755 million in payments under the grains and oilseeds payment program. That is why the government is taking action to restore and sustain a strong, vibrant farm sector that will provide farmers with the income they need to stay in business.

Our government commits $2 billion in funding over two years, $1.5 billion of which will be allocated in the budget. We are delivering on the promises we made in the election campaign for farmers, families and all Canadians.

This year Canada Day will be better than ever, thanks to the tax breaks the government is implementing, effective July 1, 2006. We can look forward to a cut in the GST from 7% to 6%; implementation of the universal child care benefit, which gives $1,200 per year to families for each child under six; an increase in the child disability benefit from $2,044 to $2,300; the creation of the Canada employment credit, $1,000 tax credit for computers, uniforms and supplies; reduction of the lowest tax rate by 0.5%, from 16% to 15.5%; and implementation of the tax credit for the purchase of monthly transit passes. That is not bad for just 100 days.

It will be a happy birthday for all Canadians and I urge all members in the House to support Bill C-13.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for listing the budget items. I want to focus on one and it has to do with health care, which has always been the number one priority of Canadians.

The Conservative election platform did talk about health care from the standpoint of wait time guarantees. The member will know that it really involves the Government of Canada providing additional financial support, so that Canadians can be transported to other provinces or, indeed, even to the U.S. for medically necessary health care, which is subject to the wait time guarantee.

The member congratulated the Prime Minister and the finance minister for keeping their promises, but he will recall that not only was the wait time guarantee in the platform but it was also one of the five priorities. Yet in the budget, there was not one penny of new health care funding for wait time guarantees.

There is additional moneys going to the provinces for health with regard to the $42.5 billion accord that was signed, but as was confirmed by the Minister of Health on Sunday on TV's Question Period, there is no new money in the budget, and he feels that there is sufficient moneys within the accord.

Will the member withdraw the congratulations to the finance minister and the Prime Minister because not only did they not deliver, they broke one of the most important promises they made to Canadians?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will not withdraw my congratulations to the Prime Minister or the finance minister. As a matter of fact, I will recongratulate the Prime Minister and the finance minister for providing us with one of the best budgets that I can remember in recent history.

There is $5.5 billion allocated for wait time reductions across the board in the budget. There is $52 million for the cancer initiative and there is $1 billion in new funding for pandemic research. There is a lot of money already there.

In my home province of Alberta right now, and I am very proud to be from Alberta, it is taking new initiatives and investing the money to find ways to make the system more efficient and more effective. Everybody understands that health care is very expensive and it is a very near and dear issue to most people. Canadians want health care when they need it.

There is nothing worse than sitting on a waiting list, knowing we have some ailment, knowing that we cannot move because a hip or a knee needs to be replaced, or waiting for cancer treatment. We have to get people the help they need when they need it. That is why I am very pleased that one of our top five priorities is to establish those wait time guarantees, working in consultation with the provinces, and ensuring we have the funding to deliver on that guarantee.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also deplore the fact that many previous governments did not keep their election promises. In this regard, I have a question regarding post-secondary education. Last week, the Minister of Human Resources claimed that the Canada social transfer included, and I quote from Hansard:

—$16 billion for education—

However, only $8.5 billion are available for this transfer. These funds are for social assistance and a number of other programs, not just post-secondary education. It seems, once again, that we will have to make a leap of faith and that the government has not kept its promise in this matter. During the election campaign, the Conservatives also made a very clear promise concerning a fund exclusively for post-secondary education.

In the interest of transparency, will my colleague elaborate on the figures before this House?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that deals with a social transfer. It is a massive block of money that is sent from the federal government to the provincial government, so it can choose how it wants to allocate that money in the province. The member is absolutely correct. It can go to education and other programs. That is the old way of doing business, which is to have one government passing money on to another level of government with strings attached and have governments squabble and quibble over the money.

I am proud and very happy about this budget as somebody who received a post-secondary education for eight years and had to apply for loans the whole time. As a former faculty member at a post-secondary institution in my home province, post-secondary education has been very important to me. I never got any money back or a tax credit for $10,000 worth of books that I bought, but finally, this government is putting money back in the hands of those students. I had money given to me for bursaries that was clawed back in income tax. We are addressing--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. Minister of Industry is rising on a point of order.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to point out that in my speech I said that the amount of $400 million was allocated to three granting agencies for research and development. The actual figure is $40 million per year.

[Gary Merasty, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Ottawa—Vanier.

To begin with, I must provide some context so members of the House can begin to understand how the Conservative government's budget is failing the people of Saskatchewan.

First, the population of Saskatchewan is approximately one million. Second, approximately 200,000 of the total population are aboriginal people, first nations on and off reserve and Métis. That is approximately 20% of the total population. Dr. Eric Howe, a University of Saskatchewan professor, and others have stated that by 2040 approximately 50% of Saskatchewan's population will be aboriginal. The aboriginal population is booming.

What is more, in the short and medium term the percentage of aboriginal people poised to enter the labour force will increase much more dramatically. Labour force planning in the next five to ten years will be absolutely critical, with aboriginal youth being a key ingredient in the planning.

The future of Saskatchewan's economy is dependent on all levels of government working together to invest in the booming aboriginal population to ensure the successful transition into the labour force in Saskatchewan. All of Saskatchewan is watching and wanting to work together to ensure the future viability of that great province.

The Saskatchewan legislature, aboriginal leaders and people, and Saskatchewan businesses are upset at the federal government's lack of vision and depth of understanding regarding Saskatchewan's needs.

Let us look a little deeper into how Saskatchewan has been left out. I will begin with child care.

Last week over 100 protesters showed up at the office of the Minister of National Revenue in Saskatoon calling upon the government to respect and build child care spaces. There are 168,000 children under the age of 12 in Saskatchewan, 110,000 working moms and only 8,000 spaces. The lowest income earners have the least amount of choice when it comes to working. They often have no choice but to work and are the most in need for child care spaces.

Saskatchewan's average income is about $35,000 per year. The $1,200 per child under age six payment is taxable. The income tax hike affects the lowest income earners the most. The lowest income earners will lose their child tax benefit. When we put all of this together, the net impact is that the most vulnerable low income and hard-working families will only get 55¢ a day.

Let us look a little deeper yet. The government is proposing to utilize a tax credit system to build child care spaces. Questions immediately arise about this proposal. Which big businesses will build these spaces in Saskatchewan? With most businesses in Saskatchewan employing less than 10 people, how can they build spaces? How will spaces be built in inner city neighbourhoods? How will spaces be built in rural Saskatchewan? How will the tax credit system work on reserve? The answer is it will not.

Switching gears to the tax situation, the disappointment with the Conservative plan is also felt in the business community. At an annual meeting of the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce in North Battleford, the chair of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Russel Marcoux, CEO of Saskatoon's Yanke Group of Companies, said that income tax cuts are one of the best ways to improve the standard of living for Canadians. However, the Conservatives have taken the exact opposite approach. They threw more of Canada's poorest on to the tax rolls by lowering the basic personal exemption and hiked up taxes for workers earning up to $36,000 from 15% to 15.5%. Remember that the average full time income in Saskatchewan is $35,000. These tax hikes directly hit the Saskatchewan people like they had a big target on their backs.

Moreover, most of the government's tax measures require money to be spent on certain things and not others. For example, it offers a tax credit for sports, but what about parents who cannot afford equipment or fees to participate? What about kids interested in the arts and music, kids who want to paint, play a guitar or a piano? What about kids who want to celebrate their culture by participating in powwows or Ukrainian dancing? Are those parents and children less deserving? Why can we not build community, recreational and cultural facilities?

Moreover, why do all these tax measures require money to be spent? Why can people not just have more of their own money in their pockets?

Switching gears to forestry, it is also no secret that Saskatchewan will be hurt by the softwood agreement. The province has stated that Saskatchewan could lose up to 50% of our export market and is disappointed that the government gave up $15 million owed to the Saskatchewan forestry industry by the Americans. Not only that but the government will tax heavily the Saskatchewan forestry companies that get their refunds on the money that was illegally held by the Americans in the first place.

What is worse is that the government is not offering any help to this struggling industry. It has allotted $400 million for pine beetles, which is a serious concern, but has left Saskatchewan out in the cold, even while mills in Big River and Prince Albert are shutting down and the mill in Meadow Lake is struggling. Even worse is that the government may have cut $300,000 from research grants for the Saskatchewan Forest Centre in Prince Albert resulting in research and innovation being lost at an incredibly vulnerable time for this industry.

The lack of concern that this budget and the government show for Saskatchewan's forestry industry, communities and workers is the worst thing to happen at the worst possible time.

Switching to agriculture, it is now apparent that the government will not offer any direct immediate assistance for farmers. We have seen the massive protests but still farmers are being offered nothing this spring. This happens at a terrible time. Severe flooding in Saskatchewan's northeast grain belt is keeping farmers off the fields, or they are getting stuck in them. Farmers across Saskatchewan need help to pay creditors and high input costs, costs like high fuel prices, to which the Prime Minister has only said, “Get used to it”.

What is even more mystifying is that the government has really no details on a strategy going forward for agriculture. I hear the environment minister talking about how her hands are tied in moving forward in accomplishing anything and about needing to take planes, trains and automobiles off the road and a made in Canada solution. I will give her a hint. If 35% of gasoline in Canada contained 10% ethanol, greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced by 1.8 million tonnes, which is the equivalent of removing more than 400,000 vehicles from the road.

Building a real biofuel strategy would be a great move forward. It would provide a real solution that would be made in Canada, right in Saskatchewan's towns, giving value added opportunities for a high quality product from our producers in Saskatchewan.

Switching gears again to aboriginal issues, rooted within the aboriginal communities is great disappointment with the government. Aboriginal leaders and premiers have slammed the government for killing the Kelowna accord, an accord which provided $5.3 billion for various initiatives on and off reserve.

The late Harold Cardinal, who wrote the book The Unjust Society, talked about how hard aboriginal Canadians worked to get the attention of the government over the years. He stated:

“Well, boys, what you have to say is good and you must be commended for the intelligence you have shown through your extremely good presentation”...“but we know your problems and what should be done, and we're certain that you will be pleased with our carefully considered decisions”.

Kelowna was the joint intelligence that all parties came up with. The government has thrown that away with its “we know what is good for you” attitude. This is very problematic to the aboriginal people. A real credibility gap has emerged where aboriginal people are very wary of the government's intentions.

By killing the accord, all of Saskatchewan is hurt by the loss of opportunity. A targeted investment in first nations Métis on and off reserve education and post-secondary skills training would have created new opportunities for an emerging youthful Saskatchewan labour force, keeping in mind the context I opened with.

Economic development funding would have leveraged millions in business activities. Aboriginal businesses are one of the fastest growing tax bases in Saskatchewan, with exceptionally high rates of returns on strategic business investments. Housing would have pumped millions into the industry and provided more training opportunities.

The budget also completely excludes the Métis people and leaves out survivors of the Ile-à-la-Crosse boarding school despite campaign commitments from the Prime Minister and the previous member of Parliament in my riding.

As I stated earlier, Saskatchewan people have worked hard to re-establish the province as a place full of promise, optimism and pride. All residents of Saskatchewan realize that by betraying the Kelowna accord and ignoring forestry, agriculture, child care and higher education and by raising taxes, our work as proud Saskatchewan people is made even tougher. The government cannot ignore us in Saskatchewan. The budget falls far short of what Saskatchewan people need.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments put forward by my colleague in his presentation. I respect his understanding for the aboriginal issues and the work he has done to date. I would like him to take a moment to speak to the on ground issues regarding the actions or inactions of the government through the budget in not investing in aboriginal issues, in not supporting the Kelowna accord. We could talk in broad terms about the immense amount of dollars that have been taken from that file, but how do the actions of the government impact on people on the ground and aboriginal people across this country?

[Gary Merasty, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, an investment in aboriginal people is an investment from which residents in Saskatchewan and all of Canada could benefit. Success in that demographic means success for all. It is absolutely critical at least in the Saskatchewan context and by extension across the country that there be investment in post-secondary education. It is key.

A small study which was done in Saskatchewan determined that approximately 585 young people needed to be trained for transition into the workforce just to get to a 50% employment rate in northern Saskatchewan. That speaks volumes to the need for investment, an investment that begins in early childhood. Early childhood learning opportunities are absolutely essential to framing the future success of individual youth. Education is the key to addressing many other issues.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the comments by the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. Being a member from Saskatchewan, I felt the need to address some of his comments.

It seems odd to talk about concern for first nations people when that member is a member of the party which held government not long ago. In the waning months of the last government, a terrible tragedy unfolded at Kashechewan in Ontario. The then minister of Indian affairs went to Kashechewan and saw what was unfolding. There was E. coli in the water. He came back to Ottawa and apparently eight weeks passed without the then minister doing anything whatsoever about the problem. I remember in the last Parliament that many of my colleagues and I were in utter disbelief that one could see such a tragedy but come back and do absolutely nothing.

Could the member reflect upon what he thought about the Kashechewan tragedy? The current government has provided $450 million for improving the water supply and housing on reserve and I could go on. I would like to hear the member's comments on Kashechewan and that tragedy.

The choice in child care allowance is of real benefit to people in remote communities, in rural Saskatchewan, but definitely in northern communities which the member represents. It is not like we are going to have a lot of child care spaces at the YWCA in La Ronge. Does the member recognize that under the Liberal plan there would have been no spaces created, but under the Conservative government's plan we are going to see choice in child care?

[Gary Merasty, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is odd at all to talk about aboriginal issues. They are very critical to be addressed at any point in time in the life of this and future Parliaments.

Child care is something that we are extremely concerned about, but let me back up a bit. The current government has not promised $450 million for water. It has talked about $150 million this year, and $300 million next year for housing and for education, which we do not know anything about yet because there is no plan.

What we see is a government that has no plan on child care for aboriginals, that is building more jails, that has made no education investment and no health investment. It is an atrocity to see no government response to the TB outbreak in Garden Hill, for example.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-13, the budget implementation act.

I am going to tell my colleagues about a number of flaws in this bill. We have been talking about this for several days now. We talked about it during the debate on the budget itself and we will debate it today and for the rest of the time the budget implementation act is debated. It concerns various subjects, for example agriculture, the environment, post-secondary education for aboriginal people, which we have just heard about in this House, housing for homeless people and the arts. I have talked about these quite often. There is huge disappointment, when it comes to the arts, as compared to what was proposed. We were expecting that this government would honour its own commitments and the commitments made by the previous government.

There is also the child care issue. As members will recall I have spoken in the past of the problems that the government’s decision to cancel all the agreements that the previous government made with all the provinces will cause for the official language communities. The scheme proposed in the budget is not going to ensure that quality child care centres are created for the minority communities of Canada.

I mention all that before taking another direction. That is, a more philosophical approach that a country should take in a budget. I will try to move to a more macro level, a more national level, with regard to the direction a budget takes. I will begin by looking at the early 1970s.

Members will recall that in the early 1970s, Canada started to run up deficits and accumulate debt, both during that period and up to the early 1980s. In 1983, before the change in government, it had accumulated a debt of about $198 billion.

The new government of Mr. Mulroney was in power from 1984 to 1993. I will talk about the debt. I will not talk about the annual deficit. During all those years, annual deficits continued to be accumulated, year after year. By late 1993, we had reached an accumulated debt of nearly $500 billion: $498 billion. Then we started to get worried, quite rightly. The government led by Mr. Chrétien, with the member for LaSalle—Émard who was the Minister of Finance at that time, tackled that question.

For 30 years, Canada essentially had a fiscal imbalance, running up a debt year after year. After three years of major effort—it was a very difficult time, and everyone had to tighten their belts—we managed to eliminate the annual deficit in 1997-98.

After 30 years, we had finally achieved a balanced budget, although it was a fragile one. At that point, as a nation, we had an opportunity to try to redirect public funds and balance revenues and expenses. Any country naturally has to encourage some spending on social programs, the environment, defence and other programs.

The government balanced revenues and expenses, in order to manage the debt. This is always difficult. We were able to start paying down the debt, something many of us had long dreamed of doing. Canadians who have a mortgage dream of reducing it and eventually paying it off. Alberta succeeded in paying off its debt under Premier Ralph Klein. And we have to say that getting rid of its debt has been good for that province. It eliminated not only its deficits, but also its debt.

After 1997-98, the government struck a balance between paying down the debt using the surplus and reducing taxes using government revenues. The government knew that Canadians wanted a gradual reduction in tax rates and increased spending in certain essential areas such as health, post-secondary education and research. That is the direction it took.

The current government seems to be deviating from this course, and may even have abandoned it entirely. I find this a bit worrisome.

According to the government's proposal, they will reduce the debt by a maximum of $3 billion per year, except for this year, because the budget surplus is about $8 billion. Starting next year, they will reduce the debt by only $3 billion per year.

If I may, I would like to tell a little story. I am honoured and pleased to be a grandfather. My granddaughter was born the year Canada stopped accumulating debt, that is, the year we balanced the budget and stopped running a deficit.

Since then, the Government of Canada has paid back $60 billion of its debt. If I understand correctly, we will pay back another $8 billion this year. All told, we will have paid back $68 billion of our debt since she was born.

However, at $3 billion per year, she will have to live to be more than 150 before her country becomes debt-free.

I believe it is not right that we who have benefited from this enormous debt all our lives should bequeath it to our children and grandchildren. We must deal with our debt more aggressively.

All in all, I find that the government's decision to reduce the debt by only $3 billion per year could one day place us in a very unstable situation. That is why I am urging the government to reconsider.

The situation Canada is enjoying now, vis-à-vis our neighbours to the south, is quite telling in terms of the way we have managed to successfully reduce our debt burden. According to the graph provided to us by the government in the budget, between 1995 and 2005 only two countries in the G-7 have actually decreased the debt burden as a percentage of their GDP, Canada and the U.S. They are the two best performing countries right now.

However, over the last two years, in particular, Canada reduced its debt, not by a lot, but last year by $1.6 billion and the year before substantially more. This year we reduced it by $8 billion. Whereas in the United States, which are the numbers presented to us in the budget, the debt last year increased in the neighbourhood of $500 billion or 4% of GDP. If we do not account for the social security numbers, this year it is in the neighbourhood of $600 billion or 4.6% of GDP.

In comparison to Canada's situation, the United States' fiscal situation is deteriorating and at some point that will come home to roost in the United States. What the Americans do then may seriously affect us and our standard of living. In anticipation of the day that the United States of America cannot carry on accumulating debt at the rate it is doing, we had better prepare ourselves by continuing to reduce our own debt at a faster clip than what is proposed in the current budget.

That is in essence the approach that I would encourage the government to seriously consider. To let the debt remain as it is and only pay off $3 billion would lead to a very interesting situation, which the Minister of Finance confirmed in his projections that, for the first time in a long time, our debt service and costs will increase. They were $34.1 billion last year. They are projected to be $33.7 billion this year but they will go back up next year to $34.8 billion.

This is the impact that the non-reduction of our debt at a faster clip engenders. This is where we are making a collective mistake in that while we can afford to reduce our debt at a faster clip we should. Instead of taking the $4 billion buffer that we have and reducing it to $3 billion, we should go back to a $4 billion or even a $5 billion annual increment so we can reduce the debt and be more responsible toward our future generations.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, a great deal of my colleague's presentation was focused on the responsibility taken by the previous government in paying down debt. One aspect of debt repayment that stands out in my mind was when the previous government honoured the offshore accords and issued upfront payments to both the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and to my home province of Nova Scotia for offshore royalties.

Approximately $800 million was put forward to the province of Nova Scotia and it very wisely applied the money to its debt. Prior to that, the province of Nova Scotia had the worst per capita debt in all of Canada. Paying down the provincial debt has had a significant impact. The issuance of that cheque to the province of Nova Scotia and its application on the debt has loosened up approximately $40 million annually that may be used for roads, hospitals and education.

What would the $68 billion that has been applied to the debt over the years equate to in a free balance on the budget each year? Where should Canadians have expected that amount of money to have been invested?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the $68 billion that was paid back saved the Canadian taxpayer and, I would imagine, the Crown, somewhere between $3 billion and $4.5 billion annually.

The $8 billion projected that would be paid off in the fiscal year that ended at the end of March 2006 should generate, if a 5% rate of return is taken, about $400 billion in savings on servicing our debt as early as next year. That is the virtuous circle that our party has managed to create in this country in paying off debt, as opposed to the vicious cycle we were in where debt was accumulating faster than the government could handle it.

My colleague opposite should be very careful when he shouts things out because he comes from a government in Ontario that did exactly opposite of what should have been done. Instead, it reduced revenues and increased debt, which we will now have to pay for the rest of our lives.

I was trying to avoid partisanship in saying that the country has a responsibility for the next generation. Whether it be a Conservative government or a Liberal government, we have a responsibility toward our children and our grandchildren. I am saying that we have to be careful in taking a direction of not reducing our debt as fast as we can in a balanced approach. I am saying that the government is veering away from the approach that we had and which the country adopted of paying off debt, reducing taxes and at the same time increasing spending toward more reduction of taxes and more spending and less paying off debt.

We had a tripod balance there that worked. We had best be careful because if we do not reduce debt, the next time we have a recession it may hit us very hard and then we would be back into the vicious cycle of scenarios that we had for about 30 years until 1997-98.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear what my Liberal colleague has to say about the fact that there is nothing in the budget for employment insurance.

Can my colleague say what amendments he would like to see made regarding employment insurance?

We are well aware than in various regions of Quebec, and particularly in the region I represent, this is an extremely important issue. I would like to hear him on this subject, and hear what he is asking for.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to sit down with my colleague and discuss this.

My remarks today essentially relate to the entire question of an overall balance in terms of what relationship there may be between a government’s revenue and expenditures and management of the debt for the future and the direction that a country should take when it comes to tax policy.

I am perfectly aware that some places in Canada need more assistance than others when it comes to the employment situation and seasonal jobs. I entirely agree that our programs should accommodate the needs of every region of Canada to the extent possible.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak about our new government's first budget. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

Public life is about reflecting the essence of the objective, economic and daily realities in the lives of our fellow citizens, the way we work, the way we live, the way we care for those we love and the way we strive for better lives and a better Canada.

Our government’s first budget is guided by these realities and by important principles. Those principles are clear and specific.

First, government has no absolute right to more and more of the hard-earned money of working Canadians. When government is too large, taxes are too high and surpluses are endemic.

Second, there is only one taxpayer who carries the provincial, federal and municipal load, not three separate taxpayers unrelated to each other.

Third, government must be respectful of the dollars it spends. Taxpayers expect and demand that spending be focused, transparent and accountable. We must ensure Canadians receive good value for the money they send and the money we spend. Our budget honours these principles.

Our budget reduces the tax burden on individual Canadians by $20 billion, more than the last four federal budgets put together.

The budget delivers more than twice as much tax relief as new spending. For every new tax dollar we spend, our government is returning $2 to hard-working Canadians through initiatives such as the 1% GST tax reduction, the new Canada employment credit, a permanent reduction in the lowest income tax rate as of July 1 and increases in the basic tax exemption for all Canadians.

These tax cuts are broad, are evenly directed and help millions of Canadians from coast to coast. The budget delivers tax relief people can see, tax relief that makes a difference, tax relief on which Canadians can count.

Our tax relief plan will exempt 655,000 low-income Canadians from federal income tax.

All of this is within our government's ironclad commitment to balance the federal budget. We are doing all of this while investing more in health care, child care, defence and national security, policing, safe communities and protected borders and more for farmers across Canada who deserve and merit transitional support during these challenging and unbalanced global commodity pricing periods. We can do all this because we will reduce waste, redundancy, overlap and unchecked growth in the federal government's spending.

I will speak about spending for a moment. Over the past five years, total program spending has grown by an average of 8.2% annually. In one year, 2004-05, growth in spending increased by 14.4% under the previous government. These are simply not sustainable or desirable levels of growth in spending. Our budget brings that down to 5.4% for this year and 4.1% for next year.

Our government is taking a targeted approach, and is determined.

We are reining in spending and looking inward to ensure that we as a government have our own house in order. We will review all programs and departments to ensure compliance with a few basic principles: first, that government programs are focused on results and value for money; second, that programs are consistent with federal responsibilities; and third, that when programs no longer serve the purpose for which they were created, they are ended. We will identify $1 billion in savings over this year and next and report by the fall.

Our government will be transparent and open with Canadians concerning the country’s public finances.

The days of surprise surpluses are over. The tax system does not exist to fund large federal surpluses that give licence to spend the people's hard-earned money as if it belonged to the Government of Canada. Government works for the people, not the other way around.

The budget our government delivered on May 2 embraces that kind of relationship between a government and the taxpayers to whom the government is accountable. This is a budget that demonstrates strong support for Canadians and their families. The budget provides Canadian families with children under six a $1,200 a year universal child care benefit so they can make their own choices on child care. It helps apprentices in the trades. It encourages young Canadians to participate in physical fitness and sports programs. It helps students with university education deductions. It reduces the tax burden on small business.

It is on the farm, in the classroom, on the factory floor, in research labs, small businesses on construction sites, community centres and church basements of all denominations where Canadians move the country forward every day. That is where we should be removing the burdens of excess taxation and encouraging independence, initiative and hard work because they are at the very core of what drives and enriches Canadian lives.

Government should help in areas that cannot be faced alone by hard-working Canadians in those areas where a framework of equality and opportunity surely reflects our values as caring citizens, neighbours and human beings, very much in the Canadian tradition, in education and health care, in securing safe communities and public health and supporting persons with disabilities, in defence and in removing the capital gains tax from donations to cultural, social and health charities. The government has a role to play and we have embraced that role in the new budget.

As the finance minister and minister responsible for the Greater Toronto Area, I am honoured to be part of a new government that embraces the kind of shift from the old paradigm of Ottawa overspending and Ottawa knowing best. Instead, we are focussing now on priorities that produce results for people in their daily lives. Infrastructure is for example.

Our budget provides more than $16 billion over the next four years for infrastructure.

This is a long term investment that will mean better roads, more efficient borders and modern public transit through increased capital funding and tax incentives for transit riders. The ultimate goal of these investments is to get people and goods moving in order to keep Canada competitive. An essential part of our first budget is about making Canada more competitive and more productive. In fact, there are 23 specific initiatives in the budget designed to move us forward on this front.

Productivity and competitiveness are about innovation, fair and reasonable tax rates, education, research and development and enhanced workplace productivity. We are embracing a new beginning, a beginning where the taxpayer is respected as opposed to being overburdened, a beginning where the federal, provincial and territorial governments can work together, like we did on softwood lumber, to restore a fiscal balance to the federation and a beginning where we support families, reward initiative and foster productivity in all regions of Canada.

With the budget, we have turned a new leaf. We have turned a new leaf away from excessive taxation and wasteful federal spending. We have turned a new leaf away from condescension to the provinces and feigned and unnecessary hostility toward our greatest ally and trading partner to the south. We have turned a new leaf away from government that puts being big ahead of every other value or attribute.

Our government is focussed, deliberate and fiscally responsible. Our government is managing a few priorities at a time. We will not over-promise and we will not overspend. Our government knows its place and respects its core accountability to the taxpayers of Canada. We are keeping our promises to Canada. They entrusted us to focus on priorities and deliver results.

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

Mr. Speaker, my questions for the minister are about the basic honesty, or lack thereof, of the budget and about benefits being distributed evenly.

It appears to me that this is really a meanspirited budget, which plays to the Conservative base. Far from eschewing the principle of Ottawa knows best, this is a social engineering Ottawa knows best budget, which rewards those who play sports, but not those who play music. It takes money from aboriginal people. His own official confirmed the other day at committee that the budget liberates on the order of $5 billion not now going to aboriginals, the least privileged group in the country. It takes money from lower income Canadians by raising only the tax rate applied to lower incomes. It threatens to cut off the homeless, which is not surprising coming from the finance minister who wished to jail the homeless.

First, when he says the budget is even-handed, why is it that at every turn it is the least privileged Canadians who are cut, the ones who are gouged, simply because they are not likely to vote Conservative?

My second question has to do with honesty. His own budget document confirms a hike in the lowest income tax rate. A few days ago his own officials at committee confirmed that. Everybody knows that. Why can the minister not simply come clean and acknowledge, notwithstanding any other possible virtues of the budget, the basic fact that the low income personal tax rate will go up and not down?

The other thing he should acknowledge is the fact that, if we do the math, the tax relief since 1997, when the Liberals balanced the books until the new government took office, amounted to $16 billion per year. His budget has $6 billion of tax relief per year. Not only has the income tax rate gone up rather than down, but over the years of balanced budgets, our government provided a whole lot more tax relief to Canadians than did this budget.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows no compunction. What nerve for the member opposite to say that the Liberal budget reduced taxes more than this budget. If we add the last four Liberal budgets together, plus the fall update, it does not amount to the tax cuts broadly given to Canadians in this budget. What total nonsense from the finance critic. What more nonsense when he implies that lower income Canadians will pay more income tax.

Six hundred and fifty-five thousand of the lowest income earning Canadians not only will pay less federal income tax, they will pay no federal income tax. They have been removed from the rolls all together. The net results on income tax, with all the measures we have taken, is that every income group in Canada will pay less income tax. The member opposite must know that, if he has read the budget. That is the reality and the truth. That is the effect on the lives of Canadians.

The member opposite, in his first question, mentioned civil discourse. Let us have civil discourse on the facts. All Canadians will pay less income tax. That is the fact. All Canadians will pay less GST. That is the fact. The tax reductions are almost $20 billion. That is the fact.

I know the member opposite does not like it because he is faced with one of the most popular budgets in recent Canadian history. That is because we are responding to the needs of Canadians and keeping our commitments to Canadians, unlike the party opposite did in its 13 years in government.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after hearing the question from my colleague opposite, I listened very carefully to the answer from the Minister of Finance.

I will try to be brief. I am the Bloc Québécois critic for Indian and northern affairs. Our committee adopted and reported a motion to implement the Kelowna accord, which was crucial to the development of the first nations and the aboriginal peoples.

I do not need to have all the figures read to me, but $400 million was earmarked for far too many things on reserves. I understand that $300 million is earmarked for off-reserve housing, but does the Minister not think that this $400 million for use on reserves is inadequate? The government had enough money to increase that figure to over $500 million, which is the minimum needed, if only—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

The hon. Minister of Finance has the floor and will have to give a very brief answer.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

The funding in the budget for aboriginal needs is substantial. There is the off reserve housing funding and the trusts being set up in that regard. They are dependent only on a sufficient surplus of $2 billion in the last fiscal year, so that money will flow. There is important funding for education and for health needs of aboriginal persons on reserve. The minister responsible, my colleague the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, is working diligently to create the--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary (for the Canadian Wheat Board) to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity today to address the budget.

While the Minister of Finance is here, I would like to acknowledge the tremendous work he has done. He has done great work on the budget over the last few months. What is truly amazing about the budget is that the Minister of Finance did it on short notice. Last year, when the former finance minister across the way was doing the preparation for the budget, it seemed like it took months and months, and he was running all over the country. After all that time, he still was not capable of coming up with a budget that was acceptable to Canadians.

In the election we saw the consequences of the previous government actually coming forward with three separate budgets during the last year. Those members did not think one was good enough. Last summer they had to make a separate deal with the party to their right physically in the House, but obviously to their left, and they came up with another budget. In the fall, they had to take another run at it to try to bring forward more proposals acceptable to Canadians. Of course, as we moved into the election campaign, we found out how interested Canadians were in their budget proposals. Because of that, they had to turn the government over to what we think is a much more confident and capable group of people.

I would like to talk a little about the budget today. Obviously there are some highlights of the budget. One that I am being told about at home and that is very important to people is the reduction in the GST. That has caught the imagination of people across my riding. They know it is going to have an impact on every one of them. Every single person in the country will be able to benefit from that. People are excited about it.

My area is an agricultural one. The people there are very excited to see the commitment the government has made toward agriculture. A lot of them have waited for many years for a government that would begin to pay attention to them and listen to them when they talk about the problems they find in their sector.

This government has stepped forward. During the election campaign we came forward with what we thought was a good election platform on agricultural issues. That was not good enough for the finance minister. Instead of giving just $500 million, as we had promised, in additional aid to the agricultural sector, he tripled it. He brought it up to $1.5 billion. That brings farm aid this year to levels that have rarely been seen before.

It is an interesting budget, a good budget and an exciting budget. There are a lot of different things about it that Canadians really like.

The budget is definitely a budget of opportunity. It offers comprehensive tax relief for virtually everyone in this country. For individuals there are tax breaks that will be valued at over $20 billion over the next two years. That is actually more than was contained in the last four budgets combined. Canadians are beginning to become aware of the fact that this government is not like the previous government, which promised and promised and talked ad nauseam about what it would do but never got around to doing it.

One of the most obvious places that happened was in agriculture, where often we would hear the same money being announced up to five different times. The Liberal government would come forward with an announcement that would sound like a big deal. It would re-announce the money a little bit later, some of it going into the same thing and some being redistributed. It would come back time and again, re-announcing that same money. We are not prepared to do that. We are going to move ahead. We are a government that keeps our promises and moves ahead. We are doing what we said we would do.

As a result of the $20 billion in tax relief that the Minister of Finance has so graciously brought forward for Canadians, there will be 655,000 low income Canadians removed from the tax rolls altogether.

As I said, the budget delivers twice as much tax relief as it does new spending. It delivers more tax relief than the last four budgets combined. It has 29 separate tax incentives and deductions for Canadians. Whenever I talk to people in my riding about the budget, they tell me they are excited to hear about the fact that virtually all of our deductions have to do with their lives, the things they deal with and their daily issues.

Obviously the goods and services tax is one with which they are familiar. We are committed to reducing that by 1% by July 1, 2006, and then by another percentage point later in the mandate. I have heard some questions about why we did not just cut the GST immediately when the budget was presented.

The main reason is that the business community asked that we wait to allow its members to have the time to adjust their cash registers, accounting systems and those kinds of things to make the change. It has been interesting. The people I have heard from most on this issue have been the car dealers. They think people are actually holding off until after July 1 to buy cars. We might not think this cut is a big deal on a $30,000 car, but people will save $300 and they are excited about that. The car dealers are having to figure out whether they will absorb that loss themselves or if they are going to have people put off their purchases until after the change. It has been fun to see people excited about that.

There are many other things that we are doing. The Canada employment credit we are coming forth with is a tax credit of up $500 on employment income. People who are forced to spend money on uniforms and those kinds of things are going to be able to get a tax credit for what they are spending.

We are reducing the lowest tax rate to 15.5%. Of course, the Liberal government will claim it was doing that, but it came up with all kinds of promises that it never came through on. This budget confirms that the lowest tax rate will be 15.5% from January--

[An hon. member]

It was 15%.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I notice that the members across way do not seem to like to hear the truth. They are a little concerned by it. As usual, when they do not have content, they make up for it with a lot of noise. I guess we are becoming used to that in the House.

It is actually a great treat to be on this side of the House and realize that we are going to be able to implement what we bring forward. We know that the Liberal government had its opportunity. We hear many of the Liberals still making a lot of noise and wanting to continually be after us, but they had their chance. Now Canadians are apparently more than willing to give us the opportunity to come forward with our legislation and our plan.

We are going to increase the basic personal exemption amount. That is something that low income Canadians really appreciate as well.

There are a few other things that I think are really great. During the campaign, one of the things we talked about was apprenticeship programs and what we wanted to do to try to encourage young Canadians to become part of that. I think this is a really good initiative, as I thought it was during the campaign, and we are moving ahead with it. It has a couple of components.

One is a new tax credit of up to $2,000 for employers who want to hire apprentices. I think that is a great initiative. We are going to set a $1,000 grant in place for first year and second year apprenticeships. Young people who want to get into apprenticeship programs will have the opportunity to access some of these grants.

We are putting in a $500 deduction for tradespeople for costs in excess of $1,000 for the tools they need to acquire as a condition of employment. If I were a young person, this would be exciting for me. I think young people are excited about the fact that they will be able to go into an apprenticeship program and acquire tools and get a tax deduction for doing that. I think this is long overdue as well.

To wrap up, there are many other good things in the budget that help out families, farmers and people who want to get a job. The universal commitment to parents who have children under six is another big issue and a good initiative that we think is necessary. We look forward to moving forward with the budget and enjoying the support of Canadians as we do.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member keeps repeating, as have other members of the Conservative Party, this nonsense about there being more tax cuts in this budget than all previous budgets combined. That is just idiotic nonsense.

I wonder whether the hon. member could tell us, since the year 2000, what has been the cumulative effect of the tax relief afforded in budgets 2000 through to 2005? Does he still, after doing that mathematical addition, maintain his position that this budget in 2006 has more tax relief than all those previous budgets?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am only too happy to stick to the issues here. I am not sure that we need to get into the name-calling or into basically saying that people are idiots because they do not agree with the Liberals. We have seen too much of that over the years. They seem to have the attitude that they are somehow entitled to be in a position of power here.

I will talk a bit about my area of southwestern Saskatchewan in a short answer to my friend's question. I am proud to represent the good people of Cypress Hills--Grasslands. After 13 years of Liberal incompetence and the corruption and the things that we have seen, people in my riding are definitely not in the same shape they were in when the Liberal government took over 13 years ago.

In fact, the farming sector is in an absolute crisis situation, primarily because the previous government had no interest in helping out Canadians in my part of the world. The Liberals were ready to step up to the plate for their special interest groups, but farmers were not one of them. I have a large agricultural riding, and the folks in my area had basically been left alone by the previous government. Now we have to fill in the gaps and try to prop up the industry so it can get back on its feet again. We look forward to doing that.

There are a lot of other things in the budget that are really good. Members should be thanking us for the child care proposal we have put forward. This government will pay every parent in this country with a child under the age of six $1,200 per year to be put toward the child care they choose. People where I come from tell me this is a good idea. They know full well that the fantasy plan the Liberals came forward with, and which had no results, was not working for them. While the Liberals would spend millions of dollars on their friends and those they liked, the people where I come from, the people in rural communities, were not seeing any money. They were left alone until we came forward with this proposal of $1,200 per child. People in my part of the world are thankful. They say they are very grateful and are glad that we are in power. They say they look forward to supporting this government in the future.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since the mid-1990s when the former government cancelled the national housing program, we are seeing more homeless people on the streets in big cities. There are certainly people living in rural Canada who are having difficulty trying to figure out a place to live. Homelessness affects everyone across Canada.

We did not have an affordable housing program for many years. The Liberal government started a supportive community housing program called SCPI, which created shelters, not housing. It is not clear whether or not money for this program is being renewed in the budget.

I have a specific question for my colleague. Given that the funding for housing in the budget is one time only funding and the SCPI money is no longer in the budget, how would the hon. member deal with the ongoing costs of shelters, of building supportive housing, especially in big urban centres, so that we can keep people from freezing in the streets?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have a growing problem in Saskatchewan. I would say that the primary reason for it is that we have had NDP governments for 50 years in our province. They have diluted our economy and basically put us in the situation where we are having a very tough time being competitive.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government's budget delivers the least to those who need it the most and the most to those who need it the least, with next to nothing for the rest of us.

This budget delivers little for what Canadians need. It delivers little for working families. It delivers next to nothing for seniors, students, aboriginals, immigrants, children and parents. Even worse, it delivers less than nothing to future generations. It delivers less than nothing to Canada, to our land, sea, air and water. It delivers nothing for our climate and the environment and less than nothing to all of us.

However, where it does deliver, it delivers the most to those who need it the least, to the small percentage of parents who do not need child care, to the wealthy and the higher income levels who do not need a windfall, to corporations that are awash in profits, and to the oil and gas industries that continue to feed pollution.

It is funny. The Conservative Party has always attacked the NDP for our efforts to redistribute health fairly and equitably, to eliminate poverty, to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor, to open up opportunity to create a better and healthier future for all, and to build a better Canada and a better world.

This Conservative government is proving that it wants to redistribute wealth as well. It wants to redistribute wealth but in the wrong direction. It is redistributing the wealth of this nation, created by generations of people from all over the world, to the wealthy. How do members like that?

After taking the word “progressive” out of the Progressive Conservative Party name, this government is now seeking to take “progressive” out of Canada's progressive tax system.

This callous, shallow and gimmicky budget delivers the most to those who need it the least, to the wealthy and highly paid, to big spenders who squander the money on unnecessary luxuries, to the stay-at-home spouses of wealthy Canadians, to rich corporations, and to the profit-laden, constantly-polluting oil and gas industries.

This budget redistributes Canada's health to the wealthy and with it, the wealth and the environmental health of future generations. This government has a very Bush-league mentality with this budget.

What is left for those most in need, who need a bit of our nation's wealth the most? What is left for working families struggling to get by? What is left for students and seniors? What about aboriginals or immigrants?

What is left for all the children in this country who live in poverty? I ask that question today, more than a decade after every member of every party in this House took Ed Broadbent's pledge to make child poverty history. Today, one in six Canadian children live in poverty. Close to half the children of aboriginals and new immigrants live in poverty; the newest Canadians and those who were here before anyone else.

Child poverty exists in this country and yet, this government sees fit to ignore it. This Bush-league budget does nothing to break the cycle of poverty. Instead, this Bush-league budget rips apart programs, such as child care and affordable housing, that could break the cycle of poverty. It helps entrench that cycle by widening the gap between the rich and low income Canadians, by widening the gap between the have and the have nots, making it harder to break those cycles in order to pursue opportunity and create wealth.

This budget raises hopes by promising choice and promising benefits, and then delivers gimmicks and bribes while gutting and ripping apart the social programs and public spending that people need in this country.

Consider working families struggling to make ends meet. This government has ripped away the funding for the new child care programs that we finally got under way after years of Liberal delays.

Those are real programs for real children like the new child care and early learning centre called Kensington Kids in Trinity—Spadina. Kensington Kids is a wonderful centre created by parents who are on the board of directors and the educators at the community school where it is located.

We need more centres like Kensington Kids across Canada to deliver on the quality child care that parents and children need. Instead, by ripping away the funding for next year, the government and the Bush-league budget has slammed the door in the face of Kensington Kids just as it is getting started. Kids will be out in the cold and that is happening all across Canada.

What does this budget offer instead? What would those parents get and what would these kids get? Well, here is the answer. They will get a couple of bucks a day, barely enough for diapers let alone child care. A couple of bucks a day is all that is left from the new allowance that the government used to call choice in child care until New Democrats proved loud and clear it provided no choice in child care.

The allowance was reinvented in the budget as a universal child care plan, but it still has nothing to do with child care and it still does not deliver a full $1,200 to anyone. It is Bush-league. Working families and single parents who need child care the most and need financial assistance the most, will actually see the least from this bogus program.

Even with the modest improvements the government made after the NDP pressed it relentlessly, and even after the elimination of some of the federal clawbacks, those who need the most will still see the least. The allowance is still taxable even though it could have been delivered through the child tax benefit program. The government still intends to eliminate the $250 young child supplement that so many working couples and single parents, low and middle income families depended upon. Canadians will only see a net gain of $950 and that is taxable.

Hardest hit are single parents, so often women, who have been abandoned and are struggling to make ends meet, feed their kids, juggle part time jobs and find reliable child care. They see the least and working couples see very little more. But who sees the most of this so-called universal program? Well, the wealthy, that is who. We are redistributing child care dollars to those who need it the least.

The Caledon Institute did a post-budget assessment and the stay-at-home spouses of the highest income earners stand to see the highest benefits of $1,071. That is higher than the families on welfare, families which may actually lose other benefits and end up with nothing extra to help them get child care and get off welfare.

The spouses of wealthy Canadians are the new welfare queens and kings, the wealthy Canadians who do not need child care at all, and do not need the extra assistance to ensure the kids have warm boots in the winter and do not go to bed hungry. They are receiving the highest benefits of all out of this Bush-league budget. That is wealth redistribution of the worst possible kind. It is universal all right. A universal con game. We can do better than that.

The Government of Canada should not be punishing parents who need to work for a living. It not should show bias against working women and it should not deliver more to the rich than it does to the poor and the middle class. This is not made in Canada; this is made in U.S.A. That is why it is Bush-league.

Let us consider our seniors. They are the elders of our community, who worked hard, educated their kids, paid their dues, paid their taxes and deserve to live in dignity and respect. They are people like my mother, people like the seniors who drop into the Cecil Street community centre in Trinity—Spadina. They are people who are struggling to stay in their family home and trying to get home care so families are not ripped apart. They are people who have paid for our health system, saw it become the best in the world, and now see it failing them just when they need it the most.

What is in this budget for seniors? Nothing. Those who need it the most are seeing nothing. There is no new assistance or extra income for seniors, nothing for health care, nothing for pharmacare, nothing for home care, nothing for property tax reduction, nothing but pennies a day from the GST reduction. It means pennies a day for most seniors. Very few will save even as much as $100 a year. It would take $10,000 of spending over and above rent or property taxes and food to save as much as $100 a year on the GST reduction. Most seniors will see maybe $30 or $40 a year, pennies a day.

In downtown Toronto that will not stretch very far. Seniors see rising heating bills, cost of living and property taxes. With this budget, they will see declining social services, which they need the most and yet they get the least.

Who will get the most from the GST reduction? Let us face it, it is a gimmick. It is a costly gimmick and a government bribe. Once again, it is wealthy Canadians. Those who can afford to spend the most will see the most from this budget. They will have big savings from the GST. A wealthy person can guy a Porsche for $100,000 and will save $1,000. This is a good chunk of change. Yet most seniors will see maybe $50, pennies a day, not enough for a one way subway ride in Toronto.

Think of the aboriginals. The first nations in this country have also been left out in the cold. Once again, they are an afterthought. The NDP managed to negotiate funding in last year's budget, which was a start, but with this Bush-league budget aboriginals are being ignored. There is nothing new and promised child care funding of $25 million was ripped away. Aboriginals deserve better and we can do better than that.

Immigrants in this country contribute so much to our economy, culture and quality of life. Yet this budget fidgets with settlement fees but does nothing to reform a system that is cheating our country of the contributions made by immigrants. There is nothing to reform the system, nothing to reunite families faster, nothing to stop families and communities from being ripped apart, and nothing to address the callous and shortsighted deportations of much needed workers. This is a country built by immigrants, a country that needs immigrants, and yet those who need the most get the least in this budget.

The largest university in Canada is in my riding, the University of Toronto. There are also community colleges and students from many other post-secondary institutions in my riding. The government seems bent on squeezing students out of the picture, at least the students who are most in need. They may save pennies a day on the GST reduction, but that will not help pay tuition or find affordable housing.

Think about it. The little bit that the government has put toward post-secondary education, in Bill C-48 by the way, is for capital spending for universities. That may build some new labs or libraries, but it will probably be for only some of the fortunate few students who will actually afford to go and be able to have a huge debt after graduating.

While the government gives GST windfalls to the wealthiest, it does nothing to address tuition fees. Tuition fees are a tax on students, a huge burden. The tax cuts the government is making are on the backs of students who are footing the bill. This is insane and again is widening the income gap and making it harder to break the cycle of poverty.

The government has talked tough about youth and gang crime, enforcement, policing and putting hard, cold dollars into this budget. That is all fine and good, but what about vulnerable communities? What about youth at risk? There is money to address a small number of criminals. They get lots of money devoted to them. What about the vast majority of youth who need programs, training and opportunities, money for positive programs and education, and public funding to help them get started and not leave them to fail? Those who need the most get the least. In this case criminals will get the most. We can do better than that.

Let us think about the millions of Canadians who need affordable housing, seniors, students, working families, immigrants, artists and aboriginals. We desperately need affordable housing in Trinity—Spadina, since the federal Liberals abandoned the national housing program over a decade ago. In the budget we see the bare minimum, based on what the NDP achieved in the last minority government. It may translate into a couple of homes in Trinity—Spadina, if we are lucky.

Think about it. Someone who is really wealthy could buy a million dollar condo in my riding and save $10,000 in GST. This is good for that person and for the developer, but what about the seniors, the students, the single mothers who need affordable housing? What about them? Why are we making million dollar condos more affordable, while failing to deliver affordable housing to those who need it? Why are we doing that? Why?

Something in this country is universal. It affects the rich and the poor, new Canadians, aboriginals, artists, business people, everyone, and that is the environment. It is the air we breathe, the weather we endure, the environment we live in. It is what we all need the most and it is getting the least. There is nothing in the budget for the environment. The government covers up by diverting a minuscule tax saving to transit pass buyers and that is it. That is the environmental program.

There is not enough to expand public transit by even a tiny bit. It is not enough to meet even the most modest Kyoto commitment. There is nothing for enforcement, nothing for regulations for industry, no teeth for existing enforcement . The budget fails on the environmental front.

In downtown Toronto there were 63 smog days last year. Kids with asthma are gasping for air. Seniors can barely breathe. Our health care system is being crushed by all of this. Yet the government buries its head in the sand, very bush league. We can do better than that, or at least we had better try.

In the budget there is nothing for the environment. Yet the money losing port authority is still allowed to operate squandering millions in taxpayers' money on ferry upgrades, for an airport expansion that no one wants. All that money that is being squandered could be put to good use on Toronto's waterfront, while stopping pollution and planes.

There is a gap between the rich and the poor in this country and it is growing. We have been through a decade of great growth and prosperity, but too many people have been left behind. Now is the time to invest some of that surplus and recycle some of that prosperity. Instead we are squandering the prosperity and the surplus to give more to those who need it the least, and to give the least where it is most needed. That is wrong.

The Conservative government is using the ridiculous excuse that the Liberals did not deliver on all their promises either. We know that and it is no excuse. The Canadian people voted the Liberals out of office. Canadians expect better from the government. Some are seeing more: the wealthy, the corporations; those that need it the least are seeing the most. It is bush league, and the government should be ashamed of the budget.

We can do better and all Canadians deserve better. It is up to all of us in Parliament to ensure that the government delivers more to those who need it. Let us work for a progressive government for all Canadians and for future generations.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments. Perhaps the member could make a quick comment on the government's commitment to the environment, specifically in terms of the transit credit and the almost 16% credit for users of public transit. Certainly that will benefit Canadians whether they ride the subway in Toronto, or whether they ride the bus in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan in my riding.

The transit pass subsidy is something that has been very well received in my riding. It is something that will reward individuals who already utilize public transit, but it will also encourage a number of people to start using public transit. This will of course reduce emissions in the long run.

The member may be tempted to get into a big discussion on the environment. She may rest assured that the Minister of the Environment is working hard on these issues and is working hard on a made in Canada solution that will clean up our air, water and the land.

Would the member please comment on her reaction in the budget to an almost 16% tax credit for public transit? Does she support that tax credit for public transit? Does she think it is a good idea?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the $150 million which is this year's tax credit for the cost of public transit is something for which the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and all municipalities have been asking. That is not a bad step. However, what the TTC and other public transit systems across Canada are also saying is that people can be encouraged to take transit but what if there is no money to buy buses, or to repair or build subway systems and new lines and pay for fuel?

Gas prices have gone up. Transit authorities, whether they are in Moose Jaw, Toronto, Vancouver or Halifax are saying that because of the rising fuel costs they need operating dollars. They are struggling. Aside from raising fares they cannot find enough money to pay for the transit service that the riders desperately need. They agree the credit will generate more riders, but they also need the funding that is missing. They need the 5¢ gas tax credit right now in order to pay for transit improvements so that more people will leave their cars at home and ride public transit. That is the piece that is missing in order to complement the tax credit. Getting more people to take public transit will not work if there are not enough buses. It is really costly. They will have to increase fares.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for an interesting speech that was full of very strong words about the budget, things like gimmicky, superficial and bush league. While I have no objection to using strong words to criticize a budget that I agree is sorely misguided, I must admit that the hon. member's comments leave me a bit perplexed.

She spoke at great length about the importance of child care to her and her party, yet I could not help but think that it was the member's party that helped bring down the previous government, a government that had committed to an investment in child care. If it is a priority, the question becomes, would the NDP not want the government to proceed as quickly as possible with a national child care program? Why did the NDP want to destroy the chance of seeing that child care system come to light? The only possible explanation would be naïveté. Perhaps the member's party believed that a new government, and the only real alternative we all know was the Conservative Party, would go ahead and create a progressive, well thought out national child care program.

Why did the hon. member's party pull the plug on the previous government? Was it because child care was really not a priority, or was it because of naïveté?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been called all sorts of things but naive may not be one of them.

Anyone who knows the history of my political life knows that all through the 1990s I pushed desperately for a national child care program. A whole generation of children have now grown up without child care. It is heartbreaking to see because many parents were promised it, whether it was in 1987 with the Brian Mulroney child care act, or the 1993 red book, or the 1997 red book, or the 2000 red book.

In 2004, whether we call it an early childhood development initiative or a multilateral framework agreement, we could call it all sorts of things but there was no child care program delivered. In fact in Toronto there were fewer child care spaces two years ago then in 1992 because of the various budget cuts by the federal government and of course by the provincial government also.

The child care program that we have been pushing for, which the last Liberal government finally began to put in place in its minority government, unfortunately was not enshrined in legislation. That allowed the new government to come in and cancel the agreements. Imagine if there were a national child care act that enshrined child care into legislation, today we would be in the House debating a child care act, not these bilateral agreements that can be cancelled with the stroke of a pen.

I put the fault of not having a national child care program with the way the former Liberal government created it.

[John Baird, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly confirm to the House that the hon. member has been fighting for many of the things she has talked about. I have some of the scars to prove it from over the years.

She did talk about seniors. Seniors are very important to me in my riding of Ottawa West--Nepean. She said that this budget contains nothing for seniors, but does she know about the important tax cut for seniors in doubling from $1,000 to $2,000 the basic tax credit on their pensionable earnings? Is she aware of that and would she not want to promote that to the good constituents of Trinity--Spadina? That of course would be in addition to the GST tax cut.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the first deduction was introduced in 1975. Most seniors do not pay tax because they do not have enough money. They are not over the $25,000 to $30,000 bracket.

Seniors are in most desperate need of an increase in the guaranteed income supplement. For 12 years there have not been any additional increases. Last year the former Liberal government put in less than $1 a day for the GIS. What we need here is an increase specific to seniors on the guaranteed income supplement so that they will not live in poverty.

A lot of seniors are living in isolation because they cannot even afford that extra dollar to buy a subway token or pay the bus fare to visit their friends. They do not even have enough money to have a telephone. They do not have enough money for television sets. That is how desperately poor they are.

It is not the tax relief that is in this budget that is needed. It is extra dollars in the guaranteed income supplement that is most wanted and needed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mississauga South.

I do not know if anyone read the Globe and Mail this morning but there is an article by Norman Spector, a man who is hardly a great friend of the Liberal Party of Canada, having been Brian Mulroney's chief of staff and a former ambassador to Israel. Regardless of whether we agree or disagree with him, he is a noted commentator on the political scene in Canada.

He starts his column with a trenchant observation that no one should be surprised when the public interest gives way to what interests the public. He goes on in his article to point out that there are quite a number of areas in which public policy gets lost in favour of what is political expediency.

Jeff Simpson makes a similar observation when he says, “What's going on here is part of a pattern set early by the Harper government -- the making of political commitments in defiance of”--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I would ask the hon. member not to try and do indirectly through quotes what he is not supposed to be doing directly.

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

I consider myself well and truly chastized, Mr. Speaker. I will try not to repeat the name.

The quote continues, “--expert advice, including from within government departments. There seems to be a rift between ministers and their own departments. The rift is probably widest in the Department of Finance and probably exists in others, such as the Department of Justice. There is almost a chasm in terms of what the minister wants done and what the people who have spent their entire careers studying these issues think should be done. There is a consensus among experts with respect to those issues.

Spector goes on to raise one of the most difficult and problematic issues facing this government, or any government, and that is the Conservatives' approach to the so-called fiscal imbalance. His argument is that this approach is quite worrisome, that the government could be putting Canada's future at risk for no other reason than electoral politics. The problem here is the raising of enormous expectations which makes the solution to this vexing problem quite difficult to achieve.

I suggest that we will look in vain through the documents submitted with the budget to find a solution to the so-called problem of fiscal imbalance. The only phrasing in the entire document is the issue of fiscal balance. As Simpson said, the pattern set by the government of ignoring the advice of experts in order to achieve its political expediencies is quite difficult. Not a soul in the Department of Finance believes that the fiscal imbalance exists, and they are right.

Provinces have access to all of the same taxing authorities as does the federal government. They have access to personal income taxes, corporate income taxes and consumption taxes. In fact, the provinces have access to some sources of revenue, such as gambling revenue and resource royalties, which the federal government does not have.

In addition, the federal debt as a percentage of GDP is higher on average than the provinces. Some provinces have no debt whatsoever, such as the province of Alberta. If we really want to talk about fiscal imbalance, we should look horizontally at Alberta which is in a league by itself in terms of its ability to raise revenue. Some provinces, quite candidly, have difficulty raising revenue because they simply do not have the wealth base on which to raise it. That is a horizontal fiscal imbalance and that is a legitimate concern because the inequities of revenue among those provinces leads to other difficulties that are politically quite problematic.

Let me give the House an example of a perverse consequence of poorly thought out public policy. The illustration is in the GST. I appreciate that the GST reduction from 7% to 6% and ultimately to 5% is politically popular. I concede that point.

However, the chief beneficiary of this reduction will be the wealthiest province, Alberta, because it has no provincial consumption taxes. The province of Ontario has a total of 15% in terms of consumption taxes, both retail, federal and provincial. Alberta, on the other hand, only has the GST and therefore a one point reduction effectively means about a 14% reduction in consumption taxes. However, in the province of Ontario and similarly in other provinces it is only about a 7% reduction in consumption taxes.

There is a perverse consequence of reducing a tax which appears to be politically popular but in fact allocates a tax relief measure to a province that needs it the least, which creates its own level of difficulties.

It is not only the Department of Finance. It is also the Department of Justice. No one in the Department of Justice thinks minimum mandatories are the appropriate way to go. The argument is quite clear that minimum mandatories just simply do not work.

I sat on the justice committee occasionally with you, Mr. Speaker, and there was not an expert who came before the panel of parliamentarians who thought that minimum mandatories work but, nevertheless, the government seems bound and determined to plough ahead with those kinds of issues. These are people who have spent their entire careers thinking about and listening to the evidence and yet the government seems bound and determined to ignore what people who think about these issues have said.

Every serious study of Canada's economic future believes that focusing on education, research, innovation and productivity is the only way forward and yet nary a word in this budget about those kinds of issues.

In fact, we shove in the window things like the GST reduction and these fairy tales about 16 is actually lower than 15. We shove in the window that these are actually tax reductions when in fact they are tax increases. We create tax credits where, again, people who think about these things know that giving a sports tax credit will just lead to other people requesting other credits for other activities. The government is creating an administrative nightmare. That has been the position of the Department of Finance for years.

Similarly with transit passes, it gives credit to people already using the system. It will not increase the use of the system except marginally. However I understand how, for political purposes, these so-called ideas are attractive to people.

The budget has a huge gap between what the people, who have thought about the issues, actually think is the proper way to go and this panoply and basket of issues which have political popularity but are poor public policy.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Questions and comments? I want to say the hon. member for Elk Island but I know that is wrong. The member for Edmonton--Sherwood Park.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to have been the member for Elk Island for almost all of its existence.

I want to challenge some of the things the member said. I would like to challenge a whole bunch of things but I will go to just one. He said that mandatory minimum sentences do not work but there is a lot of evidence that shows they do.

I will give a quick example. On Saturday, while I was driving down the road in my riding, there was a construction zone. In the past people would always pass other drivers in the construction zones. Some would go the reduced speed limit and others would just go zipping by. As a result of a number of highway workers being killed because of these people, the provincial government took the initiative to put up signs at these construction places stating, “Speeding Fines Doubled”. On Saturday, when I drove through that zone, not one person passed me while I was going the reduced speed limit through the construction zone.

Deterrents do work. I think it is rather specious of the member to just make a point blank statement that it does not make any difference and, therefore, why should we bother. It does in fact.

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

Mr. Speaker, with greatest respect to the hon. member opposite, I spent six years on the justice committee. We spent a great deal of time talking about whether minimum mandatories would work. With greatest respect again to the hon. member, he should read the material. He should read the studies.

It does not work. It does not reduce crime. It has no impact on the incidence of crime. It is not as if somebody thinks that if he uses a gun, he will get a minimum mandatory of four years, which is the current law. It is not as if he thinks whether he should use a gun or some other weapon. The truth of the matter is, criminals just do not think that way. Therefore, the issue of minimum mandatories, which is essentially taking away the discretion of judges, is an appearance of a solution and it panders to a certain segment of our population, but it has no consequence on the impact of crime.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was able to weigh in with some comments on deterrence. I would like him to share with the House a few comments on incentives. The government has put in the window something that is fairly attractive, a $500 deduction for young people for the registry of sport. When Canadians do their income tax next spring, they will realize this equates to about an $80 benefit.

Where we have our greatest impact on young people, where we have our greatest impact on young athletes is when our premier athletes excel. We see the stars who are created over the Olympics and how that motives and inspires the next generation.

If the Conservatives had come through with their campaign promise of 1% of the health budget for sport and fitness, it may have made some kind of difference. Instead they offered this paltry exemption of $80, as my colleague indicated a bus pass. What impacts will be elicited from these types of tax exemptions?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. friend has followed this issue assiduously over the past number of years. When I was the parliamentary secretary to the finance minister, he and I had regular conversations about it. In particular, he must be terribly disappointed by the appearance of a response to the issues that he pursued when he was a member of the government and the results of it.

A lousy $80 will not make a hill of beans worth of difference to most people who are putting their kids in hockey. That is just reality. These days that hardly covers one skate and that skate has to be used. It will have virtually no impact.

Simultaneously, it will be an administrative nightmare. We will have a whole bunch of athletic clubs, whether big club or small and they will all have to issue tax receipts. When they get around to trying to issue tax receipts in February, do we think the treasurer of the local soccer club will be really happy trying to remember to what tax credit so and so is entitled?

This is a classic example of poor public policy, released to great fanfare, giving Canadians an illusion that they are actually getting something. When they sit down next February, it will be a big disappointment.

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, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today on the budget implementation act.

How often have we heard the phrase “The devil is in the details”? This budget is probably a very good example of where details can affect the interpretation or the appreciation of what has been represented.

One of the first points raised in the budget speech was that the income tax rate on the first tax bracket would be reduced from 16% to 15.5%.

[John Williams]

Very good. Very good.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

I hear one member is enthusiastic about it anyway.

Most Canadians know, when they filled out their 2005 income tax return, that the tax rate on the first tax bracket was in fact 15% and that the budget would increase it to 15.5%. How can that be? I know the finance minister did not want to deliberately mislead the House, so how do we explain this? It is easy.

Every time changes are made which affect the Income Tax Act they are usually done in a budget. We have a budget and it has been referred to the finance committee. Today we are debating a budget implementation bill, which would legislate the changes that were articulated in the budget. It has not been passed yet. It is still in debate. It still has to go through the full legislative process. Therefore, we can say that the change from 16% down to 15% was not legislated. It was in force and will be in force until it is either reversed by a subsequent statutory instrument or by an implementation bill itself.

I wanted to raise that point because the summary of the provisions, which relate to individuals and families, says:

--the basic personal amount—the amount that an individual can earn without paying federal income tax—...grows each year and remains above currently legislated levels for 2005, 2006, and 2007.

That statement is absolutely true. The legislation has not been passed, but it is in force. It has been proclaimed. Canadians know they paid 15% on their 2005 income tax return. This is game playing and unfortunately Canadians have to be exposed to it.

If the government were talking about tax changes for individuals, it would also have to indicate that the $500 reduction in the personal exemption, the amount on which Canadians do not pay tax, was also eliminated by the budget. The government did not boast about this too much, and only because it increases the tax burden on Canadians.

Then the government comes in with its taxable child care allowance of $1,200, which most Canadians thought would be money in their pockets. However, that is not exactly correct because it is taxable. Concurrent with this is the elimination of the young child supplement under the Canada child tax benefit program. That amounts to $249 a year. The Caledon Institute has calculated that if we take this plus the increase in the effective taxation of the first tax bracket, a family making about $20,000 a year will only benefit on a net basis of around $200. A family making $200,000 could benefit by as much as $1,100 of the $1,200. This tends to paint a picture.

There are many items in the budget which have higher benefits for wealthier Canadians and low and middle income Canadians have been left behind. The gap between the rich and the poor will grow. Poverty and inequity between Canadians are not concerns of the government, but it says it is.

Just this morning, the finance minister rose to speak to the bill. He said very plainly that the benefits of the budget on the taxation side are evenly distributed to all Canadians. This is not the case.

In his own document, on the benefits to helping individuals and families, it says that someone earning less than $15,000 will benefit from this tax relief by $51 in the year 2006. Let us move up the line. Someone making $15,000 to $30,000 will get $199. Someone from $30,000 to $45,000 goes up to $367. I could read out the list, but when we get to $100,000 to $150,000, the benefit to someone is $795 a year.

It is pretty clear from the government's own document that low income Canadians do not benefit evenly. In fact, they are getting about one-sixteenth the amount of a high income earning family from these benefits. It is a disturbing picture. Some have suggested that there is a motive here and I suppose we will find out.

I would suggest that members look at the Caledon Institute website to see the analysis of how low income Canadians will not get the same benefits. I am sorry to say that many of these people will not realize that and will not find that out until they file their next tax return for the 2006 taxation year.

Many of those people who are employed and have source deductions, and always have a small difference of a $1 here owing or $1 refundable, will find out they owe hundreds of dollars to pay back the amounts that they received under that $1,200 family allowance.

The Conservatives boast about the benefits of the GST adjustment. Yes, it is politically correct, but there is no economic expert who would support the policy strength of making such a move.

Could members imagine a theatre that charges $50 for a ticket? Will it now start charging $49.32 or something like that? Nonsense, it will not be passed on. That is one of the problems of having reductions in certain, either ad valorem or consumption taxes. There is no way to track it. Even on gasoline, the producers will simply increase the price because they know the consumer is getting a little break on the tax side and the consumer, on a net basis, will be no better off. There must be a way to deal with it.

When we think about it, people making $30,000 a year and after they pay taxes of about $8,000, their disposable income of that, about 60% of it, may be attracting GST. All of a sudden we are talking about something like $12,000 that may be GST taxable. On $12,000, the savings will be $120, and that is the maximum they could get, simply because that is the amount they can afford to spend, unless they go out and borrow it, in which case, chances are their interest rate costs will destroy the economics of making the purchase in the first place.

The higher we go up the income scale, the more disposable income is available. It means that Canadians who buy much more expensive automobiles, other consumer durables or even be a big house, will tend to be in a position to reap the majority of the benefits. Again, it is not as advertised. It is not evenly distributed. It is not what the minister said. He mislead the House by saying Canadians would benefit evenly.

I would really think that he should be straight. If the policy is good, give it to us with all the details, all of the numbers and the analysis, so that Canadians can see these things.

On Sunday on the TV program Question Period, the health minister spoke about health issues, and particularly the guaranteed wait time. That issue was in the election platform of the government. It was one of the five items that were dealt with, that the Conservatives said they would deal with in the budget.

When we look at it, and it is kind of interesting, the Minister of Finance did not dispute that there was no money in there for the guaranteed wait times, but the health minister said something different. He said that there was enough money in the $42 billion health accord signed by the previous government and therefore there was no new money for the guaranteed wait times.

I would suggest that again, it was not as advertised. The House has been misled and Canadians have been misled because there is no money in the budget for guaranteed wait times. It is an expensive proposition. This is a promise made and a promise broken.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments with great interest. I believe he is using some language which he knows full well is unparliamentary and not to be used in this place.

He used the word misled, so let us use that word. Who were truly misled were Canadians in the mid-nineties. We would not be in the situation we are in today, with the terrible strain on our health care system in terms of wait lists and wait times, and people having to wait for knee and hip replacements and cataract surgery. Why is that? Why are we in the situation that we are in today? It is because of the $25 billion social transfer cut that was forced upon this country by the then Liberal government. That is why we are in the situation we are in today.

In January of this year, Canadians voted for change. They voted for a party that is going to finally address some of these issues that were left to us by the previous government.

This is the second time today that I have heard him speak about wait lists. This seems to be an important issue to him. I would like him to comment on what his feelings are about the huge social transfer cut of $25 billion by the then Liberal government and how that has impacted our health care system today. If he could comment on that, that would be great.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, those things had to be done after the Conservative government left us a $42 billion annual deficit. That is the reason. If we do not get our fiscal house in order, there is nothing that we can do for anybody. That is the reality.

The member again was not quite clear on the language. I did not speak about wait times. I spoke about the guarantee. That is different. Wait times were addressed by the previous government in consultation with the provinces and wait times benchmarks had been set and agreed to. That is not the issue.

The issue is that the government said it would guarantee those wait lists and start to shuttle people and their families from province to province, or even to the United States, to get them the health care they needed. The government was going to pay for that. That does not come free, but there is not one penny, not one new dollar of health care money for the guarantee, which is going to be significantly expensive.

The health minister on Sunday said that there is enough money within the accord moneys delivered by the Liberal government, so in fact, the Conservatives, in the last election, promised to agree to or to follow through with the Liberal government program. That is no promise at all. It was already there.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague across the floor trying to explain this concept. I think his phrase was “legislation not passed but in force” regarding a proposal by the Liberals last November that could perhaps be an income tax cut, which is one of those deathbed conversions. I think it was the fourth budget last year that brought in some proposals regarding tax relief.

However, the point is, as we all know, that legislation passes this House, it goes down the hall and passes in the Senate, receives royal assent, and then, after being published in the Canada Gazette, it comes into force, so that Canadians understand the law of the land. It is this Liberal arrogance that we still hear coming from the other side of the House, where those members say they just have to make an announcement and they think it is the law of the land.

Would the member please tell us how he thinks that the Liberals can make these kinds of pronouncements and call them legislative tax cuts when they have not even been debated in this place or in the other place or given royal assent?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but this member has no idea what he is talking about. When he did his tax return for the year 2005, the income tax rate on the first tax bracket was 15%. If he is saying it is not there, I will believe him. But in fact, most Canadians will see, if they look at their tax return, that it was 15%.

This is more about the fuzziness. He says these tax cuts are more than what came in the last four years. When we have a budget that delivers tax cuts for the next five years, it is okay to say, yes, it was not promised in the last four years, but it is being delivered.

When we think about it, and I have the numbers here, since 1997, when the budget was finally balanced after the abysmal job that Mulroney had done, the tax cuts to Canadians have averaged $16 billion a year. This Conservative budget only delivers $6 billion. The Conservatives are way behind.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If it is the will of the House, I would like to revert to motions for just one moment, please.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. member for Cambridge have unanimous consent to revert to motions?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to engage in the budget debate and listen to my hon. colleagues in the House. I listened to the member for Trinity—Spadina earlier this morning, who talked about the fact that Canadians need a better deal.

After 13 years of Liberal government, of course we on this side of the House have to agree with her. Canadians absolutely need a better deal because we have been taxed to death and every time the Liberals see a tax dollar they try to find a way to spend it. I am glad to see that the NDP is also on our side, where Canadians need a better deal.

Let us just look at some of the ideas that we have for Canadians in this budget, which is a great budget. It has been extremely well received by Canadians because they are going to pay less tax. They are going to pay $20 billion less in taxes over the next couple of years.

The GST will go down by 1%. Who would object to a reduction of 1%?

[Some hon. members]

Liberals.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Yes, and let me ask members if they recall when the GST was first introduced. The Liberals fought it tooth and nail. They just about tore the building down and the doors off the other place as they fought against the GST.

Now they are fighting against the reduction of the GST. It beats me. I do not understand it. We can be on one side of the fence or we can be on the other side of the fence, but to be on both sides, I guess, means they are Liberals.

Let us take a look at the other things we have done for Canadians. We have heard a lot of talk about the $100 a month, the $1,200 per child.

By the way, I am going to be splitting my time with the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

The $1,200 per year is a great boon for all Canadians with children under the age of six, and not just those in urban areas, but parents who live on the farm or in the country. Were they ever going to get a day care place from the other party? No, they were not, never. We have given them an opportunity to augment their own incomes so they can afford to have a spouse stay at home, perhaps, or to have someone else help them with the children. It is this type of benefit that Canadians want.

Then there is the $1,000 for the Canada employment credit. We want to help people in the employment area.

We have reduced personal income tax from 16% to 15.5%. I will acknowledge that members on the other side thought they would like to reduce income tax too, but they lost the election before they put it in place, so we are putting it in place.

Not only have we reduced the lowest rate of personal income tax, but we are also increasing the basic exemption before people start to pay tax, so that means another 650,000 people off the tax rolls, paying no tax at all and paying less GST. How much better could it be? That is why we think this is a great deal for Canadians.

For small business, we have done this the same way. We have increased the basic threshold before they come up into the general tax rate for businesses. They can now earn up to $400,000 at the lower income tax rate, and even that lower rate is coming down from 12% to 11.5% and then to 11% in subsequent years. It is all a great deal for Canadians.

Then, of course, for those who like to imbibe or those who produce wine--my colleague here is from a wine producing area--for small vintners we have taken the duty off Canadian wine. Also, for the small breweries, the excise tax has been removed from the beer they produce. We want to help employment in Canada. Is that not what building Canada is all about? I would think so. We want to give everyone in small business, the backbone of our economy, a great helping hand.

The corporate tax rate is now down to 20.5% and will continue going down.

There is the apprenticeship job creation tax credit of $2,000 to help young people get involved in getting an apprenticeship so they can get training and a skill to carry them through the rest of their lives. It is a small investment by us and a great investment by young people, who learn a trade and go on to earn a satisfactory income for their families. This is building Canada. This is why it is such a great deal.

The apprenticeship incentive grant of $1,000 is the same thing. We want to help employers help young people get the skills to become lifelong earners who look after their families.

In addition to that, of course, many tradespeople have to buy tools. It costs some mechanics $40,000 or $50,000 to invest in tools. We are providing $500 a year. The Liberals refused year after year to do anything about it, knowing full well that these people were incurring costs. We have done it. That is why it is a great deal for Canada.

For those in university, we have eliminated the federal tax on scholarships, bursaries and fellowships, again helping young people to get educated so they can become solid, contributing members of our society.

Is this rocket science?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I did not think it was rocket science either, but all we have ever heard for the last 13 years is how the Liberals could find another way to subsidize some segment of the economy because people needed a hand here or they needed a hand there.

Why not provide people the education, training, job opportunities and skills so they can go out, support their families and pay less tax? I think this model is far superior to the one I have had to listen to over the last many years in the House.

With regard to the textbook tax credit, again, we have heard since I came here 13 years ago about university students having to pay hundreds of dollars to buy textbooks. These are not best selling books. They are books students must have in order to learn and to obtain their degrees. There was not a single ounce of sympathy from the Liberal government, but we have said, “Yes, let us help students get their education so they can go on to learn, obtain a satisfactory career, earn income and be great Canadians”. It all flows from the same philosophy.

As for fishers, let me note that farmers have had a half a million dollar capital gains exemption at the end of their careers so that when they sell their family farm or pass it on to the next generation they do not end up bankrupt. We know how hard it is in agriculture these days. If, when they sell their farms, their lifelong assets and everything they have poured their money into gets sucked away by the government in capital gains tax, it kills the family farm. We have to admit that this rule has been in place for a while for farmers, with half a million dollars tax free on capital gains. Now we have given it to the fishers as well so that when they sell their boats and everything else to the next generation, the government does not bankrupt them and take their livelihoods away. It makes common sense.

Then, of course, there is empathy. There is a child disability benefit for those who have significant extra costs. People with disabled children need some help. We have recognized that. We have increased the refundable expense supplement.

Also, we want to help young people,and indeed all people, to stay fit. We know that fitness equals better health. Better health equals better prosperity because of less time off work, fewer medical expenses and less money that we have to pour into health care. The benefits seem to be endless. We are prepared to help people to be physically fit and we encourage people to be physically fit.

It is great to be physically fit. As we cheer on the Edmonton Oilers and all the other teams vying for the Stanley Cup, we recognize how fit the guys on the ice are, and I am sure many people are rather envious or would love to emulate their fitness. This is a great opportunity and they can do it with a tax credit at the same time.

We did not forget about seniors either. We have increased the pension income credit, doubled it in fact, from $1,000 to $2,000.

I could go on to talk about arts and culture, farmers, transit users and affordable housing. The list goes on and on. It is a great budget for Canadians. This is only the beginning. If they keep electing Conservative governments, they will see more budgets like this. It is a great thing for Canada.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great appreciation for the member opposite. I would like to ask him a question and then make a comment.

I would like to thank him, and because the member is so credible on figures, would he agree, as it says on page 75, that the Liberal tax rates for businesses would be below those of the United States and their manufacturing sector? There were complaints in the past from the other side that we had higher tax rates.

My comment is on education. I think it is almost humourous that the Conservatives are trying to compare their education offers to what we offered. It is a good job there were 13 years of Liberal government that provided the biggest scholarship programs in history. There were thousands and thousands of dollars under the millennium scholarships for thousands of students. Then we offered another $6,000 for every student for tuition and $12,000 for low income students. What did he mention in his speech? There was $80 for books.

One of the Conservative members, when asked the other day what the Conservatives could do for low income, single parent mothers, said they could go back to school with their $80. I called a bookstore and asked the price of three books. One was $130, one was $134, and the other was $160.

This is just not a serious comparison. I really do not think the Conservatives should be trying to count it as a strength in their budget.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this has to be classic smoke and mirrors. It has to be truly classic. I do not know what book he is talking about, but I looked up page 75 in Focusing on Priorities. It just happens to be a blank page, so when he talks about Liberal taxation at page 75, I do not know where he is coming from. This is the type of smoke and mirrors we get.

The other point is on the scholarships. In 1998, under the Liberal government, $2.5 billion was put in a trust fund for scholarships. It is great idea, but there is only one problem. Where is the money today? It is still in the trust fund. The Liberals have not paid it out to kids going to university. They brag about this great idea of the millennium scholarship fund, but the money is still sitting there. Under the Liberals, I think it would be for the next millennium rather than this one.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech with interest, particularly toward the end when he said it was a good budget and that there would be more announcements to come.

Canadians must understand one thing: this budget is reasonable because we have a minority government and the Bloc Québécois felt it was best to support it, mainly because it includes a possible solution to the fiscal imbalance issue. This will not solve all of Quebec's problems, but at least it will give the provinces the money they need to fulfill their responsibilities.

Can the member assure us that the promise the government made in this budget will be kept in the next one? Between now and then, if the government fails to keep its promise about the fundamental issue of the fiscal imbalance, it will lose the Bloc Québécois' support.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a hypothetical question from the Bloc about what we will do in the next budget while we are still talking about this budget. We have always kept our commitments. We can guarantee that one, but the real question, not the hypothetical one, is where the Bloc members will be after the next election. I do not think they will be here.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we just heard a member say, “We have always kept our commitments”.

My question is very short and simple. Why did you not keep your commitment when a unanimous resolution was reached in this House concerning the creation of a POWA?

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not too familiar with the program the member is talking about, but I can assure her that we have fulfilled and will continue to fulfill the election promises we made.

Why make a promise to the electorate and then turn around and not do it? That was the Liberal way, and let us at look where the Liberals are sitting today. We do not intend to follow them. We intend to stay on this side of the House.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert for his sharing his time.

It is with great pleasure and honour that I stand today and speak in favour of Bill C-13, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget. I am happy that my government will be honouring its commitments made during the general election, plus much more.

Since coming to Ottawa as a new member of Parliament, I have had the pleasure to work, listen and speak to some wonderful representatives from all over this great country from every political party. I may not agree with many of the views of my colleagues from the opposition parties but I pride myself on listening to different points of view, and I know our Prime Minister feels the same way.

Friday, May 12, was the first time that I was truly upset by comments from a member of the opposition. I heard with dismay as the member for Markham—Unionville denigrated the honest work of my friend, the Minister of Finance. The member used words like visionless, mean-spirited, unsuccessful and dishonest, all within the first three sentences of his speech.

Criticism should be constructive instead of being undignified and, dare I use the words of the hon. member, mean-spirited. I hope there are fewer speeches like that in the future.

There were over 21,000 people in Sarnia--Lambton who voted for change and over 5 million nationally who did the same. These people knew that they were voting for honesty, vision, kindness and success. We will work hard for Canadians and we will run an honest and accountable government.

I knew I was watching the future Prime Minister when I saw the member for Calgary Southwest announce the five key priorities on January 2, 2006. This Prime Minister is a natural leader and he knows how to focus. We saw that with the Speech from the Throne which followed through on the five priorities set out in January.

Now our Minister of Finance has presented a focused budget based on accountability, opportunity, families and communities, security and restoring fiscal balance in Canada, and by addressing those five priorities. I am proud to speak about those priorities today.

Let me begin with opportunity in the agricultural sector. A large part of my riding works in agriculture. During the election campaign I made a commitment to fight for farmers. As a newly elected member of Parliament I met many local, provincial and national farm groups. Our new Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food proved his commitment to farmers when he immediately released, on an accelerated basis, payments under the $755 million grains and oilseeds payment program. However, as I had more meetings, I realized our significant campaign promise of an additional $500 million per year for farm support would not be enough for this year.

I believe that 13 years of disappointment had programmed farmers into believing that their government did not care and would not help out any further. Therefore, on April 5 farmers came from all over the country for a rally on Parliament Hill to give national attention to the farm crisis.

After 13 years of government inaction, they were demanding action from the new government. When the Minister of Finance announced $1.5 billion for the farm sector in this fiscal year, I have never been so proud to be a Conservative. We promised $500 million in additional funds and, instead, we delivered $1.5 billion. I knew that these kinds of funds would really help.

Not only were farmers looking for additional funds but they were looking for a replacement to the failed CAIS program. Over and over again members of our caucus had been told by farmers and farm groups that the CAIS program needed replacing. Our Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food listened. Now our government will replace CAIS with more effective programming for farm income stabilization and disaster relief.

We are committed to developing long term strategies as well as short term solutions. The fact that there are more farmers and more farm interests represented in the government, in caucus and in the cabinet than has been the case in any government in living memory, has helped create a budget that will truly help farmers. For the first time in a long time, farmers have been included in a federal budget.

All Canadians have been included in the budget. The budget contains $20 billion in tax relief, which is more tax relief than the last four federal budgets combined. Twenty-nine federal taxes will be reduced in every area the federal government collects revenues, such as the reduction in the goods and services tax from 7% to 6%; a reduction in income taxes and business taxes, including targeted measures to help Canadians with the cost of transit passes; tools for apprentices; kids sports; and textbooks for students.

Speaking of education, I have a copy of a letter from the president of the University of Western Ontario to the right hon. Prime Minister. I have had many dealings with this great institution over the years as a founding member of the University of Western Ontario Research Park, Sarnia-Lambton Campus. In his letter, the president of the university, Mr. Paul Davenport, gives his “sincere congratulations to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the entire government on a very successful first budget”. He goes on to write, “the budget affirmed the government's commitment to the stated top five priorities, and also recognized the importance of education and research as key enablers of growth and prosperity in Canada.

That is not all. Mr. Davenport recognized that our governments' support of post-secondary education will positively affect the university in at least four different ways. Our $1 billion trust fund for post-secondary infrastructure will provide critical funding for university facilities as they upgrade aging buildings. Our commitment to expand the eligibility for the Canada student loans program to an estimated additional 30,000 students will give access to higher learning to more young Canadians than ever before. That is in addition to the new textbook tax credit of $520 for students, representing a tax reduction of about $80. This will benefit 1.9 million post-secondary students.

To further help students, the budget will exempt all post-secondary education scholarship and bursary income from tax, providing tax relief to more than 100,000 post-secondary students.

Mr. Davenport did not end there. He thanked the new government for the increased funds of $100 million per year for investment in research and development. That is still not all. Mr. Davenport also recognized the economic windfall our universities will receive as a result of the government's decision to eliminate the remaining capital gains tax on donations of listed securities to public charities. As we all know, fundraising efforts are crucial to the success of universities. This initiative will not only benefit universities but the entire charitable sector.

Many of the charities that will benefit from this exemption will undoubtedly be in the health sector. The government has committed to implement the 10 year plan to strengthen health care. Our first priority is to implement a patient wait times guarantee for medically necessary services developed with provincial and territorial governments.

I have spoken in the House about the Public Health Agency of Canada. We will be providing additional funds to this agency for a variety of causes. We will be investing $52 million per year for the Canadian strategy for cancer control so that we may better understand how to fight the various forms of this disease. We also will invest $460 million to further improve Canada's pandemic preparedness, plus another $19 million to Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada to enhance our capacity to deal with catastrophes and emergencies so we may be one of the leading countries in the world when it comes to emergency preparedness.

Risk to health is something we hope to improve. Cracking down on crime is another area we hope to improve. Investing $161 million in the RCMP by adding 1,000 more officers and federal prosecutors, plus another $37 million to expand the RCMP National Training Academy.

As my riding is a border community with many border crossings, I was delighted to hear the Minister of Finance announce $101 million to begin arming border officers and eliminating work alone posts.

I have only touched on a few of the measures found in this budget. I could speak for much longer on how very impressed I am with it. Once again, I congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and encourage all hon. members to support the bill.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the member's comments on the wait time guarantees which she described as wait time guarantees for medically necessary services.

The member will know that as a consequence of the health accord, which was developed in consultation with the provinces, additional moneys will go to the provinces over the next number of years. The provinces also agreed to benchmarks in certain areas but the member represented this as medically necessary services. The budget has no new money for that but it was one of the government's five priorities. This whole project of guaranteeing wait times means that the Government of Canada will be on the hook for transferring patients between provinces and maybe even to the United States or elsewhere to get these services. There is an enormous cost to this. I wonder where exactly the money is.

What assurances would she be prepared to give on behalf of the government that provinces and those health institutions within the provinces will not simply reduce or abandon their efforts in these critical areas knowing that the federal government will simply pick up the tab anyway?

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that health care is a prime concern right across the country and in every riding. The wait times for services that are desperately needed are not acceptable by anyone's standards.

This government, in consultation with the provinces and the territories, has agreed to guarantee wait times and put in acceptable wait time standards. We realize this is not something that the federal government can do on its own. The provinces and territories have a huge responsibility when it comes to health care and this must be worked out in conjunction with them.

As far as the cost goes, I do not think any of us know what the cost will be. We know there are different ways to do business and, hopefully, there are better ways to do business and, in conjunction with the provinces and territories, we will be searching for those ways and putting in those wait time guarantees.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member a question regarding post-secondary education.

I congratulate the government on its tax credit for skills training which is very nice and a good first step. However, with regard to the issue of post-secondary education, the government has increased the amount that students can borrow without investing at all in lower tuition fees and without investing, as it promised during the last election, in a dedicated post-secondary education transfer.

I wonder if the member considers the equivalent of what amounts to $83 to buy books and the apprenticeship credit to be a national strategy to help our young people face the challenges of the new economy.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will refer again to the comments I made in my speech and the support that this budget has received from the president of a leading university in this country.

We know we need to help our students and we need to make things easier for them to become productive members of society. Under this new budget students will be able to earn up to $19,000 without paying tax, which is a huge incentive for them.

The $500 tax credit will help post-secondary students with their textbook costs. It is only meant to help. It is not meant to pay for all of their textbooks. All of the other incentives in the budget are there to help students as well. I am quite confident that the measures found in this budget will go a long way toward helping students, apprentices and tradespeople.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty to inform the House that the first five hours of debate are now over. From now on the speeches will be 10 minutes, with a five minute question and answer period.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House today regarding Bill C-13.

So that our listeners may better understand, I would add that the government has tabled a budget. The budget was passed last week, thanks to the Bloc Québécois' support. Without the support of the Bloc, an election would have been called. I do not believe that any Quebeckers or Canadians would have wanted to see that. We have adopted a responsible approach.

We had to examine the entire budget tabled by the government and determine our attitude towards it. We now have before us a bill to implement certain aspects of this budget. The budget announces the government's administrative and financial intentions. However, we must also ensure that legislation and budget provisions match up at the end of the day.

The bill gives some indication why the Bloc Québécois decided to support this budget. Among other reasons, it is a question of the fiscal imbalance. The Bloc Québécois began that debate in this House several years ago, in 2001.

At first, we were the only ones to defend this point of view. Today, it is shared by the Government of Canada. We want this matter to be settled once and for all in Canada. This does not definitively settle the question of Quebec, in part or in full. Clearly, the future of Quebec lies with its sovereignty.

Nonetheless, resolving the issue of fiscal imbalance will give the Quebec government—whether sovereignist or federalist— a bit more room to manoeuvre and will end the stranglehold on expenditures by the Canadian system. We must at least ensure that the provinces obtain the minimum required to carry out their responsibilities. The Conservative government has ended up adopting the arguments of the Bloc Québécois. This is mainly why we supported the budget.

Bill C-13 also contains a number of other items, for example the increase in the child disability benefit to $2,300. This quite logical measure is another reason why we supported the budget. As is the elimination of the capital tax, not necessarily because it will redistribute wealth, but because last year it allowed Quebec to access part of the budget. In addition, due to the lack of money available for Quebec, we believe that this type of measure should have been proposed before eliminating the fiscal imbalance once and for all.

We had to make a choice. This budget contains all sorts of measures including the repeal of the part of the Excise Tax Act pertaining to jewellery. We supported the elimination of this excise tax, which will no longer apply to semi-precious stones as proposed by this bill.

There is also the universal child care benefit. In this regard, we made a much more constructive and equitable proposal concerning distribution of wealth, insisting that the tax credit not be taxable. If it were refundable instead, it would ensure that low-income earners could enjoy the benefits. We did not succeed in changing the government’s position, but we believe that, overall, it would have been positive to include these measures in the budget.

In my opinion, there is quite a significant indication. Certain elements are missing from Bill C-13, for example, the Canada employment credit, the children’s fitness tax credit, the reduction of excise duties on Canadian wine and beer made by small producers and the $500,000 capital gains exemption from the various turnover positions and exemption for fishers. To be checked.

As my colleague from Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia has claimed, since intergenerational rollovers are tax-free in the case of farmers, that should certainly also apply to fishers. In a region where fishing is important, as in Quebec, obviously this is a positive measure. However, it cannot be found in Bill C-13, since the Conservative government, to make sure of the Bloc’s support was forced to adjust its right-wing vision.

The budget before us is not the budget of a majority Conservative government. It is very important that the people realize this. Public wisdom elected a minority government, and this led to a budget of this sort. If the people had elected a majority Conservative government, cuts would be taking place today: cuts in social programs and cuts in environmental programs.

Let us recall that there is a reserve of $2 billion. No one dared to announce any cuts because, if they had done so, a crucial question would have been asked that might have led to the government’s defeat.

Furthermore, the government acted responsibly by taking into account the arguments of the Bloc Québécois and by acting moderately. The people, however, must remember this question for the future. That is important. Indeed, when the time comes to make other political choices, the people will have to take this reality into account. A majority Conservative government is absolutely not the government desired for the future of Canada.

It is absolutely necessary that this government, which has a very firm right-wing approach, be able to be moderated by the presence in this House of a party such as the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc has brought this government to table a budget that is more reasonable and for which the Bloc’s support has been essential. However, the Conservatives have been warned: if by this time next year they do not include in their next budget real, concrete measures, which above all will permit a better distribution of the wealth and will deal definitely with the fiscal imbalance, they will no longer have the Bloc's support. At that time we shall see whether we need to go to the people. It was not appropriate to do so this year. Next year, however, it will be an option.

The budget presents other elements which have prompted us to vote in its favour: the $1 billion for post-secondary education for which we have long been asking, the $800 million for affordable housing, and the support for farmers. For us, it was extremely important to have this type of measure. The budget also provides something else important for my riding, namely the introduction of a tax credit for public transit users. Some might question the need for public transit there, as it is a rural riding where public transit is not necessarily a daily priority. But in fact, in my riding, the Bombardier plant in La Pocatière has just landed a contract for the Montreal subway, because public opinion mobilized. That is a concrete example of how effective people can be when they organize and mobilize.

This tax credit will help boost investment in public transit. The Bloc Québécois was the first party in the House of Commons to table a bill granting tax relief for public transit. So it could not be unfavourable to such a measure.

The bill to implement certain elements of the budget deserves to go on to the next step. It must be passed in this House. A good many of the measures proposed in it are positive. However there remain certain things that could be improved. Let us hope that in the future, after the year has passed, it will be clear to the government, for example, that it would be much better to convert the $1,200 tax credit into a refundable tax credit. That would ensure that this measure is fair. We would like to move in that direction over the coming months.

In the next Conservative budget, we will be able to verify whether the government is in fact still taking a responsible approach which takes account of the opinions of the Bloc Québécois. This time, sufficient account of them has been taken for us to support the budget. The government must continue moving in the same direction.

We also have to keep working for a program to assist older workers. There were no more than a few lines devoted to this in the throne speech and the budget. Personally, I was a little disappointed with the answer from my Conservative colleague, who said earlier that he was not entirely familiar with that program and what its purpose was. At present, our economy is subject to competition and globalization, and this creates a number of problems. In particular, we are seeing a lot of small businesses in the manufacturing sector closing down because of competition with China and India. We need this kind of program to assist older workers.

The Conservatives slipped a few words on this subject into the budget. We are told that the situation is being assessed. I hope that we will get a definitive answer before the end of this session, before the summer vacation. In point of fact, implementing this kind of program would not involve enormous costs. It would be respectful of the public and of employees who have to stop working at the age of 53, 54, 55 or 56 against their wishes. Those are often the people who have paid into the employment insurance scheme full-time for 20, 25 or 30 years. They are told that they will be able to draw employment insurance benefits for 45 weeks and then they will not be needed any longer. We expect an answer from the government on this subject.

The Bloc Québécois has supported the budget and supports the budget implementation bill. However, we expect the government to have a sense of responsibility so that we will be able to achieve something: establishment of the older workers assistance program.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have taken some encouragement from the hon. member's comments. He made the statement that taken as a whole, the budget is a positive step, a move in the right direction and that some of the concerns articulated by the Bloc have been addressed in this budget. He also referred to the fiscal imbalance and the fact that it certainly appears that our government is moving in the right direction in addressing that problem.

There was one thing which he did mention and it was a phrase he used which indicated that if the government in future budgets did not move to redistribute the wealth, his party would be compelled to vote against those future budgets. I am curious as to what he meant by that. For many Canadians it raises a red flag when terminology like that is used. Perhaps the member could comment on what he means by “redistribute the wealth”.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the best example I can give is this: at present, oil companies are making huge and excessive profits.

I think that a future budget should have a provision for redistributing the wealth. The purpose of the redistribution will be to ensure that there are ways for people who live alone, who work 10, 15 or 20 kilometres from their homes and who often earn low wages, $8, $9 or $10 an hour, to be compensated for gas price increases. The question of gas prices is the perfect example to show that there has suddenly been a major increase in profits.

A few years ago, the Liberal government gave these people a tax reduction, at the same time as their profits were rising. In my opinion, next year, when the Conservatives present their next budget, it will be important to see measures being proposed by which the wealth could be redistributed better. That is one way of ensuring that there is greater balance in society. It is one example of what can be done.

Obviously, the fiscal imbalance must also be solved. This year, we have operated on the good faith of the government. We hope that the plan introduced in the annex to the budget will be followed. If we were not to come to an agreement on this, the Bloc will be hot on the Conservatives’ heels.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a mystery to many Quebeckers as to why the Bloc support the budget. The member gave two reasons I would just like to ask him about.

First is the assistance to students. Does the member really think that the $80 for books is serious compared to the $6,000 for tuition that we were offering?

The second is on transit. As the member knows, we provided billions of dollars in direct subsidies to expand the transit systems. Does he think that would be a better expenditure of the money than just providing reimbursements for transit passes for people who are already riding on very crowded transit systems?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will first address the second point raised by my colleague.

As for the environment, neither the Liberal nor Conservative government has had clear messages and programs to improve the situation. At this point, we are even regressing. We have moved from a government that claimed to support the Kyoto protocol but did not take satisfactory measures to meet it--and public transit was a factor--to a government that refuses to meet the obligations of the protocol, although it proposes certain measures--with respect to public transit--that are satisfactory. However, in terms of all of the measures needed to improve the situation concerning the environment, a lot of work remains to be done.

The Bloc Québécois is very anxious to see how the government will use the $2 billion that has been set aside. That said, there is no doubt that the Canadian and Quebec population wanted a change in government. It was wise enough to elect a minority government and it can now see the Bloc's responsible attitude. I am very confident that the public will receive the message loud and clear, and will see that the current model of government provides the greatest opportunity for Quebec, should it remain part of Canada, to have its say. Nevertheless, Quebeckers are fully aware that there will be no resolution as long as we represent only 25% of votes and are entitled to only 25% of budgets. We need 100% responsibility. Only then will Quebec be sovereign.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, being a very positive person, it is hard to get into my new role of being a critic, but I will make an attempt.

The title of my speech today is “Lament for a Nation” because there is a new government with a new throne speech and a new budget that are so prejudicial to the vulnerable, to the poor, to the students, to the environment, to artists, to aboriginal people. With the duplicity of some opposition parties and in spite of the national media's attempts, members of the public are not yet fully aware of this sad lament.

The first people I want to lament for are the Quebeckers who supported the Bloc.

Quebeckers believe in public transit, affordable housing, training, post-secondary education and foreign aid, yet on June 23, the Bloc betrayed Quebeckers and voted against all these things. We can see the results. There was a dramatic drop in the polls and the unimaginable happened: the Conservatives won Quebec City.

As if the Bloc did not learn a lesson from this, they did it again. Quebeckers did not ask for a budget that was built on the backs of the most vulnerable, the students, that increased income tax for the poor, that abolished Kyoto, abolished Kelowna and abolished national child care that took hundreds of millions of dollars from Quebec and that did nothing for older workers and their perceived fiscal imbalance. Yet the Bloc members betrayed their voters again. They betrayed Quebeckers.

Now I want to talk to my colleagues, the Liberal members from Quebec. They can be proud of always supporting those who are vulnerable, the environment, the poor, students and the native peoples.

Quebeckers believe in these and can be proud that they have had Liberal deputies who have steadfastly fought for these in the wake of a devastating Conservative budget, which did little to strategically support these.

Lament number two is for the NDP. The supporters of NDP members were delighted when the rare circumstances evolved that gave this small party the balance of power. We worked together to make even greater gains than the Liberals had already made in public transit, affordable housing for aboriginal people, training, foreign aid and great social progress. Then they threw it all away and, in partnership with the Conservatives, set the stage for the election of a Conservative government. A number of their supporters were furious. We lament for the true social reformers who the NDP abandoned.

The NDP tried to blame the public. It was not the public who pulled the plug early on Parliament before Kelowna could be implemented and before the national child care agreements were realized.

I will never forget a man who came into my office during the election campaign, a lifelong NDP supporter, who said that he and his wife would be voting for me for the first time.

Most astonishing in our lament of NDP voters is their party's duplicity in not fighting strenuously against a throne speech that had virtually nothing in it for students, for labour unions, for women, for the environment, all areas for which the NDP used to strenuously fight.

I want to turn now to the national media. I do not lament for the national media. I think it is great. It does tremendous research and comes up with very exciting and intelligent articles. I am wondering, as a media that prides itself as being the unofficial opposition, if it is lamenting a bit when we have a budget that offers trinkets which are all overblown in their importance. I think a Bloc member mentioned earlier in debate that some of the offerings were worth about a cup of coffee and so prejudicial to the vulnerable. Yet the Tories are still riding so high in the polls. I will provide examples of these two cases.

The first example of a trinket is the $80 for books. The Liberal Party provided millennium scholarships with thousands and thousands of dollars to thousands of students. This was the biggest scholarship program in history. Just recently, the Liberal government offered $6,000 per student for tuition and $12,000 for poorer students.

A Conservative member was asked by a Liberal member what the budget did to help low income single mothers. The Conservative said that they could go back to school with the $80 for their books. I phoned a college bookstore and asked for the price of three books. It was $110, $134 and $160. A person could not even buy three-quarters of a book.

An example is the most vulnerable is aboriginal people. It says on page 112 of the budget that the budget of Indian Affairs has grown about $350 million a year because there is a growing population and inflation. How much did the government increase the budget? The Conservatives increased it $150 million, which is less than 50% of the average of previous governments. What is $150 million of the $5 billion that the Liberal government offered for Kelowna? It is one thirty-third of that amount. When reporters asked where the $5 billion went, what answer did they get? The previous Liberal government had it all set aside.

Finally, my lament is for the Conservatives. This is a party that was once progressives, but it gives Canadians a budget that preys on the vulnerable. I have to compliment the Conservatives for the item that increases money to charities. That is good. In general, the Conservatives tell students that $80 is a good deal compared to the $6,000 that the Liberal government was offering.

The Conservatives complain about smog and then cut 15 climate change programs that help reduce smog. They cut the $4 billion worth of clean air and climate change programs and replace it with what we call in sports “future considerations”. There is only half the money, $2 billion, for ideas that have never come forward yet and no plan.

The Conservatives broke faith with the aboriginal people of our country when they broke faith with the premiers and the leaders of first nations. The Conservatives do nothing more than Bill C-48 to help the poorest people in the world.

The Conservatives cannot come to agreement on military equipment.

The Conservatives, as per on page 218, will increase income tax for the poorest in society from 15% to 15.5% on July 1 of this year. The Conservatives have reduced the basic personal exemption, again most severely affecting the poor, as per again on page 218. It is amazing that the Department of Finance allowed them put this line in the budget. It says that the government will give the poor a break on the GST and then it takes it back. It says and I quote page 218:

The basic personal amount will be reduced by $400 to...on July 1, 2006 at the same time as the GST rate is reduced.

The Conservatives will once again, like the Sheriff of Nottingham, take away from the poor by eliminating the young child national supplement for low income people.

Conservatives ignore rural people in their budget and almost taunt them. They kept one Liberal rural program, the rural infrastructure program. They give one example in the budget of this rural project. Let us see what they say. Remember that rural Canada is 95% of the land mass, so what project did they pick for their one example?

This will allow this fund to support further improvements to municipal infrastructure, such as the Evergreen Commons at the Don Valley Brick Works in Toronto.

That is a great project and a great symbol of the Conservatives' lack of commitment to rural Canada.

The Prime Minister, during the 2006 election, mocked some agreement as politicians paying politicians. Then the Conservatives do exactly the same thing by taking $1 billion from our students and giving it to provincial politicians. That is politicians paying politicians.

The Conservative government does not support culture. It has cut the increases to artists by two-thirds. The Conservative government, after the Liberal government gave very large support to people staying at home through the national child benefit, gives as little as 55¢ a day or 14 minutes of day care.

The Conservative government sold the future of our children by cutting increases in R and D by as much as 90%.

There may be some low income people who get a slight reduction in taxes, but the fact is they are the only level of people who are also given income tax increases. Last night I bought a quart of milk for $2.29. For 55¢ a day, a low income person could quit his or her job and buy a quarter of a litre of milk for the children. Is that being better off? I agree that the wealthy and businesses should get tax cuts, but they should be fair tax cuts. They will get thousands of dollars back.

We can see why the throne speech and budget are described as a lament for a nation. The nation I was raised in and am proud to represent is one of generosity, where everyone, corporations, small business, the wealthy, the middle class and the poor all benefit from the record benefits of Canadian prosperity. A rising tide raises everyone equally.

It was a nation trying to come to peace with the aboriginal people and reduce their disparities. It was a nation that supported national parks, child care, research and development, clean air programs and the cultural achievements of our artists, whose dreams were to bring to reality what the United Nations said was the best country in the world.

Instead we have a nation whose government has had the richest inheritance in history, yet has given some small general tax breaks and then claws them back with increased taxes to one group of Canadians and one group alone, the poor. This is why indeed today we lament for a nation.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's comments across the way. It is highly ironic that he used the phrase “lament for a nation”. Is he aware that it was written by a famous Canadian by the name of George Grant? He lamented the fact that the over decades the Liberals had given away many of Canada's great traditions, given away what he saw as the heart and soul of what it meant to be Canadian, not simply a country limited by its geography, but a country that was also imbibed with the spirit and ideas that came out of centuries of conflict and resolution, centuries of working together across a vast, inchoate land.

Does the member know that Lament For a Nation. The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism was written by George Grant a number of decades ago? It criticized the Liberal Party and suggested that the vehicle for preserving Canada's traditions and its great past into the future was the Conservative Party?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, taking away the things that Canada is all about is exactly why we are lamenting a nation today.

When they had the fiscal capacity and the greatest surplus in history given to them, why could Conservatives not let everyone increase at the same rate? Why would they tax the lowest income people? Is that part of what being Canadian is?

The wealthy and the corporations in our country are very generous. They donate to all kinds of things. They never would have asked that they get tax cuts and that low income people not get the same level of tax cuts. They never would have asked that we destroy the peace and harmony of a historical agreement, which was so hard to come by, with the premiers and the first nations leaders. They never would have asked for this change in our country and the spirit of this nation. That is why it is a lament for a nation.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Yukon why he is congratulating the Liberal members from Quebec, when they did so poorly in the recent election.

I was elected in a riding that had been Liberal, where they discovered that the Liberal Party really did not have significant and worthwhile solutions to propose to Quebec. We are wondering now how is it he feels that the Bloc Québécois is acting irresponsibly by supporting the minority government's budget.

Had we not voted in favour of this budget, an election would have been called, to the distress of the member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, he talks about how the Liberals did in Quebec. They did better than the Bloc Québécois. It thought that it would gain all sorts of seats, but lost them instead. It did not get anywhere near what it was projecting because last June it voted against public transit, affordable housing, training, post-secondary education and foreign aid, all the things in which Quebeckers believe.

Now it has supported a budget that, once again, is lacking all sorts of things in which Quebeckers believe such as strong support for students and increased income tax for the poor. It abolished Kyoto. I think 90% of Quebeckers believe in Kyoto. The Bloc voted for a budget that abolished Kelowna. Quebeckers have been very supportive of aboriginal people. The budget abolished a national child care program that was bringing hundreds and hundreds of dollars to Quebec. It enhanced the fiscal imbalance of Quebec by taking hundreds of millions of dollars away from it. That is why the Bloc is doing so poorly.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is very interested in the environmental implications, with respect to programs that have been slashed in the budget, as they affect the north, certainly the FedNor programs and programs related to the Canadian rural partnership.

Would the member like to expand for a moment on how slashing those programs is going to affect the north at a time when we are looking at the north as being one of the great frontiers that will add considerably to the value in our Canadian economy in the future?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I will be elaborating on that in my speech at 6:30 p.m. I would say the north has the highest climate change in the world. It is devastating. Our species are changing, as well as the ice roads on which our economy depends. It has more effect on us in the north.

The cancelling of 15 environmental greenhouse gas programs is affecting the north more dramatically. Species like polar bears will become extinct. It is affecting us more than any other Canadians. That is why we need the support of the government, not to cancel all these things without putting anything in place as we become more and more devastated in the north.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Yukon, Indian Affairs and Northern Development; the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, Softwood Lumber.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the budget implementation act.

I will start by making some corrections that I think are important in terms of the revisionist theory that is happening on the Liberal side with regard to what brought about an election. I also want to point out that the Liberals still have not learned a sense of responsibility regarding their conduct in the last Parliament in promising one thing to Canadians and then delivering another.

It is amazing to hear that the timing of the election was solely brought on by the NDP, when the fact of the matter is it was the member for LaSalle—Émard who literally went on television and begged for his life. There was only three weeks difference in when we actually had the election. He begged across this country. He set a precedent. It was the first time a prime minister had used the national media to ask for time so that the Liberals could actually bring something forward. The reality is there was only a three week difference. What else is amazing is at that time even if we had chosen to support the Liberals, there still would not have been enough votes in the House of Commons to prop them up.

The fact is the Liberals have really missed the point that Canadians made a decision. Canadians made a decision and their votes should not be taken for granted. They have that right.

What we have now is a budget which in many respects reminds me of the budgets that the member for LaSalle—Émard put forward in the late 1990s which focused on tax cuts for corporations as opposed to investing in Canadians. That is one of the reasons as a New Democrat I cannot support the present budget bill. It does not invest enough in Canadians. At a time when we have record surpluses we still have outstanding challenges.

One area I want to focus on today is the manufacturing sector. An industrial strategy has been repeatedly called for. We have witnessed the struggles of the aerospace and textile industries which are very important economic engines for the Canadian economy. This goes back to prior to the rise in the Canadian dollar. The rise in the Canadian dollar is in large part due to the high oil and gas exports to the United States. Those are having a significant impact on the dollar which has a subsequent impact on manufacturing in Canada.

Studies, the most recent of which was on January 27, have shown that with the labour market shifts in manufacturing, construction and natural resources, we are witnessing one of the biggest downturns in Canadian manufacturing history.

I come from Windsor, Ontario. The automotive industry traditionally has paid a lot of money into the federal government coffers through personal and corporate taxes, which has benefited this country significantly. That industry is at risk for a couple of reasons. There is no public policy of framework on how to increase the capacity to create manufacturing jobs and keep them going forward or, more importantly, incentives regarding employment on the shop floor.

The United States has incentives, economic relief and strategic elements for training as well as incentives for infrastructure which capture Canadian jobs. That is a real risk here. We know with the dollar going up it has had an significant impact.

In a study from 2002 to 2005, before we actually had a significant shift in the Canadian dollar which is further problematic, manufacturing jobs fell by nearly 149,000, representing a 6.4% loss during that time. This is significant because once we lose those jobs they are gone.

It is interesting that in the budget plan a chart on page 32 indicates a steep decline in manufacturing employment from 1970 to 2005. The decline is represented by a downward slope so steep that someone could ski jump off it. Unfortunately, we have not been doing anything to push that rate back up again. We have not done enough.

Interestingly, in the budget plan there is a graph showing immediate crude oil prices, but we witnessed the exact opposite. On budget day it was over $75 a barrel which is a significant increase. That pushes up the manufacturing issues relating to productivity which are so difficult to deal with. There are the elements of a higher dollar that had traditionally been relied upon as a crutch by the government without an actual strategy.

Potential solutions have been proposed. The Centre for Policy Alternatives has a good one. I am going to outline a few of the things where the budget does not allocate or speak to the auto sector which is very important. There are simple things we could do.

We could establish a multi-stakeholder sectoral development council. We did that in the past with CAPC recommendations. The Canadaian Automotive Partnership Council got together to create a national strategy. Everyone is on side, from business to labour to municipalities. It is a comprehensive strategy.

What is interesting about this budget, which reminds me once again of the regime of the member for LaSalle—Émard, was that a previous Liberal minister, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, could have acted on the CAPC recommendations. It is a model that is spoken about. He had an opportunity to act on it and he chose not to. At committee I challenged the then Liberal minister of industry, science and technology to bring forward an automotive manufacturing strategy. He promised on two different occasions that he would bring that back. He did not deliver.

What is interesting is that the member has now moved over to the Conservative Party as the Minister of International Trade. Why did he not bring the work related to the budget and auto policy with him? Will it come? We do not know. We have not heard. It is not in the budget. It is not in the speaking points. The Minister of Industry has been virtually silent. It is certainly not one of the five priorities. A convincing case could be made, but we have not heard about this very important file.

I cannot understand it. The member for Vancouver Kingsway carried the softwood lumber position that was constructed under the Liberal regime over to the Conservative side. The softwood lumber issue was basically trade crime against Canadians but he did not bring forward a piece of legislation for the automotive sector and the manufacturing sector at one of the most sensitive times. It is an interesting point in time because we have newer technologies. We hear a lot about the potential tax credits and some of the structures that could be put in place to move newer technologies from shop floors into manufacturing, but where is the sectoral strategy to deliver that? We have yet to hear.

I am very pleased that the industry committee has agreed to study manufacturing losses and jobs in the upcoming session of Parliament. It is a priority. It is very important, but we need to do more.

Another aspect is we could review the Canadian investment act to ensure that incoming foreign investment generates significant benefits in the public interest. This is something that has been put forth with regard to China Minmetals. China Minmetals was going to purchase Canadian companies. We objected to that. It was shot down at committee. We had tried to put that forth at that time. We now hear grumblings that the legislation might come back for amendment. We might have an interest in that. We need to look at that in terms of what type of export of Canadian jobs is happening.

This is not foreign to Canada. In the United States, congressmen and other legislators are looking at similar types of changes to their legislation and ownership rules. We have seen that most recently with Dubai and with other types of initiatives relating to manufacturing. Hopefully we will see that type of review come forward, and not just in terms of what I raised at industry committee. We talked a lot about safety and security and national security issues but there still is nothing today in our foreign investment act that prevents rogue nations, when we define them as rogue nations, from actually buying Canadian companies. Some of them could be sensitive strategically involving telecommunications and natural resources and could have a significant impact on the Canadian market and on manufacturing here and abroad. There is nothing in there. Currently all the information is kept private and there is no recourse for members of Parliament or the public to get the information.

Another thing that we are calling for, and I would have hoped to see a comment on this, is in regard to the free trade talks with Korea. There is a significant problem with regard to the automotive industry. Right now Korea has a significant trade surplus with us in the automotive sector that we cannot penetrate. We would like to hear about those things.

In closing, another very important issue which comes into play is the western hemisphere travel initiative. We never saw anything for the tourism sector in this budget to the detriment of our economy and our tourism sector. That should be in the budget as well.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, coming from Oshawa, I share my colleague's passion about the manufacturing sector and the automotive industry. I was hoping he could clarify the NDP's position for me. In this budget we gave out significant tax cuts to all corporations and all businesses to make them much more competitive internationally. It seems that the NDP members are consistently against these types of tax cuts.

Even the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters said that this is actually the best budget for manufacturers in the past five years. It has things in it for border infrastructure. The member mentioned the CAPC report.

I wonder if he could help clarify this one point for me because it is something I have been trying to understand for the last few years. How can the NDP be against tax cuts for large corporations when these corporations create so many jobs for Canadians and tax cuts allow the corporations to compete internationally? How can the NDP be against that when this budget is the best one in the last five years for that?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's question and his interest in the auto industry, but the reality is that the tax cuts are not even the number one thing the corporations are asking for. Looking at the CAPC report, tax cuts are not the priority. It is infrastructure and other things.

What is interesting about the budget and the infrastructure that is being delivered is it is over five to six years. We know from history that the length of minority governments is a couple of years at best. We have only seen a renewal of funds. We have not really seen significant improvements in border infrastructure. Coming from Windsor West, I have heard it all in terms of promises for infrastructure which are never delivered.

With regard to tax cuts, I would ask the hon. member to go back to his constituency and ask why it is that they support continuing a $1.5 billion tax cut or subsidies for the oil and gas industry and why those companies are not exempted in this respect. Canadians see the record profits in the oil and gas industry. All the companies have record prices at the pump and they are going to get another tax cut. That does not make any sense.

Yes, we can have some good tax cuts, there is no doubt about that, but they have to be strategic and they have to lead to good jobs for Canadians, enjoyed by all, not just a select few.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member. In the time I have been listening to this debate in the House, he is one of the few members to have linked the strategic part of the budget that either will nurture and cultivate manufacturing jobs and high value activity or it will not. The member quite frankly has come down on the side that it will not.

We all understand that Ontario, particularly the part of Ontario that the member comes from, is a catalyst to creating equalization that is being redistributed to the rest of the country. The manufacturing base is fundamental to that.

I wonder if the member could further elaborate on how the budget has not acted as that catalyst, particularly for the transportation and engineering sectors that he knows so well. Perhaps he would like to take a moment to emphasize how strategically unprogressive this budget is in acting as a catalyst to investing in the transportation sector.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is really important not to underestimate the value of sectoral strategies in transportation and the environment. Coming from my area with regard to auto manufacturing we know that if we can advance newer technologies onto the road quicker, we are going to significantly improve our air quality as well as maintain investment in jobs that are very significant in enabling people to purchase homes, send children to school, contribute to the United Way. All that is at risk.

What is worse is that by not moving this technology to manufacturing in our own country, we are witnessing other countries doing that. For example, in China and Southeast Asia we are witnessing significant problems with Canadian technology not being moved as quickly as others. That is unfortunate. We have great Canadian success stories but we have to have sectoral strategies. I would argue those strategies should be tied to national goals and national issues. Air quality would be one.

My region has some of the dirtiest air in the country which is tragic because half of it comes from the United States. The other half comes from local industry but what we can control locally is very significant. We should mitigate and lower that. The budget does not do that because it does not have sectoral strategies. That is what is needed to really move stuff from the classroom to the manufacturing shop floor which once again would return payments to Canada's coffers.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the budget, a budget that a lot of Canadians look to as an indication of the type of government that we will receive from the Conservative Party.

Unfortunately, it confirms the concern and worry that many people have about the direction in which our country is heading under the government and, I would say, especially in Atlantic Canada. I say this because Canadians believe we have a responsibility to each other. These cannot just be words. We must demonstrate in real ways our commitment to actions, especially to Canadians who are most in need of a break.

It is a fact that some of our citizens have not reaped the benefits of our collective success as a nation in the past decade or so. That should challenge us to do better. Under previous governments, both Liberal and Progressive Conservative, we have made inroads in social equality and justice.

Today, Canada is a world leader. In fact, the day after the budget the front section of the Globe and Mail had a big banner in the middle which said, “Canada is a World Leader”.

This was not the case some 13 years ago when the consensus was that Canada was an economic basket case. It was clear as a country we could not continue down that path of financial ruin. In the early days of our Liberal mandate in 1993, the new government was confronted with the crippling reality of $40 billion-plus annual deficits and growing debts. It was so dire that one influential American newspaper suggested that Canada was on the brink of financial collapse, in fact, third world status.

Tough decisions had to be made. Those decisions were borne collectively and at times painfully by all Canadians. In retrospect, though, most of those tough policy decisions were right. Today, we have witnessed a tremendous financial dividend off those decisions.

The fiscal decisions of the mid-nineties were made in the national interest. They were decisions that put policy ahead of politics; not easy, but right for the country.

We can compare that to the situation today where politics trumps good public policy. Unlike the Liberals in 1993, the Conservative government took office with the best economy in Canadian history, a vibrant economy with annual surpluses that provide an opportunity to plan for our future prosperity by investing in people and by investing in our social infrastructure.

That is not what government members chose to do, though, with the opportunity presented to them. It could have invested in students, in social programs like child care, in our aboriginal communities or in the environment but it chose not to.

To me, the budget represents a lost opportunity with worse to come. It is a budget that gives too much to the rich at the expense of those who have less. Low and middle income Canadians, as well as students and aboriginals, all of whom were shut out in this era of unprecedented prosperity.

I cannot support a budget that does not invest in real child care and instead, offers a taxable individual benefit that really has not even been targeted to those most in need. The previous government had a plan that would have made a difference in the lives of families across the country and was widely supported by governments of all stripes in Canada. It was a plan that recognized that government has a responsibility to help to provide every child with the opportunity to learn and, for parents who work, we provided an early learning and child care program based on the quad principles which have become so well known in the child care community. A real child care plan involves investing our financial capital in order to enhance our human capital.

The Caledon Institute of social policy indicates, as an example of how wrong this new policy is, that a two earner couple making $30,000 will end up with a net benefit of $199, while a one earner couple making $200,000 will see a net benefit of $1,076. That is unconscionable. It is not in fact a child care plan. It is an allowance that will be disproportionately allocated.

I cannot support a budget that ignores post-secondary education so much and, in particular, students. The budget offer,s as a crowning achievement, an $80 tax reduction on books.

The previous Liberal government invested close to $13 billion in research and innovation in the last decade. We now lead all G-7 countries in per capita investment in university research and these investments have had a huge benefit to our economy, a huge benefit to the development of new technologies and to retaining and attracting top researchers. We have in fact reversed the brain drain.

The issue now is student accessibility. Last November, our government proposed sweeping investments in students in the form of direct assistance. These billions in investments called for extending the Canada access grants from one year to the entire four years of study, targeted toward low income students, those most in need, aboriginal students and persons with disabilities. That economic statement went miles beyond Bill C-48, providing much more for students than Bill C-48 did.

Again, a real plan for students involves investing in our financial capital in order to enhance our human capital.

I also cannot support a budget that makes little mention of the environment. The abandonment goes far beyond Kyoto. It hurts individual Canadians. For example, the EnerGuide program for low income housing was cancelled. This was a $500 million five year program that provided grants to low income Canadians so they could evaluate their houses and make repairs with the goal of conserving energy and reducing their personal energy costs. I do not believe it is fair and I do not believe it is appropriate to cancel that program. Now all of EnerGuide is gone.

What is more galling is that when the government was in opposition it voted for the very legislation that funded EnerGuide for low income families. I think it shameful and it is counterproductive to cancel that.

Again, the day after the budget was presented in this House, the Globe and Mail had a two page spread that broke down the budget. The article argued that in order for Canada to maintain its strong economy there were two key areas of investments: education and the environment. Can anyone guess what was missed out in the budget?

This budget goes in the opposite direction, paying scant attention to education. Its environmental proposals seek to abandon Kyoto while cutting programs like EnerGuide, which is a made in Canada solution and actually works.

Again, it is politics above policy.

Let us have a look at the celebrated GST cut. Jeffrey Simpson, in the Globe and Mail, referred to the Conservative commitment to cut the GST as a $5 billion political bribe. “As politics,” he said, “it's great; as economics, it stinks”.

It was not just him. Herb Grubel, a senior fellow with the Fraser Institute, a former member of this chamber and a former Reform Party finance critic, said:

Cutting the GST rather than business or personal income taxes may be good politics but it is definitely very bad economics.

Andrew Coyne, in the National Post, no friend of the Liberal Party, said:

A Conservative party that was prepared to blow $8.5-billion a year...on such a transparent electoral bribe, sacrificing every principle of sound taxation and severely limiting the chances of major improvements in Canada's productivity in the bargain, would have announced in very clear terms that it was no longer interested in being a party of principle.

In other countries there is a move to tax consumption because it is the most fair way of taxing. New Zealand, for example, has moved from 10.2% of taxes on general consumption as a percentage of GDP to 25.3% in the last quarter century.

The government talked about broad based tax relief. We see in the brochure that touts this budget that a family making less than $15,000 gets a $96 saving and a family making $100,000 to $150,000, which includes everybody in this chamber, saves $1,228. I do not think MPs deserve 12 times as much of a break as somebody struggling to raise their family on $15,000.

This budget misses the mark in two key areas.

First, it is dumb. It is a dumb budget economically, according to all the economics, and it ignores productivity, which we need, in favour of a GST cut.

Second, I would suggest that it is just plain mean. For decades our federal governments, and I am talking Progressive Conservative as well as Liberal, introduced measures to make Canada more equal, more fair and more just, a society that recognizes success but also recognizes our responsibility to those who are disadvantaged.

This budget represents a turning away from that ethic in favour of measures to help those disproportionately better off. The more one has, the more one spends, the more one gets. Average Canadian families do not become the major beneficiary as they should.

I do not dismiss the appearance of benefits to some families but when we examine it we find that more than ever before these budget measures will do nothing for the poor and little for the middle class.

This financial plan for Canada takes us backwards. The GST cut is dead wrong, according to leading economists; ignoring the need to invest in students is a critical mistake; turning back on the environment is a colossal blunder; and abandoning children is hugely misguided.

In short, this budget offers some sizzle but no steak. It invests in the wrong areas, cuts the wrong taxes, assists many of the wrong people and turns back the clock on real progress for Canadians.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's comments on the budget. It is interesting to contrast the start of the new Conservative government in 2006 with the start of the previous government in 1993. I think the sharpest contrast that can be drawn when we juxtaposition the two governments is that we have kept the faith with the public. We have kept the commitments we made during our election campaign.

We campaigned on a platform that we are delivering on in budget 2006. We promised to cut the GST by 1% and budget 2006 delivers on that with a 1% GST cut effective July 1. We promised to implement a universal child care benefit of $1,200 and, effective July 1, budget 2006 delivers that. We promised greater accountability and budget 2006 delivers that by putting in measures to ensure greater transparency in the budgeting process. We promised greater security to protect Canadian communities and cities and budget 2006 delivers on that with additional resources for front line police officers.

Let us contrast this budget with the budget presented in 1993 after the Liberal Party campaigned to eliminate the GST. It broke that promise. In 1993 the Liberals campaigned to scrap the free trade agreement. They broke that promise.

I wonder if the member opposite could comment on the contrast between the start of this new government and the one in 1993 as evidenced in our first budget.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would have to say the most striking difference between the Conservative government coming in and when we took power in 1993 were the conditions we inherited. In 1993 we inherited probably the worst economy in the history of Canada. The Conservatives had wracked up the debt from $200 billion to $500 billion. We had $40 billion annual deficits as opposed to right now where we have handed over the most rosy economy in the history of the country.

A little while ago I asked the minister a question in the House about what the government was going to do for students and he turned around and told me all about the wonderful things that Canada was already doing for students. We did those things. I appreciate his support but I know what we have done. However we need to do more for students now. We were going to do it in the economic statement. We have an opportunity now to do even more to build on the great record of prosperity that we left for the Conservative government. It is a wasted opportunity with worse to come.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while listening to the speeches I was thinking about small businesses as I have a business background.

Canadians have not put their clear trust into the Conservative government. Their trust is conditional. I personally feel that we are here to serve Canadians, whether we believe in their thinking or not.

I was in my riding this past weekend and I was talking to the progressive forces. They personally feel that they have been betrayed, whether it is with respect to the Kelowna agreement, students or the environment. I would like to ask the member to update us on this please.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the most unfair thing about this budget is the way it treats those most in need. The Conservatives even touted this in their brochures. The budget speech was about how great a benefit this will be for people who buy a $350,000 house. I could ask the member for Churchill how many houses in her riding cost $350,000. They talk about the great savings available to families making $150,000. I could ask the member for Cape Breton--Canso how many people in his riding make $150,000.

This is unconscionable at a time when this country needs two things. We need to do more to even out the load among those who have and those who have not. We need to invest in productivity to allow Canada to compete in the global economy with the emerging giants. We have what we need. We just need to put it in the right places. This budget puts it in the wrong places.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that in the early years the Liberal government inherited a difficult situation and had to make very tough decisions. That is undoubtedly true. I remember the then prime minister saying to Canadians that they had to tighten their belts, and they did. The debt was paid over the backs of ordinary Canadians, municipalities, cities and the provinces. They paid. They helped out.

Then a surplus began to accumulate. That surplus was never turned back to ordinary Canadians. It went to subsidies for large corporations. In some years, $1.4 billion in subsidies went to the oil and gas industry.

I am wondering if the hon. member feels that this was a sensitive way of helping ordinary Canadians deal with the very serious issues they were facing with these six years of record surpluses that the Liberals acquired.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Liberal government had to make tough decisions, not only here but in the provinces as well, which faced difficult times.

I am proud of the fact that when this country started to produce surpluses the Liberal government had the largest tax reduction in the history of Canada. I think it was a reduction of $100 billion in 2000-01. We introduced the child tax benefit, millennium scholarships, Canada access grants and learning bonds. When Liberals had the money, we identified that it should go back to the people who needed it most, to ordinary Canadians, low income Canadians, students and people who needed assistance. I am proud of that record.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-13, which is, of course, the act to implement the budget that has caused so much consternation here in the House and across Canada.

This debate gives us a chance to reiterate our concerns with the budget and another opportunity to find a way to convince these Conservatives to change their ways and to start listening to Canadians. By all accounts from far and wide in this country, the Conservative government blew it. The Conservatives had an opportunity to invest in Canada, to start ensuring that we were rebuilding this country after 10 years of neglect by the Liberals, and they abandoned that opportunity. They blew it. They lost it.

[Merv Tweed]

Thirteen years.

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

My colleague from Brandon--Souris has just reminded me that it was 13 years ago that the Liberals came into power. He is quite right. It is 13 years of neglect that we are trying to overcome.

I just wish that he and his colleagues on the Conservative benches had found the courage and the wherewithal to address the weaknesses from the Liberal government and to restore the necessary elements that create strong communities and a strong country.

Unfortunately, they did not do it. They chose instead to once again follow the Liberal path of investing in areas that help big business and the wealthiest in this country. They chose to neglect hard-working Canadians who spend day and night sustaining themselves and their families, contributing to their communities, volunteering at hockey rinks and church bazaars, walking on safety patrols and helping people in need.

They looked to the government for some recognition of that contribution, some way to ensure that the path is a little brighter, that the future is a little clearer for themselves and their children, and they got none of that in this budget.

What did Canadians get? They got exactly what the Liberals have been delivering for 13 years.

On the one hand, it is an approach that has no balance in terms of fiscal policy. Rather than ensuring some money go against the debt, some money in terms of progressive tax relief and some money in terms of investment, what did we get? We got what the Liberals have always done, which is to not come clean with Canadians about the surplus and thereby dump a whole pile of it against the debt, without regard for the kind of economic growth that would have come from that investment, and to give a huge amount in tax breaks to corporations.

This time it was $7 billion worth. If we take the $5 billion of extra money that they threw against the debt, because with all of their resources they could not figure out how to invest that money that would create jobs and grow the economy, plus the $7 billion in tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy, many of the issues that we raise each and every day in this House would have been addressed in some significant way. If the Conservatives do not want to listen to the words of members in this House, maybe they will listen to some of the people who write and call, day in and day out. I want to reference just a couple.

The first one actually is a letter from a school in your constituency, Mr. Speaker. It is from the student council of Murdoch MacKay high school. A group of students involved in a Make Poverty History conference last year decided to keep fighting, to make their voices heard and to try to get through to the government. The students wrote a letter to the Prime Minister on April 24 and said the following:

As a group of caring and concerned students who have recently become aware of the issue of poverty in Canada and the world, we have organized a poster campaign, an educational trivia contest and a food drive for a local food bank in our community. We fully support the Make Poverty History campaign that has gained momentum throughout the past year and wish to see our federal government take action to eradicate poverty.

That is an incredible voice. It is an incredible impetus for the government. Those are the voices of ordinary Canadians. They are the voices of the future of this land, the voices of young people active in their student council and wanting this country to be a model for the whole world, an example of caring and compassion for the whole world to see.

Another letter, similar to the last one, comes from a constituent of mine by the name of Jacob Blondahl, who lives right in the heart of Winnipeg North on Main Street. He writes to the finance minister:

I'm writing to call on you to make ending poverty at home and abroad a priority in your first Federal Budget. Over 1.2 billion people live in abject poverty. Every day, 50,000 people die from poverty-related causes and more than 800 million people go to bed hungry every night.

In the upcoming budget, your government should acknowledge the international target for aid spending of 0.7%--

He said that the government should act to keep the commitments made in the last election.

Let me give the example of a family in my constituency that has had to come to grips with this supposedly great benefit the Conservatives have given to families through a child allowance in the name of a child care program. Let me show how the family is going to suffer as a result of it. The breakdown this family gives is as follows. The annual family allowance is $1,200. Less income tax it is $838. Minus a benefit clawback, it drops to $448. Finally, minus the young child supplement. it goes to $199. The total is $199 per year, less than a dollar a day. That is the great benefit and the great program that the Conservatives have brought to us in the name of a progressive child care policy.

I think constituents say it all and I think these are the voices that the Conservative government ought to be listening to.

The government has been obsessed with accelerated debt reduction and tax cuts, as I have mentioned. We are no further ahead for it. We are simply going to have a continuation of the kind of direction this country has gone as a result of Liberal policies.

Let me say that if we take this kind of policy down to the grassroots level, down to a constituency such as Winnipeg North, we will see that constituents, ordinary people, are not rejoicing in this budget. They are not rejoicing because they are going to feel the effects of this lost opportunity in their lives and the lives of their children for years to come.

Winnipeg North is probably one of the most economically disadvantaged constituencies in Canada. It is hard for many folks to make ends meet. A disproportionate number live on low incomes. Many hold down several jobs. It has a rich cultural mix, including first and second generation immigrant and urban aboriginal populations, and everyone is working hard to build a stronger community. They are striving to make their lives and the lives of their neighbours better.

Despite this, as we all know, the gap between the rich and the poor is growing. Despite hard work, these constituents of mine are not benefiting. They are not finding it easier to make ends meet. They are not able to feel good about what they are able to provide for their families.

Let me give a couple of examples of this. There is the question of housing in a constituency such as Winnipeg North, which is at a very difficult stage in terms of older housing in need of repair, housing that has suffered at the hands of a federal government that has taken away all the means of support, all avenues for assistance, after the government abandoned housing as a policy back some 13 years ago.

Since then, this patchwork of programs has not made the kind of difference that is required. Since then, housing has deteriorated even further. Let me look at this specifically from the point of view of off reserve aboriginal housing, because in fact, my constituency is home to a number of aboriginal constituents who are tackling the need for affordable housing.

Let me conclude by mentioning that there was a very recent study called “An Examination of Hidden Homelessness among Aboriginal Peoples in Prairie Cities”. It examined the lack of affordable housing for aboriginals. The study found that thousands of people drift from shelter to boarding house, from borrowed couch to homeless mission. Let me read for members four of statistics from the report. Five thousand people live in rooming houses in Winnipeg, 1,000 people live in hotels in downtown Winnipeg, and 2,330 aboriginal families are waiting for housing in Winnipeg. Forty-five per cent of participants have moved more than three times in the past six months. Fifty-five per cent of people earn $10,000 or less annually and 19.8% of the people have no income.

The list goes on and on. We have a difficult and very needy situation in Winnipeg. The government has abandoned its role in terms of housing. The Conservative government did not address it other than to implement the NDP addition to last year's Liberal budget.

This is an area that needs investment that will have all kinds of spinoff benefits for this country. I urge the government to finally come to grips with what it means to be relevant to families that work hard and want to make a contribution to this country.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the government obviously agrees that more needs to be done for Canadians who are disadvantaged. That is why over 600,000 Canadians are going to be removed from the tax rolls in this budget.

I think the member would agree that there are some honest disagreements and philosophies between the two governments. This government was elected on certain principles and promises and, in fact, this budget fulfills those promises. One of those promises was to deal with pandemics. This budget puts $1 billion toward pandemic preparedness. As the member knows, the virology lab is in Winnipeg, a city that the member and I share.

There is also a substantial investment in cancer control. There is $260 million for the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control, a motion that the NDP supported in the last Parliament and the previous government refused to fully fund and implement.

I wonder if the member would agree that the investments in pandemics and cancer control are good investments and something the previous government refused to do. Or, is the member's party changing its position on the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control and pandemic preparedness?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no question, and the member knows this, that the members of the New Democratic Party in the past have called for public investment in cancer prevention and treatment strategies. We certainly appreciate the steps that the government has taken in that direction.

The New Democratic Party has also called for a significant investment in the virology lab in Winnipeg to ensure that it can continue to be an internationally recognized centre for responsiveness in the case of an emergency or a pandemic. However, what the member is missing is the epidemic, the serious critical crises that exist right now on the streets of Winnipeg, and the government is either totally blind or negligent.

I do not know, after I have just talked about poverty in our midst, how the member can ignore that fact. The member cannot even respond to the fact that 52% of aboriginal families indicate they live in crowded conditions in Winnipeg. There are people living in temporary hotels, hostels, and on the streets. People cannot get a decent meal. The member wants to ignore that situation.

I suggest to him that if the government is serious, and he is serious about addressing pandemics, it should start with one's own backyard and look at the problems staring us in the face right now. Kids are going to school hungry, people are living in the most despicable housing conditions imaginable, and people are having to resort to the most untenable ways of making money to subsist. That would be a truly responsible and responsive government in the event of a pandemic.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is talking about ordinary Canadians. In 1990 I graduated from university. In 1993 I travelled through her riding. At that time we had the highest unemployment rate. If we read the numbers today, when Liberal governments were in power, the unemployment rate was the lowest in 30 years and at the same time, the ordinary Canadian that the member is talking about was taking home 11% more in earnings.

How is the member going to justify to workers in the next election, when she goes door to door, that by voting with the Conservatives in the last Parliament she had not betrayed the ordinary Canadians who fall under the lowest tax bracket, those earning less than $36,000 a year?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said before in the House to a similar question from many of these disgruntled Liberals who think they are still in government just like that. I would suggest to him that it was not this small group of 29 New Democrats who defeated the Liberals. It was the Canadian people who said they were tired of being taken for granted. The kinds of problems I have talked about in the House today are problems that have been caused by years and years of Liberal government neglect. Let me go back to the issue of housing. I hope members will understand what it means. Our housing problems in Winnipeg began when the federal Liberal government decided--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I would love for the hon. member to go back as far as she would like, but we do have to resume debate. The hon. member for Chambly—Borduas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly speak to Bill C-13, the 2006 budget implementation act.

I am pleased to speak immediately after the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I think she did a good job highlighting the entire issue we must consider in order to pass judgment on this budget.

In no way do I doubt the convictions of the hon. member for Winnipeg North, having heard her speak about the less fortunate a number of times now. I think she does this well with conviction and fairness.

However, as far as the budget is concerned, we do not share the same conclusions. At the end of her speech she mentioned a certain number of reasons why we do not share her conclusions in terms of the Canadian government's policies of withdrawal from the social safety net for the people she was referring to, namely the poorest in society.

Hon. members will recall the Canadian government's withdrawal from social housing, which is called affordable housing in Canada, when the Liberals were formed the government. This withdrawal occurred almost throughout their entire time in power. Nothing was invested in social housing. It was only in 2001 that the Liberal government gradually started putting money back into social housing. However, it was too late, the damage had been done. The current serious shortage in social housing is putting even greater pressure on the poor.

The same phenomenon occurred in employment insurance with the Canadian government's withdrawal and cuts to the programs. This puts a great deal of pressure on the poorest families, especially people who have the misfortune of losing their employment.

I will come back to that, but I wanted first to put this in perspective to show that in the current context I believe there is no guarantee the Liberals would do better than the Conservatives right now if they were in power. On the contrary, they showed us they were capable of the worst.

Now it is time to see whether the Conservatives are also capable of the worst. In that perspective, we have looked at whether the budget we want to implement with Bill C-13 provides us with anything positive.

We must consider it in terms of the mandate given to us by the Quebec electorate. This mandate is to defend, to the best of our ability, the interests of Quebeckers. All the better if the interests of all Canadians are defended at the same time.

The issue of fiscal imbalance is decidedly a major issue for Quebec. I believe it is a major issue for the rest of Canada, but we will speak for Quebec. Why? Because it is an issue that the Liberals refused to recognize in order to maintain their policy of disengagement with respect to the provinces and to Quebec. It was a case of maintaining this quite deplorable situation whereby the Canadian government recorded the surpluses and the provinces assumed the responsibilities.

We have before us a government that says it is prepared to examine the fiscal imbalance within ten months, or by February 2007. It says it is prepared to do whatever is necessary with the provinces to solve the problem. That is an interesting commitment.

Now let us look at the difficulties faced by farmers. How farmers have struggled these last few years, first to obtain recognition for the fact that they experience tremendous difficulties just to be able to survive, and then to feed their families and to keep their farms afloat. We know how quickly the rate of farm failures is rising.

Many farmers did not even have enough money to plant their crops this spring.

Now, a breath of fresh air is blowing across the land. It is not an ideal solution, granted, but it is welcome relief for farmers. The Bloc Québécois had a large hand this initiative, especially my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska, who worked hard to convince the Conservative government that it had to do something. As a result, the budget contains $1.5 billion in new money to support farm producers who are going through hard times.

As I mentioned earlier, $800 million will go to social housing. In 2001, the Liberals allocated $260 million. Today, $800 million in new funding is being invested in social housing. This is a positive step.

The additional infrastructure funding, the tax exemption for bursaries, the reduction in the excise tax for microbreweries and the $1 billion for post-secondary education are some other positive aspects of the budget. The Bloc Québécois feels that, in the current context, the budget does enough for the people we represent so that we can support it. Does it address every issue? No.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you take a special interest in the plight of the unemployed and the poor. Our colleague referred to this earlier. We must recognize that a number of huge commitments are missing from the budget. In the coming months, that is what we must focus on in order to correct this situation.

Let us talk about the unemployed. The Conservative Party made a promise to set up an independent fund so that the Canadian government would stop playing around with the fund to divert money—which the Liberals did. Over the past 12 years, $48 billion was misappropriated from the employment insurance fund.

Elsewhere, this behaviour would be described as theft. I will not say that, as it is not parliamentary. However, it is dramatic. On whose backs was this done? It was done on the backs of people whose employment insurance benefits were cut. This is one of the measures that made families poorer, as our colleague mentioned earlier. Who does this money belong to? It belongs to the workers and employers.

I say it often in this House and I will continue to say it until this injustice is corrected. It is scandalous. It is misappropriation of funds, in no uncertain terms. This money belongs to two groups, the workers and the employers. In addition, this money could have gone to help families.

This was the first measure the Conservative government made a commitment on. It has done nothing yet. We will have to hound it. It will have to deliver the goods to provide an independent fund.

The situation is the same with the income support program for older workers. At the moment, the collapse of our industries' infrastructure because of the entry of foreign goods has led to layoffs. Most importantly, the people hit by the layoffs are 55 and older. In the past, the Conservatives made a commitment in this regard. It must deliver the goods.

The Bloc Québécois has introduced Bill C-269 to improve the entire employment insurance program. When the time comes, I invite my colleagues in the House to support this bill. Why? Because it is the minimum in terms of responsibility and recognition we owe workers in order to come to their assistance. It is also a matter of justice for them.

My time is up, so I will stop here. I am prepared to respond in the time for questions.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Bloc member for his comments on the budget. He said that the budget proposes measures for social housing, agriculture, infrastructure and microbreweries.

I agree with him about the budget.

Nothing is ever perfect. The budget is no exception to this rule, but it is a balanced budget. It is a focused budget in terms of its spending and it offers money for debt repayment. It is a good overall package.

As my colleague across the aisle has mentioned, there are measures in the budget for secondary education, new money for aboriginal Canadians and families with children and a new approach to environmental issues. We have seen a significant increase of 35% in emissions in Canada over the last 15 years, a record far worse than many of our fellow OECD countries. We need to tackle this.

Could my colleague comment on the budget with respect to measures that we have put in place for greater resources for provinces to deliver core services, such as the $3.3 billion in new money allocated for post-secondary education, social housing and public transit?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his question.

I have already expressed my views on this and a number of other subjects. I would like to talk specifically about public transit because it also relates to measures designed to eliminate greenhouse gases. The minister and his party should reconsider their position on this issue. It is dangerous for two reasons. First, being so evasive about such an important issue sows seeds of doubt among Canadians that slow down our progress toward meeting our obligations to adopt measures that will eliminate greenhouse gases. I see nothing concrete in this budget that really promotes public transit, yet this is one of the measures we should adopt to encourage people to use more economical multi-passenger means of transportation.

I would like to remind the minister that we consider this an interim budget. We will judge this government according to such elements, including the Kyoto protocol targets. Our vote on the next budget will depend on these issues.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague from the Bloc has heard many members point out the shortcomings in the budget. Even those who were complimentary about some aspects were critical of the glaring oversights within it.

I point out to him that negotiations on how to make that budget better ended the very moment the leader of the Bloc Québécois walked out of this chamber and into the camera scrum area and said, “I support this budget”. All of a sudden all negotiations died right on the table. There were no more improvements to be made because the deal had been done.

Why did the Bloc roll over so easily? At least when the NDP traded its support in a minority Parliament, we got $4.8 billion worth of tangible benefits for Canadians. The Bloc got nothing, a big goose egg. I think my colleague from the Bloc is agreeing with me, that the Bloc got a big fat goose egg in exchange for its loyalty.

It is mystifies me. It is like Jack and the Beanstalk, I suppose, when one trades the family cow for three beans and none of those beans sprout. What was it about the budget that the Bloc would give up all of its political leverage and ability to influence?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad he thinks he got something, even though he agreed to cutting $2.5 billion from employment insurance. He got nothing.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I want to point out that I let the hon. member speak earlier. I want to remind hon. members of something. Let us look at what the NDP got: they got measures that were applicable later.

[An hon. member]

If there was money.

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

Yes, if there was more money. It was conditional. Well, now there is nothing: zero, less than nothing.

Furthermore, let us look at pages 278 to 280. In this budget that the NDP supported, there is the matter of a measure for cutting $2.5 billion from the employment insurance budget. The NDP voted in favour of that cut. Not just that, it fought the misappropriation of $48 billion, but supported a cut of $2.5 billion.

Before addressing this matter, I would like my colleague to double check what he voted in favour of. If he does not know, I cannot help it. Nonetheless, that is truly what happened. It absolutely happened that way.

Why did we not negotiate? Because we do not get involved in those types of negotiations. We are honest with our electors. We tell them whether things are good or bad and we tell them so right away.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand today and talk about the budget and the implications it will have on Canadians. It is quite interesting also to listen to the discussion and debate that goes on by different members in the House on who sold out who and so on. The reason we all here is that we want to build a great Canada. That is the reason I asked to make a few comments today in the budget implementation debate.

I would like to begin my remarks by reminding Canadians that the Conservatives inherited from the Liberals the strongest economy and the best fiscal situation that any newly elected government in the history of Canada has ever been fortunate enough to receive. I wonder what will happen over the next period of time, whoever forms the government, and whether they will ever have an opportunity to inherit such a rich surplus as the Conservatives had in contrast to what was left to us by the Conservatives in 1993, which was one huge mess.

Under that last Conservative government, the Canadian economy was in serious trouble. Conservative spending was wildly out of control. Annual deficits had skyrocketed to close to $40 billion. Overall federal debt had ballooned to nearly 70% of the gross domestic product. Interest rates were very high. All of us felt those. The federal government itself had become a heavy burden on money markets, thus driving up borrowing costs for provincial and municipal governments as well as businesses, consumers and our constituents.

There was no real economic growth or job creation happening. Unemployment rose into the double digits. Consumer and business confidence was very low. That was a very difficult time for Canada. With the encouragement and the steady support of thousands of Canadians, the Liberals set out in 1993-94 to turn things around, and that is exactly what we did.

We cleaned up the nation's finances. We re-established the federal government's ability to invest properly in Canadians' leading social and economic priorities, while balancing the books, and we succeeded in that. We balanced the books in 1997 and brought down eight consecutive surplus budgets following that. We reduced the federal debt in absolute terms by more than $63 billion and as a proportion of the total economy by 45%. The debt is now on a steady downward track, scheduled to decline to 25% of the GDP by 2015 and then to no more than 20% of the GDP by 2020. At least that was our plan.

Inflation declined, interest rates came down and have remained low and stable. Federal taxes have been reduced by more than $100 billion since 2000 and another six-year $50 billion tax cut plan was initiated in 2005. Unfortunately, it was abandoned by the new Conservative government.

The Canadian economy has generated more than 3.5 million new jobs since 1993. Participation in the labour market is at near record high levels while unemployment has plummetted to a 32-year low, which we all can enjoy in this country. Canada enjoyed 12 straight years of unprecedented economic growth under the careful management and the fiscally responsible Liberal government.

The Liberals are very proud of our fiscal record. In fact we boast the best fiscal performance in all the G-7 group of world leading economies and the best fiscal record of any Canadian government since 1867. When my colleagues across the various parties throw jibes and words and all kinds of comments around, they should realize that all of us worked hard, all of us as Canadians, to get where we are today.

This brings me to my many concerns about the Conservative budget that we are going to deal with today. This budget clearly lacks any vision for Canada to take us into the future. It is a simple case of some short term gain and long term pain for a great country that we have all worked so hard to build over the last 13 years.

The government inherited the best fiscal situation in Canadian history and is failing Canadians by neglecting the future challenges and moving us forward.

The budget fails to address climate change and, clearly, is cancelling Kyoto and our commitments to Kyoto. It fails to provide a real child care choice for parents or a plan to create child care spaces, yet it has money to build more jails. It fails to maintain fiscal responsibility by not investing carefully in innovation. It fails to provide tax relief for low and middle income Canadians. In fact, it increases taxes for low and middle income Canadians. More important, it fails to exhibit any vision for Canada's future prosperity, with no significant investments in education or innovation, nothing to lead us forward.

Unfortunately, the budget neglects to make any significant investments in those areas. The Liberal government had a concrete vision that would have helped put us at the forefront of competitiveness and innovation.

This lacklustre and visionless budget contains virtually nothing in this regard. For example, for university research our last fiscal update provided $2.5 billion. The Conservative budget provides $200 million.

For student aid, our plan, which we were able to offer because our fiscal house was in order, provided $6,000 per student for tuition over a four year program. That was a huge help for students to encourage many coming from low income families to go to school. The Conservative plan provides $80 for textbooks.

Under the Liberal government, the best and brightest flocked to Canada due to our sound investment in research and development. How will Canada compete on the world stage in the future with a visionless budget and a visionless country? How can Canada continue to nation build when it is stuck with a government and a budget that cares more about politics than sound fiscal management?

The fiscal irresponsibility of the budget is completely unacceptable. The government is throwing fiscal prudence out the window and spending savings from program cuts before it even has the money in the bank. This approach will bring Canada dangerously close to a deficit position again.

The budget also puts ideology before economics and policy and fails to provide a sound economic vision for the future.

The budget also fails to provide real tax relief for low and middle income Canadians. Eliminating Liberal income tax cuts in favour of a 1% GST cut has been panned by every serious economist in the country as a plan that will benefit higher income Canadians at the expense of those who need it most.

The Conservatives are actually increasing income taxes, which means many people who received a refund in the 2005 year will probably end up paying more in 2006. The budget actually raises income tax rates in the lowest tax bracket. Despite the government claiming to be helping Canadian families, it has raised the tax rate from 15% to 15.5% for the lowest income Canadians and then denied it did it. Low income families need our support, yet the government is quietly raising its taxes. Did it think no one would notice?

The Conservative government has also quietly cancelled the program which helped low income households cope with high energy prices and cut greenhouse gas emissions. The EnerGuide program for low income households, a five year program initiated by the Liberals in November and endorsed by all parties in this House, was making a real difference for low income families in my riding of York West, and I am sure in many other ridings across this country.

Worse yet, the government chose to hide the cancellation of this program. I found out when a constituent called. When my assistant phoned, we were told the program had been cancelled. At least the government should have had the courage to tell us upfront what it was doing when it was cancelling it.

Nothing is more important to Canadians than our children and our grandchildren. We must lay the foundation for our country's future prosperity and success. As members will know, the Liberal government successfully negotiated agreements with all the 10 provinces last year. Through these agreements, the federal government would transfer almost $5 billion over five years to the provinces and territories, based on the principles quality, universal inclusiveness and accessibility.

We will notice that in the five priorities there was no new money to go into the health care system. Where will that money come from when we talk about a guarantee for long term wait times and elimination of those waits?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for that member, but she has again repeated a myth that many people are buying, and that is the Liberals somehow left this government in a wonderful financial position. I would like to set the record straight.

If we look at the financial accounts of the country over the years, we will find that the deficits were due totally to high interest payments in those years. We could probably fault the Conservative government of the day for not taking fast short term measures to reduce that debt and hence the interest payments. Instead, it addressed the long term problem and brought in a number of policies that the Liberal government, over the last 12 years, was able to use to reduce those deficits.

The Liberals did bring down the debt. After they let it go up about another $80 billion, they brought it down about the same amount. I believe that is right.

I see some members over there laughing. As I recall, when the Liberals took over in 1993, the debt was very close to $500 billion and it is still $500 billion. It did go up in the first three years of their regime and then it went down after that. It was a Liberal legacy that left us the debt. This government has actually addressed this issue.

To the credit of the Liberals of the day, they--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. member for York West.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to wonder what people, who are watching this at home, think about all of us. We are tossing around all of these numbers, but Canadians know what the numbers are. They know that when we became government in 1993, there was a huge deficit. I heard many comments about the fact that at that point Canada was on the verge of bankruptcy. It took all Canadians, led by our prime minister and finance minister, to make a huge amount of cuts to get our finances and our country under control. We have the opportunity now to reinvest in our children, in our housing, in our seniors and, more important, to ensure that we reinvest in our young people.

We talk about the child care issue as if it is some kind of babysitting service. Child care is about investing in early childhood education. If we are going to be competing with Switzerland and all of the other countries, we have to ensure that our children get an early start to education. This is not about babysitting. It is a really important issue.

We had a plan going forward that would have ensured that all children in our country, who wanted an opportunity to learn early, would have that opportunity. They would then be well positioned to compete with others. Giving $25 a week for babysitting, is a pretty big insult to all women. More important, it does not move us forward as a country. We are supposed to be investing in innovation and all of these issues. That means we need to give women the opportunity to give their children early childhood education.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member talk about the former government's grand plan for child care. I recall many elections ago when the same plan was being promoted. Was that plan delivered? No. Not one day care space was created by members opposite.

During the election, we made our plan clear. We were going to give families $1,200 per child, per annum, and that was going to be addressed fairly across all families. We delivered on that promise.

Having had 13 years to implement a day care program in Canada, why did she and her government never deliver on the promises they made repeatedly during election after election?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we had gone into government with the kind of surpluses that the Conservative government has been fortunate enough to get, we would have been able to implement it quickly. Instead, it took us four years just to get things balanced again.

Giving a family $100 a month, or $1,200 a year, through a tax change could be done overnight. That is real easy. Getting an agreement with the provinces to deliver early childhood education is not about getting a day care space. It is about setting up a program with all of the provinces as partners.

After the Conservative government has been in office a few more months, I am sure it will find out how difficult it is to reach an agreement with all of the provinces, which have to discuss the plan with their municipalities. We cannot just tell families how it has to happen. We have to work with our partners across the country to get a plan that meets the need. We also need money to do that. As a result of our good fiscal plan, we have only had that kind of money to do it now. The Conservatives are throwing it away by giving people $25 a week. What are they going to do with it? They will not be able to do much.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as we go through the debate on Bill C-13, the budget implementation bill, it strikes me as I listen to the debate that we seem to be missing the big picture here.

We hear a lot of specifics about various minutiae of the budget, but I have with me a chart that shows total family incomes, adjusted to real 2004 dollars, from 1989 to 2004. This bridges some Tory years, but it mostly shows Liberal years. I was shocked to see that the real family income or take-home pay during that period of time for the lowest quintile, the lowest 20% of all Canadians, actually went backwards by 9%. We actually slid by 9% over 15 years. Even though the economy grew and the business climate was favourable for many of those years, the redistribution of wealth did not reach the bottom quintile.

There is that common yarn we hear about how a rising tide lifts all boats, but the rising tide did not lift the boats on the bottom quintile. It did not lift the boats of the second quintile either. The families in this column made about $26,000 or $28,000 a year. Their real family incomes went down by 4% from 1989 to 2004. That was a lesser amount, but they were still going backwards.

In the next quintile, for those making around $45,000 a year, on average their real earnings and real family incomes, all adjusted to 2004 dollars, went down 3%. It is only when we get into the fourth quintile, those making about $65,000 or $70,000 a year, that real family incomes, their real earnings, went up by 2%. In the highest quintile, the wealthiest of Canadians, real family incomes went up by 15%.

I do not know if it is the goal or the objective of either the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party to elevate the wages and living conditions of all Canadians. That is the stated objective of the NDP. I do not know if it has been a priority or if those parties had other competing interests and priorities, but if that was their objective, if that was their economic strategy, it has not worked for the last 15 years. This goes back to 1989.

I think that maybe this is what we should be reflecting upon in this debate. We live in the richest and most powerful civilization in the history of the world, but we are not sharing the wealth. We are not showing a meaningful increase in the financial quality of life of fully 60% of Canadians, and the other fourth quintile only marginally. It is only the very wealthy who got richer. It is almost a cliché that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, but unfortunately that is the empirical evidence to date of the economic strategy of the last many years in this country.

All the other issues that we are complaining about here kind of pale in comparison to this failure in what we in the NDP see as the single most important thing: sharing the wealth, sharing one's birthright as a Canadian, and growing forward. The next generation will be the first ever to not have the economic well-being that their parents did. I did not state that very well, but members get the idea.

I am going to move on to something that I think should have been in this budget. We did hear quite a bit in the budget about tax cuts. I will concede that there were many, many small and medium sized tax cuts, but there was very little about tax fairness, and there is one point I want to raise.

I am reading a book called Pigs at the Trough: How Corporate Greed and Political Corruption Are Undermining America. I argue that the same applies to Canada. This book talks about a trend that is very popular in corporate Canada and America. It is called tax motivated expatriation. It is a chartered accountant's term for what I say is a sleazy, tax-cheating loophole, where businesses use offshore tax havens and actually become tax fugitives. They set up dummy companies offshore so they can funnel the profits of their activities and avoid paying Canadian taxes.

During the Liberal years, the Liberals tore up 11 such tax treaties with offshore tax havens, but they left just one. The one they left in place is the one where Canada Steamship Lines has nine such paper dummy companies used as a tax haven for corporate tax fugitives. It is estimated that between $7 billion and as high as $15 billion a year in tax revenue is lost just because of that one remaining tax haven that people use.

I thought the Tory government in its first budget may have wanted to address that. I am optimistic that the Tories might want to revisit this at some time. If the Conservatives are going to lower corporate taxes, and I accept their word that they believe that is the right way to go, they should at least ensure that those remaining corporate taxes that are still left are paid, that the application of their tax regime is fair and that there are not people being tax fugitives in tax havens.

The last thing I will address is the corporate welfare bums. The former leader of the NDP, David Lewis, coined the term. We in the NDP are not fans of this and we are against corporate handouts. It seems contradictory, especially with the current government, whose political philosophy is to let the free market prevail, to not prop up failing enterprises, to let them rise and fall based on their merits and their abilities. Yet we still see, beyond reason, what we in the NDP call “corporate welfare” being doled out to specific sectors, especially sectors that do not need the support.

There is a time when we may want to support certain industry sectors to stimulate growth because we are trying to develop a certain region or sector, but the oil industry? It boggles our minds in the NDP as to why there is still $1.5 billion in subsidies to big oil when it is going through a period of such record profits. We do not believe that big oil needs that economic stimulation and we think it is wrong.

The other one is the asbestos industry. A lot of people would be shocked to learn that Canada is still third largest producer and exporter of asbestos in the world. Even though it is a deadly product and no good can come from being exposed to even a single fibre of asbestos, we still export 200 million tonnes per year.

We do not use it in our own country. We do not use it in the European Union or any of those countries that have banned asbestos completely, such as Japan, Australia, Great Britain, the entire European Union and even South Africa. They banned asbestos because it is deadly.

What we do is export it to developing nations and third world countries.

This is an industry that should die a natural death because it is killing a lot of people. There is no market for it anywhere in the developed world. Anywhere safe handling practices have to be applied makes it uneconomical, and the health costs compound to the point where people are made sick by it to such a degree that there are other cheaper alternate products available.

For some reason, though, the federal government continues to prop up, support, underwrite and promote asbestos in developing nations where there are no safety rules and regulations. Or if there are safety rules and regulations, they are not enforced at all. In fact, there is not just the direct subsidy to the asbestos industry. The government spends tens of millions of dollars sending lawyers around the world to challenge any country that may want to ban asbestos. When France wanted to ban asbestos, the federal government went to the WTO to argue that France was interfering with our ability to market this product. Fortunately for the French people, Canada lost the appeal and France did the right thing and banned asbestos.

There were 120 conferences to promote asbestos put on in 60 different countries and paid for by the Canadian government, the most recent one in Indonesia, where the Canadian embassy hosted this, paid for by the Canadian taxpayer, to foist this killer product on the poor people of Indonesia. Another one is to be hosted in Montreal on May 23 as we speak, to try to deny the fact that asbestos is deadly, to try to say that there are safe uses of this horrible, horrible mineral.

We should be out of the asbestos industry. There should be no more corporate welfare for the asbestos industry, these corporate serial killers. The asbestos industry is the tobacco industry's evil twin. We should not be subsidizing the development of this horrible product.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the member for Winnipeg Centre and hear his criticisms, what he calls his anti-corporate rhetoric, his criticism of the corporate agenda and what he calls corporate welfare and the like. I cannot help but think when I listen to his rhetoric that it really echoes to another era. It is an era that many other social democratic parties, countries and provinces have moved beyond.

For example, the New Democratic government in Manitoba sees provincial corporate tax cuts as an important part of its overall agenda. Over the years, the Labour Party in the United Kingdom, under that prime minister, has moderated itself and has not embraced its anti-corporate and anti-business rhetoric of the past. They are social democratic parties, while the Conservative Party is not in that vein, and they have realized they need to work with industry and business to balance the public good with corporate interests. That is the best way forward as they see it.

Would my colleague from Winnipeg Centre comment on whether or not he sees a need for the federal New Democratic Party to do the same thing and to move beyond that and into balancing not only the public good but also corporate interests?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for an opportunity to perhaps clarify my remarks. At no point in my speech did I really say much about corporate tax cuts or corporate taxes, other than that it would be wrong to allow corporate tax havens and these tax fugitives who do not pay any corporate taxes and in fact gain an unfair competitive advantage.

There are two negative things about these tax havens. First of all, these people are not paying their fair share of taxes in Canada. When I say “fair”, it is whatever the government says that tax rate should be. If it is brought down to 10%, so be it, but I want them to pay it in Canada.

The second thing is that profits that are funneled through tax havens are taxable only when they are brought back into Canada, so they are not brought back into Canada. There is an added incentive for that business to then invest those profits further offshore and never repatriate that money.

That is what we are talking about when we mention tax motivated expatriation of dollars. It does not benefit the Canadian economy if that money leaves the country in the avoidance of paying Canadian taxes, gets further invested offshore and is never repatriated. That does not grow our industries and it does not grow our job base.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am always interested to hear what the member has to say. He is multi-tasking. I think the member should also have an opportunity to comment on the complete abandonment of the climate change file by the government with the budget.

The fact is that all the government can boast about is a monthly transit pass credit, which is only going to benefit existing transit riders. The fact that it will not have anything whatsoever to do with climate change shows how bankrupt the government is in terms of ideas, in terms of what we are going to do about dealing with the severe problem of greenhouse gases and their effect on climate change. I wish the member would get on the bandwagon as well, with his colleagues and everyone else in the House, just simply to reaffirm what a travesty this is in terms of the whole environment file.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will briefly add my support for this idea. This budget really does disappoint the whole population. It disappoints the global movement to try to address climate change.

I remember when Nelson Riis, a former NDP colleague of mine, had the transit pass idea as a private member's bill. It then became an opposition day motion in the House and was passed back in 1998, I think, when we all agreed that there should be a tax deduction for transit use to encourage more people to do so. This is not a radical and revolutionary idea. Drastic change is required and then bold action is required. There was a paucity of that in the budget.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I begin my debate I want to say that as a country we are in the best fiscal shape since 1867. We have been through a lot.

As members know, the Liberal government inherited a half a trillion dollar debt after nine years of Conservative rule. During that time the debt grew from $200 billion to $500 billion. If the Conservatives had been in power another 13 years I would guess we would have probably had $1.5 trillion worth of debt.

[An hon. member]

We would have been bankrupt.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

There is no question that the nation was on the verge of bankruptcy. There was a lot of despair in the country. Industries were being torn down. Unemployment rates were up. Interest rates were up. There was a general funk in the land.

What we need to look at is where we arrived as Canadians. In all those years we got to the point where, not only did we deal with the fiscal deficit and make strategic investments, but we ended up having the best economy in the G-7 and a post-secondary education sector that was paying huge dividends.

We will be going through the experience of a Conservative government once again. It is important to look at some of the senior folks who came in from the province of Ontario because it tells us a whole lot. Some of these folks are the finance minister, the President of the Treasury Board and the health minister, all of whom occupied senior positions in the Progressive Conservative government in the province of Ontario.

Those of us from Ontario know the record. We know the record of Ipperwash and of Walkerton. We know the record of messing up on hydro. We know about the sale of Highway 407 for a fraction of its value. We know how the government savaged universities and hospitals and eliminated social programs. It also promised a balanced budget and delivered a $5 billion to $6 billion deficit. I think that is telling.

I want to start off with what happened to the Kelowna accord. It is not unlike us to talk about what the Conservative government's dealings were with our first nations and aboriginal peoples. It totally trashed an agreement that was agreed to by the territories, all of the provinces and the federal government. The first nations and aboriginal peoples were pleading with members of the New Democratic Party not to bring the government down because I think they saw what was going to happen. Now Premier Campbell is carrying on the fight with some other premiers.

In the area of education, the Liberal government put a huge emphasis and priority on it. It really spoke to our values. We invested billions of dollars into research, student aid and the millennium scholarship program. We were going to make post-secondary education accessible to all Canadians. A strategic plan is when a government plans for the future but that is not in this budget.

The billions that were put into research and development will not be dealt with by the government opposite.

One of the most important features of the strategic plan was the early childhood education component. In my community we are losing child care spaces because the money that was promised will end this year. The dreams of single mothers and people in need of early childhood education have been shattered. The money will no longer be there and spaces are being cut back right now. The Conservative Party is proud and happy about that.

The Conservative government will hire 1,000 more RCMP officers and it will build more jails. Let us look at 1,000 RCMP officers and then look at the number of early childhood educators we could have. We could have, dare I say, at least 5,000 given what the early childhood education folks get paid. One can just imagine how many child care spaces could be constructed with the money being used to build penitentiaries.

The party opposite needs to recognize that the United States of America practises the kind of philosophy it wants to make happen here. However it does not work. The state of California spends more money on incarcerating people than it does on post-secondary education. Would anyone in this chamber say that the U.S. has safer communities? Far from it. The U.S. incarcerates more people per capita than any other country in the western world. It is one of the few nations that still executes people and that kind of approach does not work. It breeds violence, it makes society less secure and it wastes money.

With the money it costs to keep a young offender in jail for one year we could pay for a master's program for that individual. Do we want to invest in sending somebody to jail? We can call it post-secondary education for crime because that is what it is. Or, do we want to invest in them by giving them opportunities to train and become educated so they can become productive members of our society which, in turn, produces a safer community?

Prior to coming into Parliament, I used to work in crime prevention and crime prevention really does work. The general rule is that $1 invested pays off $7 in dividends. If we look at what happened in the province of Ontario where the get tough on crime approach was taken up, more problems arose, particularly in the inner cities where programs that were meant to deal with youth at risk were destroyed by that government. This is essentially the same road that the federal government is heading down.

We have heard a lot of talk on the issue of citizenship and immigration in the last couple of days. The government opposite mentioned that it would cut in half the right of landing fee. The Liberal government was going to eliminate over a number of years the right of landing fees. It was in our platform. I know my friends opposite do not like it but that is the reality. We put more money into settlement and integration funding than the Conservatives did with this budget.

In terms of credential recognition, we actually did something about it. In the last election the Conservatives promised that they would set up an agency to deal with credentials and now we learn in the budget that they will be studying it for two years. They will have to learn to watch their rhetoric. This is a cynical budget.

In terms of the environment, Kyoto is dead. The Conservatives killed Kyoto. Many have asked why our emissions are up. Our emissions are up because the production of the tar sands is up and the tar sand production goes to the United States as an export. That could be solved very easily. It could be solved by taking $1 per barrel of oil from the tar sands and buying the credits that we rightfully should and quit giving the Americans a free ride.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, budget 2006 invests in many areas that the hon. member questions. We have acknowledged that the previous government did make some reinvestments in post-secondary education through the Canada social transfer, which was $17 billion in tax transfers and cash. We supported that program which is why budget 2006 continues those measures.

The budget contains measures to continue with $5 billion in direct support for students through tax credits and other direct grants and loans. We support that program and we will be building on it. Budget 2006 contains additional measures to help students with the cost of their textbooks and to assist those wanting to enter the skilled trades.

However, the previous government often promised great things but it failed to deliver on them. For years aboriginal Canadians have been suffering some of the worst living conditions in our country and yet the previous government never delivered additional money for it. Budget 2006 delivers new additional money, the first new additional money in years for aboriginal communities.

The same thing goes for child care. The previous government promised for 13 years to put in place a child care system and failed to deliver on that. Budget 2006 delivers on it.

Despite the economic record of the previous Liberal government and despite the fiscal and monetary position the country is now in, why did it fail to win the faith and the confidence of the Canadian people?

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will touch on the last part of the question. One of the problems we had in the last campaign was that the Conservatives were very good at borrowing from the Americans and practising drive-by smears and our party failed to respond appropriately.

All any objective observer has to do is read a book entitled, On the Take: Crime, Corruption and Greed in the Mulroney Years. If they ever put that open to a kind of Gomery inquiry, instead of using the criminal standards that were used in one defence, that would prove to be the mother of corruption of all time. We could add up all the other corruption and they would be tiny compared to it.

Let me touch on post-secondary education. My riding has two universities and a college. They were very happy with the performance of the Liberal government but they are very sad about the budget produced by the Conservative government. When they get the chance they will express the same wishes again.

In terms of child care, we delivered. We got spaces but spaces in the Waterloo region are now being closed down because they know there will be no funding for those spaces next year. You as a government should be ashamed--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I would remind the member for Kitchener--Waterloo to address his comments through the Chair.

Questions and comments? The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be relatively brief because I know time is limited.

The new government decided to cancel the program that we had created for day care and early childhood development. I ask my colleague if it is true that, by cancelling this program, the government has also abandoned workers--who might have received better salaries--as well as the day care and early childhood development infrastructure that would have allowed them to acquire more recent manuals.

We must not lose sight of the fact that the program would have allowed parents to benefit from reduced costs. Would my colleague agree that, by cancelling the $5 billion program, all of these people have been abandoned: young people, parents, grandparents, and child care workers? This is unacceptable.

I would like my colleague to confirm that this is true--that by its actions the government has abandoned all of these people.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is 100% correct. We are not investing in the youth of this nation.

As I mentioned before, hiring police officers and building more jails is not going to solve the problem. This is the problem with the government. It is the same spirit by which the Conservatives gutted the Kelowna accord. It is not strange to us on this side and it is not strange to progressive people in our country that the neo-cons have destroyed programs that invest directly in people and are strategically important to move our country forward and maintain the kind of prosperity that we have.

The House resumed, from May 15, consideration of the motion that BillC-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 the question be now put.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has already made known that it intends to vote for this budget.

As the hon. members know, one reason is that the Conservative Party promised in writing to correct the fiscal imbalance. We will make sure that it keeps its promise to Quebeckers.

We are particularly concerned because late last week, in the media, the Prime Minister was already backtracking, and his commitments seemed less firm. We hope that this was simply a moment of weakness and that he will keep his promises.

The Bloc Québécois had been proposing a number of other measures for quite some time, and we worked hard to get them. We got $1 billion for post-secondary education, $800 million for affordable housing, assistance for farmers and a tax exemption on bursaries. The Bloc Québécois had been calling for that for a long time, and we are glad to have obtained that gain for Quebec. As well, we obtained a tax credit for public transit users, something we had also long been calling for in this House. We are happy to have gotten the excise tax lifted from jewellery and to have obtained a tax credit for tools and a reduction of the tax on the landing fee. While we would have preferred that this tax be completely eliminated, this is a step in the right direction.

That said, the budget includes several negative measures that we do not agree with. I have already spoken in this House about all the government's continued and new intrusions into the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec. The $1,200 child care allowance is one example. We had suggested a refundable tax credit, which would have respected the provincial and federal jurisdictions, but the government did not want this.

The budget talks about creating a Canadian securities commission. Again, the Government of Quebec has always refused to allow any interference in its exclusive jurisdictions.

The annex on the fiscal imbalance cites notions of accountability, of Canada-wide standards. They say they are driven by considerations of the social union, but Quebec has always been opposed. As far as the fiscal imbalance is concerned, it is simple. All we need is an unconditional transfer of tax fields to Quebec.

This budget also talks about new research foundations, which is yet another overlap. It talks about a cancer strategy, which already exists in Quebec. The money should have been transferred. In connection with immigration the issue of refugee credentials is another good example. The government is interfering in something that is none of its concern. This area is one of Quebec's jurisdictions. Furthermore, when it comes to looking after its own jurisdiction and setting up a Refugee Appeal Division, which would require only $10 million, the federal government is not assuming its responsibilities. It is quite sad and I have seen the impact this has had in my riding.

As hon. members know, Abdelkader Belaouni is currently in a presbytery in Pointe-Saint-Charles. He did not have the opportunity to appeal the arbitrary decision made by a commissioner. All Quebeckers are allowed to appeal decisions they disagree with, but new arrivals are not allowed to do so.

This budget still contains far too many encroachments on jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec.

In addition to being an interference, the allowance for child care services is very unfair in its proposed format because it will be taxed based on the lowest income and not on the family income.

I have two examples to illustrate this point. In a family of four, only one person works and earns an annual income of $213,500—a federal minister, for example. The other adult stays home with the two children. The tax on the allowance will apply on the lowest income, which is zero dollars in this case. This family will receive the entire initial sum and will not pay any tax on it.

On the other hand, the head of a single-parent family who earns $28,000 will have to pay an additional $800 in income tax whether in Quebec City or in Ottawa.

Our proposal was to solve this problem by introducing an income tax credit based on family income and a decreasing contribution based on income. The cost would be the same. Frankly, we have a hard time understanding why the government did not consider our proposal. This still has not been explained.

It surprises me that during the debates we have held in this House, not a single Conservative has ever explained what is wrong with our proposal. They are always trying to avoid the issue, always handing us the same old lines. They talk about choice, but what about Quebeckers' choice?

Quebeckers have chosen to have child care services that they pay for through their income taxes. But then they are penalized because when they fill our their federal tax return, they declare lower child care costs on line 214 than other Canadians. That means the federal government saves money every year because Quebeckers chose to set up their own system. The government is $250 million a year to the good on the backs of Quebec parents, who are paying for these daycares with their income tax dollars that go to the rest of Canada.

If the federal government really wants to respect the choices made by parents and by Quebec society, it will give the $250 million it is saving thanks to Quebeckers back to the Government of Quebec.

As far as older workers are concerned, we have often asked for an assistance program to be set up for older workers who lose their employment following a mass lay-off . Sometimes this affects two people from the same household who have worked for the same company for 20 or 30 years. The day the company closes, these people have difficulty qualifying for other jobs. They end up having to spend all their savings and going on welfare until their retirement at age 65. What a sad way for them to end their career after being contributing members of society their entire lives.

This program was not expensive. We know what we would be getting into since it already existed. The federal government did not include it in its budget, but opened the door to it in the Speech from the Throne. We hope this will be a done deal as soon as possible.

There is nothing in this budget on the Kyoto protocol. We understood why last Tuesday. It is because this government is against the Kyoto protocol. What were this government's arguments? It said it was unable to keep this commitment. Rarely have we seen a government cite its own incompetence for not moving forward. Essentially what the Conservatives are saying is that they are not competent enough to do the job.

The argument that our reduction goal of 35% would mean shutting down the transport sector, simply does not hold. That would be like a person who lives a lavish lifestyle drinking alcohol and partying being asked by his accountant to cut his expenses by 35%. That person could retort that this would cut into his rent and that he would end up on the street. Of course, everyone would tell him to cut from his excesses. The same goes for the federal government.

This government has not met Quebeckers' expectations. In the case of the Kyoto protocol, it chose the oil industry over the interests of Quebeckers. We will be watching this government over the next year.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments by the hon. member on the environmental aspects of the budget and what was and was not in the budget. In fact, the Green Budget Coalition has said that there is virtually nothing in the budget to make good on the government's throne speech commitment to tangible reductions in pollution and greenhouse gases. The coalition stated:

Furthermore, the federal government missed a great opportunity to announce the phase-out of the $1.4 billion in annual subsidies to the oil and gas sector, and the over $150 million annually to nuclear power. For decades, these “pollution subsidies” have contributed to market failure, industrial inefficiency, unsustainable energy consumption, and unnecessary pollution and health damage.

Could the member comment on why he thinks the Conservative government kept those $150 billion worth of subsidies to the oil and gas industry in its budget?

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is what we are asking for.

We have often criticized subsidies and gifts given by the Conservative government to oil companies. We had every reason to expect the Minister of the Environment to demonstrate a true desire for change in this first budget. We wonder whether she is not, in fact, the “minister of oil and gas”, since this budget provides nothing for the environment.

As for the budget overall, we will support it because it promises to correct the fiscal imbalance, which is something the Bloc Québécois has worked on for quite some time, as it is in the best interest of Quebeckers. Nevertheless, we will remain vigilant throughout the year.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the new member. I know that he is a very passionate individual and I wish him luck in his career in the House of Commons.

His comments are interesting. He has done a good job exposing the problems and shortcomings of this budget. I find it very interesting that he wants to remain vigilant, yet at the same time, he supports the Conservative government in spite of the problems that he himself has raised.

As for the NDP member's comment regarding the nuclear industry, personally, I do not believe that this industry causes pollution.

I would simply like the member to explain how he can, ironically, support a budget that, according to him, is not really a budget since it has so many holes and gaps. Is it not strange that he supports this budget, although his speech clearly indicates that he opposes it?

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to clarify something: I am not here to make a career in this place, only to support the cause of Quebec sovereignty.

I am not very surprised that the Liberal Party plans to vote against the budget. The Liberals never even acknowledged the fiscal imbalance. For 13 years, they demonstrated arrogance and scorn toward Quebeckers by refusing to recognize this problem and by refusing to give Quebec what it needs to reach its potential.

We will support this budget because it includes a promise about the fiscal imbalance. This is a transitional budget. We will see whether the Conservative government keeps its promises to Quebeckers.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there were a couple of things couched in my hon. colleague's comments on which I would like some clarification.

The oil and gas industry is very much a part of my riding of Yellowhead. Some of the comments about the subsidy were rather extreme. Alberta has actually allowed a 1% royalty until recovery of cost of project. To deem that a subsidy, I would challenge. After it redeems its cost of recovery, the royalty is then 25%. The majority of that goes not to Albertans, but to the federal coffers and, likewise, across the country, including Quebec.

The member commented on the child care provisions. The budget provides $1,200 for a child under the age of six, and 125,000 new day care spaces. I have a difficult time discerning how that challenges Quebec's provincial child care program. It actually helps it. How does this challenge Quebec's program?

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. Through their income taxes, Quebeckers are already paying for a child care system in Quebec. This enables them to pay less out of pocket, but means they get fewer income tax credits from the federal government. The federal government puts away $250 million of Quebeckers' money every year because the people of Quebec made this choice. The Canadian federation is unable to take this choice into account and to respect it.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk today about how the budget affects Canada and my province of British Columbia, particularly my riding of North Vancouver. There are a number of areas I would like to address.

The first is affordable housing. I had the pleasure a week ago of attending an affordable housing forum in North Vancouver. The people involved in the delivery of housing in my community raised concerns that the federal budget would only to deliver $1.4 billion for affordable housing, reduced from the $1.6 billion that was announced as part of the Liberal's Bill C-48 last year.

Nearly 1.5 million Canadian households are in core housing need. They are living in housing that is inadequate for their needs. It is either in poor repair or it is unaffordable. High rents are the single largest factor in the escalating use of food banks.

The CHRA proposes that the federal government provide resources to develop 25,000 units of housing per year for the next 10 years. Yet the promised one-time funding in the budget will only see perhaps 20,000 units. We need predictable, stable and ongoing funding.

We also need to look at the EnerGuide program for low income households. This program provided for retrofits to help address rising energy costs. We need to retain what we had for the marketplace and for reducing the cost of energy related to rental buildings. We also need to help individual owners. For example, under the EnerGuide program, Canadians who had their homes renovated to save energy could qualify for an additional grant of thousands of dollars. About 300,000 people have used the program since it started in the late 1990s.

A home retrofitted under the program saves its energy costs by an annual cost of about 30%. However, EnerGuide has now had its budget slashed by $227 million over the next five years. In other words, the program is now gone.

I also will talk about the film industry. The film industry, both domestic and foreign, is one that affects just about all parts of Canada, certainly Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary. These areas are the centres of the film industry. In my riding we have Lions Gate Studios, a major film producer in Canada and around the world.

For British Columbia alone, the film industry produces over $1.3 billion to our economy. In my riding it is $100 million to the North Vancouver economy, employing over 6,000 people. I see nothing in the budget to provide any assistance to the film industry. It is going through a very challenging time as the dollar rises. Although we have a good base of skilled workers in Canada, the dollar is very important to the film industry. We also see a growth in the area of animated films.

There is a company called C.O.R.E. Digital Pictures. The chief executive officer, William Shatner, a well-known Canadian, better known as Captain Kirk in the Star Trek series, said that the opportunity for animated films in Canada was enormous. He said that the strategy was to sell itself to Hollywood studios based on the track records of films, did such as The Wild . Because of Canadian tax credits, a lower Canadian dollar and expertise in animating these television shows, it had the ability to produce films less expensively.

The problem is, with the rising Canadian dollar, the ability of tax credits becomes even more important. When this issue was raised with the film industry a few years ago, the Reform/Alliance/Conservative response was that it amounted to corporate welfare. It is not considered welfare by the 6,000 residents in my community who depend on the film industry and its viability. Remember the film industry is like tourism dollars. It brings in fresh money, particularly when we bring in foreign films, which is primarily what we do in British Columbia. It enables us to build a base of expertise to continue to develop domestic films, as we have across Canada.

The other area of concern is shipbuilding. It is an area that is now in crisis in Canada. We are talking about the loss of one of the major shipyards in Canada, the Davie shipyard in Quebec. It produces 50% of the Canadian capacity. It is now in bankruptcy. On June 12 its assets, the cranes, the tools and everything, will be sold off at auction and it will effectively cease to function.

We need to help the shipbuilding industry in Canada and there are two vehicles that we have used in the past: the structured financing facility, otherwise known as the SFF; and the accelerated capital cost allowance, which is the ACCA. Under the current regulations companies have qualified either for one or the other. What they really need is both. We need to provide that incentive.

The Allied shipyards and the Washington Marine Group are in my riding. Then there is Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax. We have now three Coast Guard vessels for the west coast, three for the east coast and three for the Great Lakes. We need to ensure that these vessels are built in Canada. We need to help the shipbuilding industry position itself so it can effectively compete internationally against Korea, China and Europe.

I have spoken already about the situation with aboriginals and the need to help aboriginal communities across Canada to develop their own fiscal economy, their ability to be self-sustaining. The Tsleil-Waututh First Nation and the Squamish First Nation are in my riding. The Kelowna accord, which they saw as a benefit, has effectively been gutted by the budget. It is down to 20% of what was agreed to after a historic accord between all provinces and first nations. This would have enabled first nations to get the economic base to provide employment and to deal with the social and economic problems on reserves. It is a shame.

In addition, Capilano College is in my riding. The Conservative budget is basically providing $80 in textbooks instead of the $6,000 proposed by the previous Liberal government, $3,000 tuition tax credit in the first year and $3,000 in the final year. That was a real incentive to help young students across Canada. When I spoke to students during the campaign, they said that was where they needed the help. They are not getting the help they need from this budget.

I have already spoken on the issue of the Pacific Gateway. I am the critic for Pacific Gateway. In the previous government, I worked with my colleagues in developing the Pacific Gateway strategy and initiative. This was to enable Canada, in particular western Canada, to benefit from trade from the Asia-Pacific Rim and to recognize that British Columbia, through the ports of Prince Rupert and Vancouver, would provide this opportunity for increased movement of goods and people to assist both the import and export of goods to and from Canada.

The Pacific Gateway program under the Liberals would have provided $590 million over five years. In fact, during the campaign, when the Prime Minister spoke in Prince Rupert last December, he said that a Conservative government would deliver at least the Liberals' commitment of $590 million over five years. What we have now is a commitment of $591 million over eight years. Again, it has been delayed and diluted.

In fact, in year one the Conservatives have only proposed $19 million. The Liberal plan for Pacific Gateway would have seen $190 million worth of projects begin almost immediately with a further $400 million to be allocated by a Gateway council, which would have consisted of representatives of the four the western provinces and stakeholders interested directly in the port operations.

When we take the amount over five years, under the Liberal plan we would have seen $590 million expended. Under the Conservative budget, by year five we will see only $239 million. It is what I call the Tory Pacific Gateway gap of $351 million. That is not good enough for western Canada. It is not good for Canada. It is not good for British Columbia. We need a budget that recognizes the importance of the economy, the importance of jobs and the importance of the Asia-Pacific, China and India in the growing markets.

Therefore, I am very disappointed that the budget has neglected the areas of concern for the people of my riding, the people of British Columbia and, in my opinion, the people of Canada.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments of my colleague across the way. We are both fellow British Columbians.

The Pacific Gateway part of his speech was especially disturbing. I would like to ask the member if he recalls that there were only 41 words in the proposed Pacific Gateway project that came forward from the previous Liberal government. There were no plans and no details, just 41 vague words about what it was planning to do.

As a Conservative government, our extension to five years is to cover the fact that there will be very many projects that could not be completed in such a short timeline. It is a consideration that has been given to the projects to make certain that they are completed and funded by the Pacific Gateway project and not to shorten the projects. We are trying to expand them and to allow for them to actually occur.

I wonder if the member opposite would like to comment on the fact that there was no money for the Pacific Gateway funding in any of the Liberal budgets that were put forward before and if he would agree that it was simply a Liberal promise.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Pacific Gateway initiative by the Liberal government was more than a promise. In fact, it was a commitment. It was a commitment to the people of Canada, to western Canada and to British Columbia.

There were specifics included in the Pacific Gateway initiative. For example, I talked about the $190 million, $35 million of which was to set up the Pacific Gateway Council. It was going to include more than the existing stakeholders that are involved currently in promoting trade to Asia-Pacific. It would have included representatives from the four western provinces to ensure that we really did address the economic opportunities for the four western provinces that are represented through the Pacific Gateway initiative.

More particularly, there were specifics. There was $90 million for the Pitt River Bridge and the Mary Hill Interchange Project. There was the Deltaport road grade separations project. One of the problems is getting access to and from the port for containers coming in. We are the second busiest port in North America. I do not know now, after the flooding, but Louisiana was number one because of oil and Vancouver was the second busiest port in North America.

Goods that come from China, for example, can arrive at Vancouver one to two days faster than any U.S. port with which we are competing. That gives us the opportunity, through rail, to get goods into Chicago, into parts of the United States and Canada up to two days faster. That is an economic advantage. We were going to talk about improving the rail access to grade separations.

There was a third detail. In North Portal, Saskatchewan, more road and rail grade upgrades worth $3 million and intelligent transportation systems deployment worth up to $2 million. Those are specifics. We said that $400 million would be available for the Pacific Gateway Council to then apply for other projects. We agreed, for example, to an environmental assessment of the south perimeter road needed for Delta Port. We know the priorities of British Columbia and we responded to them.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the Pacific Gateway initiative as well because I do agree with the member for North Vancouver that there is a Pacific Gateway gap in the current budget. I also want to ask him about the project itself.

Many people in my constituency are concerned about the plan to twin the Port Mann Bridge and widen Highway 1. We know we cannot build our way out of traffic congestion and this will only dump more cars on to our roads.

A key part of the Pacific Gateway project that has not been addressed either by the Conservatives or the Liberals is the federal government's railway bridge across the Fraser River, a swing bridge which causes a huge backup in rail traffic. If we want to improve transportation, we have to fix that bridge. Why is that not part of the Pacific Gateway project?

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to the Port Mann Bridge twinning, which I know is a concern for some of the communities in the lower mainland. When that issue was raised, the position of our government was that it was not one of the projects to be included. It is a priority of the provincial government in its Pacific Gateway initiative. We said that, in terms of the improvements of road and rail, this would really come from the Pacific Gateway Council.

I agree absolutely with the importance of improving the rail bridges, the rail access, and that is what the Pacific Gateway initiative was attempting to do.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today not to oppose the budget but to propose alternatives.

The fundamental flaw in this budget is the absence of a long-term vision. Given the fiscal capacity of the government, it would have been possible to invest in crucial sectors to serve as Canada's engines in the new economy. Health, education, worker training and the move towards a green economy all require investments in order to achieve prosperity and sustainability. This takes courage and leadership, as well as fiscal capacity.

Instead, by deciding to manage the country through tax credits, the Conservatives are wasting their fiscal capacity, shirking their obligation to provide leadership and a long-term vision, and allocating surpluses to the wrong priorities.

Conservatives talk a great deal about competitiveness and productivity. They have a rather narrow view of competitiveness, even when I make allowance for the fact that my view is quite different than theirs. I believe that the key to our prosperity is an educated and motivated labour force, excellent educational institutions for our youth, learning and development opportunities for children, a healthy environment and a well-established social security system, which includes health care and child care. Thus, you can imagine my disappointment with this budget.

We have the extraordinary opportunity to invest an enormous surplus in sectors that will develop our human capital, protect our natural capital, and narrow the gap between rich and poor in Canada. The budget tries to do quite the opposite with $7 billion in tax cuts, $100 per month for day care expenses—where $800 is needed—and one free textbook for students. These are not investments. This is not a vision; it is a lost opportunity.

The doublespeak in the Speech from the Throne would make even George Orwell turn in his grave with expressions like investing, standing up for ordinary Canadians and getting results for working families. When we look at the outlook for budgetary revenues, we can see that the government is investing less in families and more in corporations. When we look at personal income tax going up by 12%, judging from the projections of 2007-08, and corporate income tax going up by something like 6.5%, we can see where the real investments are going.

My NDP colleagues and I believe that true competitiveness is built with a fair taxation system, of course, and by investing in those areas of natural and human capital that are truly sustainable for the long term. Investments are made in literacy, post-secondary education, lifelong skills training, health care and the environment.

On post-secondary education, we missed the opportunity to reinvest in stable, long term core funding of our colleges and universities to enhance accessibility and quality, to reduce tuition and class sizes, and to hire more professors and provide better resources. Instead, the Conservatives opted for minor tweaking that does not help the majority of students.

Paying one-third of the current deferred maintenance costs of institutions does not even begin to address the needs of institutions that are struggling to maintain and enhance the quality of education. One free textbook does not make university more accessible to low income, rural or aboriginal students. Exempting scholarships from income tax does not help the majority of students who do not even use all of their existing tax credits. Students do not want lower taxes. They want smaller class sizes and less debt when they graduate. This budget profoundly misunderstands the true needs of today's students.

Just as the deficit has been paid on the backs of working Canadians, cities and provinces, new growth continues at the cost of our environment. Canada committed to lower its greenhouse gas emissions by 6% over 1990 levels, as we all know.

The Liberals have done Canada and the world a tremendous disservice. First, they refused to require their corporate friends to reduce emissions, not even getting anything in exchange for the tax cuts, and they allowed our greenhouse gas emissions to rise to 35% above 1990 levels. Now, a Conservative government is in denial and is ready to cut and run, as the expression goes, on the problem that will have the largest impact on our children's future.

The Conservatives now believe that the Kyoto targets are impossible when in reality, although they are daunting, they are still eminently achievable. I hope that the minister would look at the NDP's Kyoto plan, which is realistic and fully costed. Its innovative ideas may not appeal directly to the interests of the oil patch, but according to a late April survey, 90% of Canadians want to see real investments in sustainable solutions like renewable energies and green industry, not more tax giveaways to the oil industry.

Finally, I would like to speak to child care, an area in which the NDP has proposed a concrete, realistic alternative to the $1,200 Conservative plan. In Victoria this week, a large rally was held by child care stakeholders, including parents, at the B.C. legislature. Their signs read: “Find me quality day care for 70¢ an hour” and “$100 a month pays for child care all right, in 1986”.

In British Columbia, 85% of children aged six months to five years living with a single parent are in some form of child care, and 73% of children with two working parents are in child care, a drastic rise since the mid-nineties.

In Victoria, child care can cost up to $800 a month, and there remains a desperate shortage of spaces, with long waiting lists. B.C. parents waited 13 years for the Liberals to act as the crisis developed. Finally, in a minority Parliament pressure forced them to act, albeit hastily. This allowed the Conservatives to come in and uproot the whole process, setting us back more than a decade.

There is no choice in British Columbia and it is no way for a government to help parents along the difficult path of raising children. Yesterday I introduced a genuine alternative to the Conservative plan, the NDP's early learning and child care act, which enshrines in law the principles of quality, accessibility and universality, among others. It recognizes that the government has a responsibility and an opportunity to make it easier for parents to raise their kids.

In summary, this budget is a wasted opportunity. It could have been a historic long term vision document that would launch Canada into the new knowledge and green economies, to overcome the initial fiscal hump of transition to environmentally, socially and economically sustainable economies, and to show bold leadership for Canada. Instead, it is business as usual, managing by tax credit. This is no way to run a country. That is why I cannot in good conscience, as a mother, a teacher and a citizen, support this fundamentally flawed budget.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of my friend and former teacher. I want to bring out a bit of education for my hon. friend and perhaps the House on one of the areas she slagged, and that is the oil industry.

With the support of this government and, to its credit, the previous government, the oil industry in Canada has supplied tremendous prosperity. It is investing $41 billion in Canada in 2006. It paid governments $27 billion in 2005. The contribution to individual Canadians in terms of training, mobility of labour and immigrant training just by one company alone, Suncor, amounts to millions and millions of dollars.

The industry is supporting education in NAIT. Twelve per cent of Syncrude's and Suncor's workforce is aboriginal. It is also investing $100 million in contracts with aboriginal companies. Suncor alone is investing $100 million to eliminate trucks in the mine sites, therefore having a tremendous impact on SOx, NOx and CO₂, plus other technologies such as CO₂ collection and re-injection.

One of the industries that party and that member like to slag is in fact doing a tremendous amount to help the environment while contributing tremendously, with a job impact in Canada of over 500,000. Would my hon. colleague not like to cut an industry like that just a bit of slack and give it some credit for doing the job in an environmentally friendly way as much as possible?

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments, but they further illustrate the flaws in this budget. To continue to give tax credits to a sector that is overheating local economies is just plain poor thinking.

It also highlights the fact that this sector is performing a great service if we only consider money. We are not considering, for example, the billions of litres of water that the tar sands are using, the greenhouse gases that are being created and the pollution that results.

Yes, undoubtedly there is a benefit, I admit, and our Kyoto plan recognizes the need to transition from that polluting economy to a sustainable one, but to accept this as status quo is simply flawed thinking.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have two quick questions for the member. First, during the election campaign the leader of the Conservatives complained about politicians giving grants to politicians, yet he took the billion dollars the NDP and the Liberals created for students in Bill C-48 from the students and gave it to the provinces. Would the member comment on that?

Second, perhaps unlike the NDP, I agree that wealthy people and corporations should also receive tax breaks, but I believe everyone's tax breaks should be equal. I would ask her if she agrees that this particular budget is prejudiced against the poor. Everyone received some tax decreases, but the poor received tax increases. For instance, on July 1 their rate of taxation goes up from 15% to 15.5%. There is a decrease in the basic allowance of $200. The poor receive less of the $1,200. The Caledon Institute said they would receive as low as 55¢ a day or 14 minutes' worth of day care. Does the member think that everyone should receive at least equal tax breaks and the budget should not be prejudiced against the poor?

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the member's first question referring to Bill C-48. The bill allocated $1.5 billion to post-secondary education. In their budget, the Conservatives chose to redirect only a part of that amount through the provinces to institutions for their infrastructure. I agree that this is problematic because it does not help students. It does not reduce tuition fees. It does not help students with their huge debt load.

On the member's second question, yes, I certainly agree that increasing the tax for the lowest economic group is highly unfair. The Conservatives seem to be practising old, discredited trickle-down economics, which does not work. It has been shown not to work and it still does not work.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although I have made statements and asked various questions during this session of Parliament, this represents my first full speech. I want to say at the outset how very grateful I am to the residents of Brant for re-electing me to serve as their representative here in Ottawa. As so many fellow members of the House have stated, it is truly a privilege and an honour to serve one's constituents. I feel sincerely indebted to the citizens of Brant for their confidence in me and for providing me the opportunity to be here.

Just briefly, I would like to tell members about Brant. It is a most interesting riding that comprises the city of Brantford, with a population of approximately 90,000, and also encompasses the most populated first nations community in Canada, that being the Six Nations of the Grand River. In addition, within my riding are the picturesque communities of Paris, St. George and Glenn Morris. I also represent the hard-working individuals who form a rural sector in my riding, individuals who live in or near the villages of Burford, Oakland and Scotland. All in all, Brant is diverse in its population base and rich in both its industrial and its agricultural history.

The budget which we are debating does not represent the shared feelings or views of the hundreds of Canadians with whom I speak. As someone once said, taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. I rarely hear from a constituent complaining about the level of taxation in Canada. Much more often, I hear from constituents who are prepared to share, who are prepared to do their part financially and otherwise to build a tolerant, generous society.

The budget delivered by the Minister of Finance does not, in my respectful view, represent the best of Canada and does not represent the best of Canadians, nor does it in any way present a compelling vision for the way our country should now advance. A country is not ultimately gauged or judged by how much money it returns to its shareholder residents. Rather, a country is properly assessed or judged by how it treats all of its citizens. I was extremely disappointed with the treatment afforded to the citizens of Brant and, by extension, of Canada, in this budget.

I think, for instance, of those hundreds of Brantford families who live in very close proximity to brownfields, acres and acres of industrial wastelands that have lain dormant and decrepit for many years. These brownfields are unsightly, they are dangerous and they need to be cleaned up.

Communities like Brantford, as vibrant and as economically viable as we have become, cannot count on private developers to spend the millions of dollars needed to remediate or clean up the brownfield sites. A prudent developer simply will look elsewhere and will typically choose to build on a greenfield site, away from residential areas.

Without federal government assistance, as it is frankly beyond the financial means of municipalities to clean up brownfield sites, those families who live in very close proximity to brownfields will continue every day to walk or drive past contaminated acres of land, which their children are warned not to play in or near.

That is why I was very pleased to receive from the Liberal government in 2005 a $12 million commitment to assist my city of Brantford in the remediation of the Mohawk-Greenwich brownfield site. The members of my community were ecstatic. Nearby residents could finally look forward to the day when their neighbourhood would be like other neighbourhoods, with a park close by rather than an ugly brownfield site.

When the Prime Minister campaigned in my riding in January, he stated, “We will help you clean up your brownfields”. As other members on this side have stated during their speeches, the environment was barely mentioned in the budget, and there is seemingly no realistic expectation that brownfield sites will be the beneficiary of federal money, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's campaign promise.

In the budget of 2005, delivered by the then Liberal minister of finance, $150 million was committed to the remediation of municipally owned brownfield sites. There is absolutely no mention of federal assistance for those sites in this budget.

The issue is leadership. It is about the federal government taking a leadership role. It appears from this budget that the leadership role has been abdicated.

The termination of the early learning and child care agreements is extremely disappointing to parents and caregivers in my riding. The government has a view of a typical Canadian family as consisting of two parents residing together and able to afford a home having a value of $350,000. What a peculiar example the Minister of Finance used in making reference to his much vaunted but only marginally important 1% cut in the GST.

A $350,000 home does not represent all Canadian families or most Canadian families. Thousands and thousands of single parent families have children under the age of six. I spoke to many parents who were very pleased with the early learning and child care agreements which had been signed by the then minister of social development and his counterparts in all parts of Canada.

Parents were pleased as they finally saw an opportunity to return to school to better themselves or to accept an employment opportunity without having to worry about what would happen to their children. They were pleased that their child or children of pre-school years would be stimulated, nurtured and cared for during the parents' studying or working hours by a licensed, certified and very capable early learning and child care provider. They were gratified that early learning and child care centres would be assisted by federal funding.

Their hopes and expectations have been dashed and the provision to them of a few dollars a day in order to obtain care for their child is insulting and grossly inadequate. These young parents will have no choice now but to stay home, will have no choice but to put their education plans on hold and will have no choice but to reject any employment opportunity.

How visionary the early learning and child care agreements were. What a demonstration of leadership those agreements represented. Unhappily, in this budget there was no such vision and no such leadership.

How disappointed the 11,000 residents who live in the first nations community of Six Nations on the Grand River were when this budget effectively scuttled the Kelowna accord. How ironic for members opposite to talk about the longstanding problems faced by our first nations communities and how long term solutions will be required in order to correct problems which have taken years to develop. How sadly ironic it is that the long term problems have not resulted in a long term commitment by the government to one of Canada's founding peoples.

The budget, rather, presents temporary band-aid solutions only, and inadequate ones at that, for the significant economic, social, health and educational issues which confront first nations communities across Canada. How much better it would have been for the budget to speak about long term plans for first nations, a real commitment to our first nations peoples.

Other components of the budget have been trumpeted by members opposite as being generous but, in reality, those measures are almost inconsequential. How meagre the assistance is to our post-secondary students, the non-taxation of their scholarships and bursaries, when we all know that most students pay no income tax in any event. How token is the $80 credit for textbooks.

The Liberal Party would have provided to all post-secondary students, unconditionally, $3,000 outright in their first year of studies and $3,000 in their graduating year. This was not a tax credit. This was not a token. This was an outright grant of $6,000 to students so that education, one of our most precious resources, could be affordable for anybody who wanted to attend a post-secondary institution.

Under the budget tabled by the government, presumably the sons and daughters of parents who live in $350,000 houses will be well able to afford a university or community college education, but the more typical Canadian student will suffer the loss of $6,000 which would have been provided to him or her by the Liberal Party.

All in all, this is a disappointing budget and one that, in my view, does not speak to Canadians, does not speak to their core values and does not speak to the advancement of a society that should be inclusive of everyone.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague who just spoke.

In the coming months, important decisions will have to be made in the textile, clothing and furniture sectors in order to avoid major catastrophes. This budget contains nothing new for these sectors, which are suffering economically. The government rejected POWA. We have the CANtex program, but it does not fully meet all the needs of these industries. We must take action.

The government can act by imposing safeguards to protect the industry until 2008, setting import quotas and introducing modernization programs. But this new budget does nothing.

How does my Liberal colleague explain the Conservative government's inaction and its lack of sensitivity toward these sectors, which are faced with serious problems because of globalization? The government has the means to act, but it is not doing anything. That is my question for my colleague.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot in any way explain the lack of action on the part of the government with respect to the textile industry. I can only indicate that there are small companies in my riding that will suffer the loss of any type of assistance vis-à-vis the textile industry. I shared the member's hope that something would have been put into the budget for the textile industry.

The reality is that there are small companies, particularly in my riding, that are hurting and need some assistance. They need the proverbial hand up but this budget does not help them or speak to them in any way.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the hon. member goes to the issues he raised around support in the budget for aboriginal people. He spoke about the Kelowna accord and the failure of those dollars to show up in a meaningful way in this budget.

Over the past many years we have seen a status quo or a decline in the standard of living and the opportunities aboriginal people have in our society.

Does the hon. member feel that the Kelowna accord, which would have delivered $5 billion over a number of years, had adequate funding to deal with the large problems facing over one million of our citizens across the country? Maybe the hon. member could outline how he feels those dollars would have given aboriginal peoples across the country the opportunity for a better future.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has properly stated the grossly inadequate standard of living that most first nations people have.

The Kelowna accord, signed not quite six months ago, was hailed by everyone who knew the details of it as a watershed moment in the lives of our aboriginals. It would have significantly assisted them with respect to health, housing and education. Those are three areas in which our aboriginal peoples have not kept pace.

Simply put, they need considerable assistance and the Kelowna accord would have provided them with that assistance. I share the member's disappointment that the Kelowna accord has been scuttled.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-13, the budget implementation bill.

I believe the Conservative budget is a missed opportunity, an overall disappointment and does not serve the people of Burnaby--Douglas well, which is why I voted against it earlier this session. I will talk about some of the issues that are important to my riding and some of the things that did not happen for my constituency.

A budget that includes over $7 billion in tax breaks for corporations and throws another $5 billion against the debt shows that there is a lot of room to do things for Canadians, such as invest in programs that mean something to Canadians, but the Conservatives made other choices.

We know families need those investments. In fact, families have been losing ground. In a study that looked at family income in Canada since the NAFTA agreement was signed, only the top 20% of Canadians were doing better, and dramatically better, whereas in every category below that the real incomes of families have gone down. That is not a good situation and does not speak well to the situation of most Canadians. We needed some investments in programs that help Canadians and help reverse that trend, which is totally inappropriate in our society today.

Furthermore, we have seen that the government can forgive $1 billion in illegal levies against our softwood lumber industry and ignore the fact that Canada won every decision under NAFTA panels. This comes from a government that supports the NAFTA agreement. It does not look like it is worth the paper that it is written on. If our neighbours to the south cannot abide by the terms of that agreement, then what good is it?

As well, last night we made a commitment in this House, unfortunately in my opinion, to start a new mission in Afghanistan beyond February 2007. We already know that the mission in Afghanistan has cost $4.1 billion and we know that our financial commitments will rise over the next few years.

The surpluses for the next five years have been projected at $83 billion and yet the budget did precious little to show how that would be spent to improve the situation of Canadians.

I now want to talk about immigration, which is important in my riding because almost 50% of the people of Burnaby--Douglas came to Canada from other countries. On the immigration file, we are seeing a trend from the Conservative government that we saw from the Liberals, where they announce over and over again the same things. We saw the commitments in the budget and in its platform but then, last Friday, the Prime Minister had a big event somewhere in Toronto and announced them all over again like they were brand new. What is even more interesting is that the media covered them like this was some new revelation from the government on immigration policy. It was not new. It was the same old stuff. We are going through that same cycle of announcing and re-announcing things that are already on the books and in the public domain. It is a strange way to run a program.

One of the components for which the Conservatives are very proud, and I agree that it is an important step, is the reduction in the right of landing fee from $975 to $490. That is money new immigrants need. When people move halfway around the world to start a new life in Canada, they need all the money they have to establish themselves here and acquire the basic necessities to re-establish themselves in a new country. The $975 fee hurt new immigrants dramatically at a time when they needed the money the most. When the Liberals introduced that, the NDP argued that it was an unfortunate tax that would hurt people at a time when they needed all their financial resources.

In this corner of the House, we, as New Democrats, have always called for the total elimination of that right of landing fee. The Conservatives only reduced it. If a $975 fee is wrong, then a $490 fee is wrong. This is money that people need when they arrive in Canada and it should remain in their pockets so they can use it as they see fit to establish themselves here.

We know about the significant financial pressure that new Canadians face and refugees face. These people need the dollars to which they have access. This could be considered an anti-poverty measure, given the rate of poverty among new Canadians. Unfortunately, it is a missed opportunity. The Conservatives could have done the right thing by getting rid of it all together. It is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough.

The other aspect of the budget around immigration was an increase in settlement funding. That is necessary, and I applaud the Conservatives for that. However, we have not seen how they plan to dole out that money or the program that will accompany it.

In settlement funding we know there is a huge imbalance among provinces. If we want to talk about fiscal imbalance, all we need to do is look at settlement funding across the country. Quebec gets almost $4,000 from the federal government per immigrant. Ontario, under the terms of the agreement negotiated last fall, will get $3,800 per immigrant. British Columbia gets a third of that, around $1,000 per immigrant. There is a huge difference in how funding is distributed for settlement work in Canada. We know how absolutely crucial settlement funding is to the success of our immigration program. If we are not putting money into the adaptation and integration programs, or into language training, the success of new immigrants is dramatically affected. This is a very important aspect of the settlement program.

We need to ensure that all provinces and every immigrant gets the same amount of money directed toward the settlement programs they desperately need. We have to watch. We are all anxious to know how the Conservative government will roll out that program. We need to ensure there is increased funding for language training, that the skill level which comes through the language training offered to new immigrants is much higher and that professional language skills are included in this. We know that it is crucial to the success of our immigration program.

Right now there is greater competition for immigrants around the world. This afternoon in this place we will hear from the prime minister of Australia, Mr. Howard. Australia is now an increasingly stiff competitor with Canada for immigrants from around the world. There are many people who think Australia is winning that battle. If we are not paying close attention to the settlement program in our country, we will lose that battle for the best immigrants from around the world. We need to ensure that this is a key part of what we do as a society and that it is a key part of what the government does.

The other thing the Conservatives announced was $18 million over two years for an agency to deal with foreign credentials. We still do not know what that means. There is no plan. The minister appeared before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration last week and could not illuminate any plan for what that agency would look like, what it would or how that money would be spent. This is an urgent need.

The Conservatives, when they were in opposition, talked a lot about the importance of international credentials and to ensure that when people came to Canada, they would be able to use their education, training and work experience. Every day they are out of the workplace and workforce, it gets harder for them to get back in. When they are away from the work they are trained to do and they do not keep on top of those skills, it becomes increasingly difficult to get back in.

We are not sure what this means yet. We have to keep the pressure on the government to follow up on its promise, to follow up on its campaign promise, to follow up on the work it did in previous parliaments and to ensure there is significant action that comes from this. The $18 million could easily be a drop in the bucket in terms of what is really necessary around the whole issue of international credentials.

A number of things are missing. There is no new money to deal with the backlog. In fact, at the citizenship and immigration committee, we heard that the backlog, which was 700,000 applications, is now up to over 800,000 applications. We are not making progress in that area.

The refugee appeal division, an inexpensive measure by any account of around $8 million a year, which would bring fairness to our refugee system, is not included in the Conservative budget. It is the law in Canada. The Liberals refused to implement the law. Now the Conservatives are refusing to implement the law. That is a serious problem.

There are no measures around family reunification. In fact, the minister addressed the standing committee. In the usual mantra about immigration to Canada, we usually hear about the needs of our economy and the need for the protection of refugees. Then we always hear about the importance of family reunification to both nation building and to families in Canada. That was missing from the minister's statement. Therefore, I am worried that it is a significant departure. We need to keep on top of this.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas questioned the funding in the budget for work in Afghanistan.

We had a vote in the House last night. I respect the point of view of many of my colleagues and others in the House who voted against the motion. I supported the motion for two basic reasons.

First, I think it is important for Canada to be in Afghanistan. Second, it is important for our government to play a role in the world. I supported our government when we did not go into Iraq, but I believe we have a role to play in Afghanistan.

The Afghani people are asking for our help. If we look at other aspects as well, we know that in Afghanistan there are the poppy fields and the drug trade that comes out of there is enormous. We have to deal with that issue. We know that terrorists are embedded in that country and Canada cannot claim immunity from terrorism. We know we are on al-Qaeda's list. Canada has a contribution to make. Being in Afghanistan is a contribution that we can make.

I supported the motion last night because it is important that Canada be in Afghanistan. If we are realistic, we have to understand that this mission could go beyond two more years. For me, it was that kind of fundamental question. However, because of the process of putting this before the House with such short notice, I can appreciate why many of my colleagues voted against it.

Would the member for Burnaby--Douglas comment on why he would object to Canada spending money in Afghanistan, which is uplifting the lives of women, giving people more human rights and freedom, giving them the opportunity to build democratic institutions and dealing with terrorism? The Afghani government has asked for our help. Why would he deny them that help?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not really keen about going through the whole debate we had here yesterday and the one we had weeks ago on Afghanistan.

I am concerned about the cost of the mission in Afghanistan. It has already cost Canada over $4.1 billion to be part of the military effort in Afghanistan.

I do not support a combat role for Canada in Afghanistan. It might be different if it were a UN exercise, if we were under UN command, but it is not. We are participating in an American exercise, a combat exercise. We are not there to separate combatants, which is our traditional peacekeeping role. We are there as an active combatant. Many people in my constituency do not support the Canadian military effort in Afghanistan.

If the member wanted to talk about development assistance for Afghanistan, I would be happy to engage in that. However, right now we are trying to deliver development aid by the military and we know is not working. In fact, I heard from a constituent, through his mother who lives in my riding, who is serving in Afghanistan. He talked about the efforts of the Canadian armed forces to build schools and dig wells in communities in the Kandahar region, only to leave that community and find them targeted by the opposition forces. That is the first thing they target when Canadians leave. That is not an effective way of delivering development aid. Constantly we see this happen in Afghanistan.

That is not the way Canada has chosen to deliver development aid in the past, and I have a serious problem with that.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was here all night long listening to the debate. I find it quite shocking that the hon. member would bring forward solutions such as not to dig wells because they would be targeted once our troops left. However, last night the hon. member voted against extending the mission.

There are so many contradictions. The member's party joins us when we fight for women's rights around the world. Yet our troops in Afghanistan have supported some 1,200 widows. There are 4.5 million children in school, but apparently that is too expensive.

Is it the member's intention, as his party whines and complains, to push for more support in Darfur? Ever since I came to the House, I have been in full support of doing what we can in Darfur. However, the minute we go to Darfur, should we be able to do that, and as soon as someone pulls out a little gun or a threatening rubber chicken, I suspect the member and his party will want to cut and run again.

What the world needs is a commitment that is solid, not chicken legs.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not engage in that kind of rhetoric, which is demeaning and ridiculous.

I have every confidence in members of the Canadian armed forces. They know how to do the jobs they are asked to do and they perform that job admirably around the world. When we send them to do a job, I want to ensure that they have the support of Canadians and that they do the kind of work Canadians want to see done on our behalf.

I am distressed that we may be unable to make a contribution to addressing the important issues in Darfur, to addressing what everybody seems to recognize is a genocide. Because of our overcommitment in Afghanistan, perhaps we will unable to play a role in Darfur. That is a very serious issue and I think Canadians want to see us address that.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-13, the budget implementation bill. I had an opportunity to speak for about five minutes last week on the budget. I tried to give my perspective as former chairman of the finance committee and I would like to continue in the same vein as in the last budgetary debate.

Usually the debate is the highlight of the government's agenda, whether it is a new government or not. The budget outlines where a government's priorities lie. How? By providing funds for the programs it holds most dear, while at the same time setting out the government's long term vision of where it wants the country to be in five or 10 years. This sounds like an easy concept, but it is much more complex.

This brings me to one of the reasons why most of us come to Ottawa. We come to serve our constituents and all Canadians by trying to influence the government's policy, so that our concerns are reflected in their vision for the country.

We also come to Ottawa to have the government listen, so that it can build a Canada that we stand for, a Canada that our constituents and all Canadians stand for. That is precisely what the finance committee did during our pre-budget consultations last year. We listened to the concerns of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

We heard testimony from experts from different financial and scientific fields. We heard from artists and environmentalists. They spoke to us about the Canada that they wanted, about what concerned them for our future. Sadly, their concerns are not reflected in the government's budget.

During the budget debate many members of the House have spoken at length about Kyoto, child care, infrastructure and post-secondary education. These are all complex issues that require a proper and well thought out strategy, not just a tax credit here and a taxable payment there. How we handle these issues today will affect the way our country will grow and continue to prosper, a vision. A vision for the future, a vision for tomorrow and the next day.

Canadians have had to make sacrifices and decisions in the past to be where we are today. Do we need to throw that all away? How can we attain the vision we want for this country for tomorrow with such a shortsighted budget?

Sadly, the budget lacks depth as it introduces tax credits that will be costly and inefficient. I will point to some of the tax credits the government is offering, so that we can see how difficult and costly it will be to implement these measures and how these measures lack any long term vision for Canada.

The first is transit passes. How will the government's plan be implemented? Are commuters supposed to save their monthly transit passes and then send them to Revenue Canada at tax time? How much will it cost Revenue Canada to process all these transit passes? Have the Conservatives seriously thought about how this credit will be implemented and what it will cost?

Although Canadians may appreciate a transit credit, most of the transit companies across the country are more than likely to increase their fares in order to clawback these tax benefits. Canadians certainly will not appreciate that this quick fix is replacing time tested environmental programs such as EnerGuide.

Canadians will not be pleased when they discover that the government's idea of saving the environment amounts to nothing more than a few dollars off their bus pass. The Conservative transit tax credit will cost between 10 and 100 times more than the proposed Liberal plan. Is this the kind of shortsighted vision the Conservatives have brought to the table after waiting in the wings for 12 years?

Second, there is the government's infamous cut to the GST. We already know that virtually every economist in the country is against cutting the GST and instead they are in favour of the Liberal plan to reduce personal income taxes. We already know that this cut to the GST will only help Canada's most wealthy, leaving low and middle income Canadians out in the cold.

Most Canadians spend their income on rent or mortgage payments, food and medical expenses, things that are not subject to the GST. Let us leave that aside for now and look at how this GST cut will be implemented.

How much has the government thought about the implementation of the plan? Retail owners, for example, already have their cash registers programmed to calculate GST at 7%. Will retailers have to overhaul their cash systems? How much will that cost? Did the Conservative government bother listening to business owners? No. It preferred to grab votes with flashy announcements instead of consulting with Canadians.

To implement the reduction of the GST by 1% it will cost the Government of Canada at least $10 million in administration costs per $1 billion reduction in GST revenues of which $4 billion to $5 billion of GST revenues are expected to be lost. This is without even bothering to see how much it would cost businesses.

The Liberal plan of reducing personal income taxes would have been much more effective and less costly, since it would only affect a change on the income tax form. Is this short sighted GST cut the kind of long term planning that will allow Canada to prosper into the future? I do not think so. Where is the vision?

The 2006 budget is indicative of the Conservatives' mentality. This budget raises the tax rate on the lowest income bracket to 15.5%, which is 0.5% higher than the rate the Liberals set in 2005, and reduces the basic personal amount by $400 effective July 1, 2006.

The tax increases, which hit Canadians with the lowest annual incomes, largely cancel out any benefits from the other measures the Conservatives announced, including the reduction in the GST, which puts only a few cents a year into low-income earners' pockets.

All the noted economists in the country have said that eliminating the Liberals' tax cuts and replacing them with a one-point decrease in the GST will benefit affluent Canadians at the expense of the most disadvantaged.

What are we to think of the Canada employment credit, which is almost completely cancelled out by this same increase?

Next I will examine the Conservative plan to help students, the textbook credit. Giving an $80 credit to fix the debt load of Canadian students is almost absurd. A book credit sounds attractive but does not make for good policy.

Furthermore, there are details to this provision that need to be cleared up by the Minister of Finance. Will all textbooks be covered for this credit? If not, then which ones? Will students have to save their book receipts and send them in at tax time? How will Revenue Canada prove that the books were required for school? Will books only sold at university libraries count? What if a student is required to buy a textbook at an off campus bookstore? Maybe the government will ask students to save the course outlines they receive at the beginning of the semester and ask them to send those in when they file their taxes in order to prove what books they had to buy. Will this credit be available for all students: part time students, full time students or even adult education students?

Will this textbook credit secure post-secondary education in this country and ensure that our students are among the best in the world? I do not think so. Will it ensure that they do not graduate under a mountain of debt? I doubt it. I doubt that the Conservative government was thinking that far ahead when it drafted its budget. Again, it comes down to the kind of vision Canadians want from the government and how this Conservative government is failing them.

With regard to the child care plan, this is what the Liberal Party proposed. It was a vision that was about providing early learning opportunities to all children and giving them an equal and fair start in life. The Conservative answer is simply to give parents a taxable $100 a month allowance and let tax authorities collect the taxes on these amounts at the end of the year when families have already spent the money they received all year long.

This is not a plan. What about the tax credit for physical fitness? Do I need to explain the bureaucratic nightmare to first implement the legislation, which has not even been provided yet, and then to administer the program? To look at it another way, in order to implement its plans, the government is going to have to increase the amount of bureaucracy in Ottawa. I thought Conservative governments advocated less government bureaucracy, not more, but I suppose if that makes for good politics, the Conservatives can sacrifice some of their core beliefs.

For a government that prides itself on efficiency, the implementation of this budget will be everything but. This budget offers no long term vision for the future of Canada. It offers no indication of what the government wants for our country. Where is the leadership Canadians deserve to lead our country into the 21st century? It is not in the party sitting across from me today.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I found the remarks of the hon. member from Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel very interesting. I share a position with the hon. member on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. I really thought he had a better grasp of the budget than he apparently does, which is somewhat distressing.

Nonetheless, I would like to ask the hon. member if he has actually read the budget. When he makes comments about the marginal tax rate for the lowest tax bracket individuals being raised by a point, I think he conveniently ignores the fact that we are adjusting the bottom tax rate. The effective rate for the taxation year 2006 will be 15.25% as opposed to 15%, not that much of a change. At the same time, the personal basic exemption is going up for all Canadians and, in addition to that, we are adding in a Canada employment credit of $500 this year, moving to $1,000 next year.

Just in the area of personal taxation alone, does the hon. member not agree that the overall tax burden for taxpayers in all categories actually goes down? That of course is quite apart from the other cuts in this budget, such as the GST. Has the hon. member read the budget or is he simply speaking partisan words that would somehow, unfortunately, mislead the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member and I do sit on the finance committee together. Finance officials did appear before the finance committee a couple of weeks ago.

It is a technicality. The budget does in fact state that the tax rate will be going down from 16% to 15.5%. The reason for that is because of a ways and means motion that was filed. Tax rates are actually going up. When the finance officials appeared before committee, they told us that the tax rate was going up from 15% to 15.5%.

From what I understand in reading the budget, the employment tax credit will become effective on July 1. From July 1 to December 31 it will be $500, and 17.5% of that is $80. Is the member going to tell me that is a great benefit for working class and middle income earners compared to the 1% decrease in the tax rate that the Liberal government proposed?

I have been going through some old newspaper articles and letters from middle income families who say that the changes overall are minor, but lowering income tax would have helped a lot more.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what an excellent choice in this wall of conservatism that we have to jump over in order to enter this debate and talk about the things that people actually care about.

For many years the Conservatives rallied in the House and said that money must not simply be assigned without a plan for that money. They said it was bad fiscal prudence, bad for Canadians, and bad for the economy because it would send unclear signals. Lo and behold, the Conservatives now break tradition with their allocation of $2 billion supposedly for climate change initiatives while at the same time cutting and gutting other programs that actually benefit Canadians such as the home retrofit program.

At the international meeting in Bonn, non-signatories like China and India produced plans to close the gap on their greenhouse gas emissions and increase the amount of green energy and green technology in their economies. Yet Canada, as the chair, was unable to produce a plan. Canada's only statement was that we were not going to meet our targets and to even attempt to meet such targets would absolutely shut down the Canadian economy. We would have to take every car off the road and every plane out of the sky was what was said by our so-called Minister of the Environment. I wonder if he could comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am one of the last people who would agree with the NDP, but unfortunately, I have to agree with the member here. There was no plan and I do not see a plan in the budget. Giving somebody a tax credit for public transit is not an environmental plan.

Like I said in my speech, a credit on a monthly pass comes out to about $150 a year. That money is probably going to be clawed back by the transit companies. The normal transit user is probably going to end up paying more money for a transit pass at the end of the year because transit companies are probably going to increase fares by the gross amount and not the net amount. There will be no tax benefit to the normal transit user.

I was not in Bonn, so I am not sure what really happened there. I have to take the member's word as to what happened. We did at least have an environmental plan and a long term vision where we were investing in renewable energy sources.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased to speak today to Bill C-13, the budget implementation bill.

As probably the only member of Parliament who represents a 905-416 riding in the great region of the GTA, I am pleased to inform this House that the past two elections, under the circumstances, have both been rewarding and I hope to continue in this Parliament to be able to best represent my constituents.

The budget speech that we heard from the government was not a clear indication of what it had campaigned on. The Prime Minister had talked about some $22 billion in terms of cuts.

I hear some baying from a member of Parliament down there in the corner but I am not exactly sure what he is referring to. Perhaps the hon. member is concerned about the fact that there is in this budget a raising of income tax, in particular for low income Canadians, and no real tax relief for Canadians.

It is clear that the GST cut, which has been panned by the most credible economists, is a cut that only benefits a certain segment of society, those who are much better off than the average Canadian.

With respect to how the budget implementation will take place, it is interesting to note that it is not clear yet whether small business will be able to implement this. As my colleague from Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel has just pointed out, businesses do not know whether it will be possible or feasible for them to make the adjustment, notwithstanding the eight weeks they have been given.

Something I heard in my constituency, which I am sure a lot of members heard right across the country, was the question of reduction of wait times. Our government had at the time proposed a very credible plan which now appears to be very much imperiled. This budget did nothing to address the promise of action on the reduction of waiting times. This is of great concern to Canadians, not just with respect to the fact that there seems to be increasing pressure on it, but that we see nothing from the government in terms of its ability to contain pharmaceutical costs which are leading the cost pressure as far as the overall budgets are concerned, not just of the federal government but also of the provinces, of various drug plans and of the various private plans that exist.

On that, I hope in the coming weeks and months we have an opportunity as a Parliament to debate this very significant and very important issue.

I cannot think of an area that distinguishes this party more from the Conservative Party, which is currently, as we know, in a very tenuous 125 seat minority, than its proposal to abandon a project that not only had merit from an environmental standpoint but was there to help seniors, at a time when energy prices are rising, to make adjustments to their homes by using a very credible process, a process that involved the review of proposals under the EnerGuide program to ensure people could meet the higher costs of living while at the same time doing something for the environment.

It is not lost on the members of Parliament on this side of the House, with this Liberal Party, that those who are most affected by this happen to be seniors, the kind of people who have tried over the years to build this great nation, and who have done a very good job at it, not necessarily always able to make the kind of savings, but who deserve literally a break. However, the government, through its callous actions, decided to scrap the program and even those who qualified for it were then told to forget it.

Now we see a contradiction between the minister, who twice told this House that the program would be honoured for those who were there and, of course, that the amount of money the EnerGuide program had in place would not necessarily be funded at this point. As we see from its website, it continues to suggest that, with respect to this program, it is subject to funding.

That is a cruel joke for constituents in my riding and, in particular, my constituent, Margaret Robertson, who qualified on April 7 but has been told by the government that no decision has been made, notwithstanding the comments by the Minister of Natural Resources.

Trying to bribe Canadians with their own money and having no vision for the future prosperity of this country is, in my view, not the way to conduct good public policy. It is not a good way to ensure that Canadians will continue to have confidence in the work we are doing here. We see no support for job creation, education or innovation to keep Canadians and Canada competitive at a time when energy prices are reaching historical levels, which obviously has an impact on the bottom line for Canadians and a deleterious impact on manufacturing in many places across Canada.

This is true particularly in Ontario and Quebec.

The government has not taken a position. To date, the Minister of Industry has not indicated any improvement nor addressed the situation.

This business could be lucrative but, at the same time, this government has not given us a plan. It is not currently prepared to address the real problems facing our fellow citizens. As for job losses in our sectors, I find it somewhat curious that this government and the minister have nothing to say.

This budget overall does not necessarily benefit Canadians. It benefits a particular constituency of Canadians, namely, the wealthy. I am not sure what outmoded ideology underpins the Conservative policies on the economy.

[An hon. member]

Reform.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

My hon. colleague talks about Reform, perhaps Alliance.

It is impossible for us to be pragmatic and at the same time try to involve some kind of ideology which benefits the poor by somehow seeing the rich being provided better opportunities to make greater gains. We cannot afford to create what appears to be class differences based on a budget that only benefits a handful of individuals. The budget fails a good number of Canadians in my riding and in ridings across the country.

The budget has absolutely no real national child care strategy. The provinces, the regional governments, the municipal governments and many Canadians in my riding and in ridings across the country are extremely concerned in the deliberation by the government to not proceed with honouring the commitments that were made. It has broken a commitment with Kelowna and now the child care strategy.

Another broken promise, which Canadian motorists desperately needed with gas at 85¢ a litre, which this government promised, on which it never reneged and never rescinded, that it would drop the GST after the price of gasoline dropped below 85¢ a litre. Although much of that might have been predicated some years ago based on the work of members of Parliament here, this Parliament recognizes that above all the government has failed Canadians where Canadians need it and where they need it the most.

I will be voting against the budget implementation bill. I not only look forward to the questions but I hope the questions focus on the fact that Canadians need a real change in terms of the way this budget has been implemented so it benefits all Canadians.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we often hear partisan talk in this place, which is not out of line, but having listened to the member speak this morning on this legislation, his comments go beyond partisan comments. Those types of comments become so partisan that members lose credibility.

The member made a comment that the budget benefits only a handful of Canadians when it comes to tax relief but that handful is every Canadian. For every 1% cut in the GST that means $5 billion every year will be left in the pockets of Canadians.

When we look at the list of tax cuts that we have laid out, we see that $20 billion in tax relief will be delivered to Canadians over two years. This is money Canadians have earned and money that can stay in their pockets. The member diminishes the importance of this. The fact is that the budget delivers for all Canadians. The fact is that $20 billion over two years is very significant. It is not something that should be pooh-poohed or called insignificant.

Why would the member make such a blanket statement about the budget, a budget that delivers tax relief not only to low income Canadians but to all Canadians, by indicating that nothing has happened and that the budget does not really help? Would the member justify his statements?

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has no idea what ordinary Canadians are going through. If he believes that Canadians earning $30,000 to $40,000 a year will somehow benefit by having a disposable income of maybe $10,000 and that they will benefit from having the GST dropped by 1%, which will save them $70, big deal. They would have had a lot more with respect to the income tax cut that we promised and which the Conservatives have gutted.

The Conservatives know full well that money in the hand of any Canadian is a lot better than having to spend it in order to get some kind of a pittance, but that hon. member is defending it.

Canadians are not well served by what that hon. member just said. He has absolutely no understanding of what Canadians are going through. He knows that many of those tax cuts have nothing to do with ordinary Canadians. He has mixed into all of that some of the corporate taxes that are out there. I know the hon. member is there to justify and to defend his party, which is fine, but this Liberal Party is here to defend the interests of Canadians and to ensure that all Canadians benefit from the wealth of this nation, not just a handful of people who happen to support that party.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand this morning to express my disappointment in this budget. With massive federal surpluses, the new government could have invested in communities across Canada, such as those in my riding of Parkdale—High Park.

The government could have made health, safety and the vitality of cities like Toronto a priority. It could have invested real new money in transit for infrastructure to better serve people and the environment. It could have invested in our children by making early learning and child care a priority. It could have indicated a desire to reform employment insurance to ensure that all those who are temporarily unemployed would be covered.

In short, politics is all about priorities and it is about values. The Conservative budget showed where its values lie and where its priorities lie. Tax cuts for the oil and gas industry take priority over real investment in our communities, and prisons take priority over prevention. Pollution and its health impacts will go up while environmental initiatives will go down. Student debt will go up while the taxes for the wealthy will go down. Child care wait lists will go up while quality transit will go down.

My priorities are different. After 13 long years of neglect and failure to invest by the former government in our families, the Harper government has undercut the development of a comprehensive, fledgling national child care program in its 2006 budget.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park should know that we cannot refer to members by their personal names. If she wants to talk about the Prime Minister she needs to use his title and not his name.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a serious blow to the thousands of families in Parkdale—High Park and right across Toronto who need a child care program to ensure their children are properly taken care of while they are at work. Money to parents with young children is fine but it is not a child care program.

Most experts in the transit field know the best way to increase ridership is to improve service with investments to capital upgrades and infrastructure. The Toronto Board of Trade, in its report “Strong City, Strong Nation”, highlighted the city's infrastructure deficit and warned that it could jeopardize Toronto's economic competitiveness. The Toronto Board of Trade recognizes that investment in transit should be a number one priority. Unfortunately, it does not make the Conservatives' top five.

The population and economy of the Toronto region is growing but transit infrastructure is not. Toronto is an economic engine for the country and provides billions of dollars in equalization payments. A tax break for commuters will not build more subway lines nor will it dramatically increase ridership which are keys to growing our economy while improving environmental sustainability.

Roughly $1.4 billion of taxpayer money goes to the oil and gas industry each year. Surely this year, with rising fuel costs for consumers, some of that money could have been invested in transit for our large cities. Just this week the Toronto City Summit Alliance released its report, “Time for a Fair Deal”. I was delighted to be at the press conference that launched the report but shocked at some of its findings.

Employment insurance, the first level of our social safety net, is in tatters and yet this budget is silent. It contains no provisions to address the crisis that only 19% of women now qualify for employment insurance in Toronto and it fails to make EI easier for workers. In fact, only 22% of unemployed workers in the greater Toronto area are receiving benefits. The government talks about a fiscal imbalance between provinces and the federal government but we know there is an imbalance between those who have and those who have not. This is perhaps most obvious in the city of Toronto.

Politics is about values and it is about priorities that get reflected in budgets. This budget shows many of its priorities have failed Parkdale—High Park in the city of Toronto. It fails to put our city on the path--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but we have reached an order of the day.

We will now go to statements by members. The hon. member for Peterborough.

The House resumed from May 18 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.

Budget Implementation Act

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the budget implementation act. I will begin by quoting the member for Markham—Unionville who, as finance critic for the official opposition, raised three key points on the budget and the budget implementation act in his remarks. I absolutely think they are right on target.

He said that the budget was dishonest, it was visionless and it was mean-spirited. There is no jurisdiction, no industry and no segment of Canadian society where those points ring more true than for farmers and for rural Canada, and I will explain why.

Dishonest the budget was in that the Minister of Finance portrayed the budget as having more money for farmers, implying that there was more money than what previous governments had put in place. Actually, when we compare all commitments last year and this year, we find that the budget falls short even with its additional money of $1.5 billion, which we welcome by the way, but let us not say that it is more than it is. It is short by $255 million than the commitments of the previous government.

It is further dishonest in that the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and even the Prime Minister have left the impression that the $755 million for the grains and oilseeds announced last November was money for this spring, but that is not the case at all.

The previous finance minister booked that $755 million for the grains and oilseeds industry as an ad hoc program and it was booked for the grains and oilseeds industry for the losses it incurred in 2005.

The new government through its budget has not put one dime of its own money toward the farm community as yet, although it is trying to leave the impression with the general public that it is doing something.

During the election and since that time, when there were 10,000 farmers on the Hill demanding immediate cash, when 21 farm organizations and farm leaders came together and made the point that they needed immediate cash for spring planting, members on the back bench over there indicated there would be immediate cash. The member for Essex even said so during the election but that is not what happened.

There is no immediate cash for spring planting coming from the government opposite, not a dime. Members laugh over on the other side. This is not a laughing matter.

I know that some of the farmers who were on the Hill started to plant wheat but had their credit cut off. They could not put fertilizer on it. They decided because they had the seed to continue to plant the grain believing what the members opposite said and what the Government of Canada said, that there would be cash there and that in the spring they would be able to top dress that crop with fertilizer.

They know now, although the government is trying to portray it as otherwise, that there will be no cash because the government is not coming through with cash. It is difficult to believe that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food missed what farmers were saying.

However, we must assume they heard what the member for Yorkton—Melville was saying when the headline in a news release on March 29, 2006, read, “Breitkreuz conveys farmers' distress to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food”. The news release quotes the member for Yorkton--Melville as telling the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food that, “We need to get money into the hands of our farmers right now”.

Clearly, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food knew what the farming community was calling for and stated in the House on April 6 that they understood. However what a difference a year makes.

Last year, the then minister of agriculture announced $1 billion in March, taking money out of the surplus to put into farmers' hands so they could get a crop in the ground. Then we announced the $755 million in November.

Let us go back to a year ago when the then leader of the opposition, now the Prime Minister, told the House:

We are looking at severe problems...as we approach this year's planting and seeding. This problem has to be addressed now.

That is from Hansard of February 3, 2005.

That is what the Prime Minister said then. That is what he demanded of the previous government: that it put money into the farmers' pockets “now”, in the spring. Now this very same Prime Minister has the Conservatives' propaganda machine operating, there is no question about it. They have that machine working and well oiled up, because the Conservatives are leaving the impression they are doing something when there is not a single dime of cash for farmers this spring.

Worse yet, the situation according to Agriculture Canada's own numbers is that farm incomes have been reduced by a 16% further decline, so the need is even greater. In fact, we have called for a $1.6 billion immediate payment for spring to assist farmers to get a crop in the ground. That matches what the Saskatchewan agriculture minister is saying. It is a little less than what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is calling for, but that is really what is needed this spring.

Worse yet, and it is hard to believe that it can get worse, the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister would not answer questions in the House in a direct fashion and admit up front that there is indeed no money this spring. Farmers needed to be assured of support in a predictable and a bankable way and they did not get it from the government.

Still tied in with the budget, the Minister of Agriculture trumpeted his budgeted commitments in a press conference yesterday. The farm community understands what he said and did not say, but the general public does not. The general public is on side with the farm community. It wants something to be done for farmers, and because of the words missing from the government opposite, the public actually thinks something is being done when in fact it is not.

The Minister of Agriculture announced yesterday the $950 million that was part of the $1.5 billion in the budget, and we welcome that, but it does nothing for spring. It is moneys that are going into the CAIS program. If we recall correctly, those members opposite, even the Prime Minister himself, said the CAIS program was unacceptable. The Conservatives were going to can that program. They were going to cancel it. They were going to do away with it, saying that it was administratively difficult and did not get the money to farmers in a proper fashion. And this is the program that the government is going to put the $950 million out through?

Yes, there have to be changes to CAIS, but when will that $950 million get to farmers? They need the cash now. Farmers will be lucky to get the cash in September or November. Will that money deal with the problem of cash expenses this spring? Will that deal with the problem of assets and liability? No, it certainly will not.

As well, yesterday the minister announced the $100,000 interest-free cash advance. I welcome that program, but what he is doing is leaving the impression with the general public that there is $100,000 for farmers. I ask members if they have received those little envelopes in the mail from the credit card companies where they offer you $50,000 at a low interest rate, say, 6.6%. This is the same thing.

This is not $100,000 coming from the Government of Canada. This is farmers borrowing their own money with a little bit of an interest break. One cannot borrow oneself out of debt. It cannot be done. The interest break is welcome, but that is not $100,000 for farmers from the Government of Canada. It is a little break on the interest. It is money that has to be paid back. It adds to the farmers' debt. What they needed was compensation for the losses of selling product into the market at low prices as a result of the international subsidies that are going on all around the world.

Clearly the member for Markham—Unionville was right when he said as one of his key points that the budget was really dishonest. In agriculture, the government has clearly misrepresented what it is actually doing, because it is doing virtually nothing at all in the immediate term when farmers need the money the most.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is passing strange to be listening this morning to the member for Malpeque go through a litany of reasons why he thinks this government has not done anything. Why was this member not concerned when the Liberals were slashing agriculture programs under the former prime minister and when this same member voted against supporting Canadian farmers with emergency aid in 2001? Why did this member vote against standing up to U.S. protectionist policies on May 28, 2002? Why did this member vote against sending a delegation to the U.S. to try to get the border opened for ranchers? Why did this member vote against helping farmers hard hit by the mad cow crisis?

In less than 200 days our government has stepped forward, and I am very proud to say that our minister has provided for loan enhancements for these farmers to double the loan maximum for spring advances to $100,000 and to keep the loan interest free. All these things are coming forward to replace the CAIS program that is available now and to support farmers in a real way. The previous government had 13 years to do all the things that the member opposite is complaining about now. The member opposite should be supporting all the things that our government has put forward to help farmers. This government has done a lot.

Why is that member, after the record he has, not now supporting the good things for farmers so that farmers can carry on with their spring seeding and their land programs?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentions the spring seeding. That is the point. The government has not put 13¢ into farmers' pockets for assisting with spring seeding. That is the reality.

We are not disagreeing with many of the other programs that have been announced. In fact, those programs are along the lines that our government had proposed.

The fact of the matter is that the government has put less money in its budget than previously committed. The government has not met the demand for immediate cash for spring seeding that many Conservative members said would be met. The government has not met its obligations and promises. It certainly needs to be pointed out that the government has failed dismally in terms of getting immediate cash to farmers this spring.

While I am on my feet I should mention that the Minister of Transport even broke an agreement with the FRCC, which would have given the farmers some control over their destiny. The farmers would have had control over the hopper car fleet. Instead, what did the Minister of Transport do? He broke that agreement and turned the railway cars over to the railways in the same old way, with a little bit of a reduction in transport costs, so the railways can continue to gouge the farm community. That is not performance. That is going against what the party opposite said it would do for the farm community.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during his speech, the member talked about a very important issue: agriculture and the financial crisis facing this sensitive economic sector.

There is also another serious crisis going on, this one among the unemployed, particularly among older workers. They need a new assistance program. Such a program once existed, but the former government cut it.

Can the member tell the House what he thinks of the Conservative government's inaction on this matter?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing in the lack of action in terms of the unemployed and the socially disadvantaged is just what we expected with a basically neo-conservative agenda. That is what we are seeing. It is kind of hidden in some ways. The budget tries to hide some of those facts. When we look at the budget we see a number of tax breaks, but overall the fact of the matter is that with the dropping of the 15% on income tax and putting it at 15.5%, the government is in effect increasing taxes.

I do not think we should be surprised. This is the government's first budget. This will be the kindest budget that this particular government produces. In the next one, the Conservatives will get to their real agenda, which will be cutting and slashing the kinds of programs that mean something to the disadvantaged and the less well off in society, while they contribute to their corporate friends.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure for the first time in many years to have the opportunity on behalf of the Northwest Territories to raise a critical voice about a federal budget. My comments will focus on three areas: how the revenue is being generated, impacts on the north, and protection of the environment, or rather the lack thereof.

A long time in municipal politics has taught me to first look at the revenue sections of a budget. It is pretty clear where the Conservatives plan to get their money and that is out of the wallets of ordinary Canadians. A 2% reduction to the general corporate income tax rate, doing away with the federal capital tax and the elimination of the corporate surtax will do nothing to help more working families.

Corporations, unlike ordinary citizens, can pick and choose where they will file their taxes. For the past few years the provinces and territories have been competing with each other in a race to the bottom for the lowest corporate tax rates. The federal government should take the opportunity to raise revenues from corporations while the provinces are giving them all these breaks.

Thanks to the Liberals, Canada already has a corporate tax rate well below the United States. Also, the corporations here have the benefit of public health care for their employees, so it seems unlikely that further reductions will do much more to attract corporations to this country.

The Conservative corporate tax breaks are nothing more than a crass political move to win favour with large corporations while those neo-cons turn their backs on ordinary Canadians. If the Prime Minister and his finance minister really wanted to help their constituents, they would have used the surplus found in the budget to deal with issues that matter to Canadians, such as health care, environmental improvement and post-secondary education.

Instead, the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance decided to use the surplus contained in the budget to buy support from the largest corporations in Canada, in other words, to act like Liberals.

A further revenue concern I have with the budget is the cut to the GST. This ill thought out measure will also create turmoil in the way provincial sales taxes are dealt with. Once again, pressure will be on the less fortunate provinces with sales taxes to take up the tax room vacated by the GST cut.

As a northern MP, however, I must admit that the GST is a very unfair tax to people in remote communities across the country where the cost of living can run as high as 250% of that in southern Canada. The northern residents tax deduction was supposed to compensate for this, but the impact of this fixed amount of relief has been severely degraded by inflation over the 17 years since its inception.

With all the Prime Minister's talk about the importance of the north during the election, I had half expected to see a budget loaded with good things for the north. Apart from some urgently needed housing money, the Conservative budget does not provide anything that was not already promised by the Liberals.

First, there is reconfirmation of the $500 million fund to deal with the impacts to the Northwest Territories communities by the construction of the Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline. However, it is unfortunate that the fund has been tied to the project going ahead. If we wait until the project is going ahead, it will be too late to begin preparing for the impacts of the project. Funding is needed now to do the planning and preparation for mitigating the impacts of the pipeline's construction. Trying to put together the structures needed to deal with these impacts while they are occurring will cause them to never be efficient and effective.

It was also interesting to read this passage in the budget:

In order to mitigate the negative socio-economic costs of the project, and in light of the significant federal royalty revenues to be generated by the project, the Government of Canada will establish a $500-million fund.

It is rare that a passage causes me to do a double take, but this one really caught me. Do the Conservatives mean that royalties that should be going to the Northwest Territories in the first place will be used to provide for this fund? If that is the case, then once again we are being manipulated with our own money. Or does this passage mean the Northwest Territories will not be seeing resource revenue sharing and devolution for a long time?

I ask that because at the extremely low royalty rates set in place by the Liberals, it will take some time to make up half a billion dollars. As well, this royalty scheme in place on federal lands, established decades ago when oil and gas were relatively low priced, front loads all the tax and royalty breaks. It will be many years after project start-up before there are any revenues to speak of.

Is this any way for the government to manage for northerners their resource base, which is so vital to the development of the region?

A lot more money will be required to prepare the pristine Mackenzie Valley with its numerous small communities for the impact of a $500 billion gas industry, of which the pipeline is only the first step. A massive public works infrastructure fund, which should be funded from potential royalties, is absolutely required. Investment in infrastructure up front may see the significant reductions in project development costs, thus returning money to the public coffers.

On other northern funds in the budget, it was nice to see the finance minister understands the need for better housing in the north, but the approach the Conservatives have taken is, at best, a band-aid. A one time contribution of $50 million seems generous, but what has not been publicized is that the NWT will have to match this amount.

The budgets of the territories are already stretched thin due to federal cuts and arbitrary borrowing limits. Now these governments have to come up with additional funds to access the housing money. Just where exactly does the Minister of Finance expect the territorial governments to find the money? Mr. Speaker, I will tell you where they will find it; they will have to steal funding from other programs and services.

Finally, let me turn to how the budget deals with what is the most important issue facing all human beings, that of our changing climate. Dealing with Canada's commitment under Kyoto requires all of us to put conservation and energy efficiency first. The Conservatives, by name only, are firmly welded to the consumption bandwagon. The word “Kyoto” is not mentioned once in the budget. The words “greenhouse gas emissions” are only mentioned once and then only to give more funding to pulp and paper corporations to burn off their pollution to generate electricity. The words “climate change” appear only twice, both times to explain how funding to effective programs is being cut and shifted to a public transit tax benefit of dubious value.

This shows quite clearly that the government has no plan to deal with climate change. Without dollars, climate change plans announced by the government are nothing but window dressing. Without a major commitment to energy conservation, Canadians will suffer.

Canadians overwhelmingly want leadership from the federal government on the environment. Instead, we have a government that has become so focused on its few priorities it cannot see past its own nose, and a budget that buys votes today while selling out our future.

The Conservative plan for climate change is not made in Canada; it is made in the oil patch. It is a plan for increasing consumption of energy, which will do nothing but increase greenhouse gas emissions.

While a consumption based plan may be good for the Conservatives' buddies in the multinational oil companies, it is not good for the millions of Canadians who have to bear the full effect of climate change and the high cost of energy.

What was needed from the budget was a commitment to enhance and encourage the development of green energy sources. Instead of leaving huge tax breaks for the oil sands, the finance minister should have shifted the subsidies over to the green energy sector to encourage development there.

Once again, working Canadians are faced with a budget that places all the costs upon them, while those who could do more actually have an easier time.

The budget is nothing but a carny sideshow. It looks nice, it takes a poor family's money, but once we get past the elaborate facade, there is no substance.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP speaks a good line, but I would ask a question about that party's right to speak, or its legitimacy, on matters such as aboriginals, child care, social housing, all the things which the NDP purportedly supports when in fact by prematurely bringing down the former government, the NDP caused those things not to happen.

For example, had the government lasted longer, the child care agreements would have been implemented more fully. We would have had more progress and more achievements in that area. It would have been more difficult to end that plan, whatever the outcome of the election. The same can be said for aboriginals and social housing.

Why is it that the NDP was willing to sacrifice the interests of child care, sacrifice the interests of aboriginals and sacrifice the interests of all of those low income, vulnerable Canadians that I agree were really damaged by the budget? Why was the NDP willing to sacrifice the interests of all those people simply to get 10 more seats in the House of Commons?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I do not really see much difference between Liberals and Conservatives when it comes to fiscal policy. While the Liberals were in power, we saw the corporate tax rate drop from 28% down to 21%. The Conservatives are going to put it down another couple of percentage points. This is giving up money.

There was a very interesting discussion about this in the newspaper a while back. An economist pointed out that this is costing our system an incredible amount of money right now and that money is not being reinvested by the corporations,. The corporate tax cuts that we have seen over the years have degraded the ability of government to provide the kinds of services that my hon. colleague across the way spoke so highly of.

I think we were all ready to see a change of government. It is a minority government situation, just like the last time. We have seen that there are votes again. We are dealing with a Conservative government that really has a fiscal policy similar to the one the Liberals had before.

The NDP is the only party that has really different answers for Canadians. That is why I was very happy to see the election happen when it did. Canadians will work with the results of that election.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's comments about the budget. It is really important that Canadians take a precise look at the budget in the areas of what a former leader of the NDP used to call corporate welfare, and he had another adjective which I will not quote at this point. It is important because Canadians want to know the value for money argument. If large corporations are going to be given tax breaks and tax cuts, Canadians want to know where that money is going. They want to follow the money.

One of the concerns I heard expressed by economists is that the money that is going to corporate tax cuts is not going to be reinvested wisely and that it is going to go into excess profits. It is not targeted.

What kind of investments do we need to see from corporations and how might we get them to do that, if they are not going to be doing it in the manner that the Liberals provided and now the Conservatives have provided in their manner? How do we get good investment and reinvestment in our capital, for instance in terms of gas and oil, to make sure it is not dirty energy and that it is not going to harm our environment?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, my position and the position of this party is that we need to do away with the tax breaks that were instituted for the oil and gas industry, especially the oil sands in 1995 with the Liberal government under a previous leader, whom I will not mention, along with the Alberta government. Oil was $12 a barrel and it is $70 a barrel now. Those companies can stand on their own two feet. Why are we continuing to support them when there are perfectly valid green energy companies that could be providing great employment, great opportunities in Canada and need this kind of subsidy?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, all colleagues in the House today would agree that it would be somewhat of an understatement to say that this was an extremely interesting week in this chamber for a number of reasons. None more relevant was the fact that we were graced with the presence of our Olympians and our Paralympians on Monday past. These individuals are a great collection of wonderful Canadians, our best and most committed. It was a pleasure having them here so we could show our appreciation for their efforts on behalf of all Canadians.

This was followed by a reception hosted by the minister responsible for sports. During the reception the Prime Minister spoke about his respect for the athletes and the fact that they understood the importance of hard work, commitment and sacrifice. That is why they are the best in the country and quite often the best in the world. They understand the importance of these attributes.

I could not help but think that the words somehow rang hollow coming from the Prime Minister in light of what he put forward to the House and the country in his budget. All Canadians remember the hardships and understand fully the difficult situations they faced through the mid-nineties. Tough decisions and sacrifices were made by all Canadians, so that the Liberal government could write the fiscal picture for this country. It was a committed effort done by the previous government and it created a great deal of hardship in many sectors. However, it was necessary and I believe Canadians understood it was necessary, and they were willing to sacrifice the short term pain for the long term gain.

We had to balance the books and create a surplus, so that the Government of Canada could then reinvest in programs important to all Canadians. We made significant reinvestment in health care and in our military. Through all sectors of federal responsibility, we were able to make those reinvestments. Furthermore, Canadians showed patience.

The Prime Minister does not understand that this is a time when investments should be made. It is time for Canadians to realize the benefits of the tough days they went through and the tough decisions and sacrifices they made. Instead, he put forward a budget that squanders a tremendous opportunity. Good things could have been done through this budget, but the Prime Minister has missed the opportunity and missed it poorly.

The budget is truly political in nature. It offers a great deal of short term excitement. I think it would be best termed a retail budget because a lot of fancy things, a lot of sexy things, have been put in the window. It is going to take a certain amount of time before Canadians realize that this budget is really just a facade. A member of the NDP indicated that what we see is not what we are going to get. This is going to play out more as we go down the road.

I began my comments regarding our Olympians and Paralympians who were with us on Monday.

When I look at some of the upfront tax deductions, the tax credit for sport registration looks impressive: a $500 tax deduction for one's son or daughter joining a sport. When it comes time to fill out one's income tax return, though, that will equate to $80. Will $80 make the difference as to whether or not a family enrolls their children in a sports program? I do not think so. That will not have any type of impact at all.

Previous members that spoke had indicated their disappointment in this budget and the approach that the government has taken on child care. Certainly, this budget falls far short in those areas as well.

Had this government followed through with some of its campaign promises and had this government, and I will go back to the sports credit again, identified in this budget the 1% of the health care budget that was supposed to be attributed to sport and fitness in this country, then I believe the benefactors would have been the young people of this country, the people who pay the price, who understand what commitment can bring, what hard work can bring, and what sacrifice can bring. It would have allowed the next generation to be inspired and to strive to attain those same types of heights as the athletes who graced us with their presence here in this House.

This budget falls far short. An $80 tax deduction for registering one's son or daughter is almost embarrassing.

We see the same thing with education. We know that the next great challenge here is allowing young Canadians access to post-secondary education.

Certainly, the proposal that was put forward by our party during the last election was one that, I think, made great sense: 50% of the tuition in the first year, up to $3,000, and the same in the last year. There was an incentive there to, first, pursue a post-secondary education and second, to complete that post-secondary education. That was real money that would be going to young people in this country to pursue an education and to make a greater contribution to not just our economy but, really, to our society. Those would have been real dollars.

However, what do we get from this government? We got a tax deduction on books. What is it going to be when it plays out? Perhaps a young student might get one free book each year. It is far too little and certainly falls far short of the mark.

There is going to be a realization, there is going to be a reality here, and that reality check will come next year when Canadians sit down to do their income tax returns and they find that the tax credits and the tax deductions that are obviously the theme of this budget just do not make it, just come far too short.

We have seen in the House this week, through the motion that was put to this House on Wednesday on Afghanistan, the threat by the Prime Minister that had that motion not gone through he was going to the polls within a year. We have seen our Minister of Public Safety talk about the gun registry and holding things over for a year.

I think this government wants to go to the polls before Canadians sit down and do their income tax returns next year. Put that on the record and now it is in Hansard. This government knows that Canadians will see through this veil of investment and they will see that there is nothing in this budget for them. Is it going to improve their lot in life? Is it going to close the gap between the rich and the poor?

They will realize at that time that this government has failed them and that this budget has failed them. I know that the Prime Minister understands that they will realize this, and that is why we will be at the polls before income tax time next year.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is part of parliamentary rhetoric to hear the kinds of comments that we heard from members opposite this morning, but just to be clear, is the member opposite saying that a cut in GST will not help Canadians? Is the member opposite saying that $1200 for every child under six years of age going to every family in Canada will not help Canadian families?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, what I am asking is whether Canadians will use those deductions. Yes, they will use those deductions. Is a cheese sandwich going to feed a starving nation? I do not think so.

I believe the purpose of government, through the budget, is to elicit positive outcomes and make positive impacts. I will use the $80 tax deduction. I have three boys that take part in sports. Will it have any type of impact on whether I register my children in sports programs? It will have absolutely none.

Is being able to deduct the tax on books going to make a difference as to whether I am going to encourage my oldest to go to university next year? It will have none. There are Canadians who will look at the bottom line, when sitting down with their sons and daughters and making a conscious decision as to whether they will be able to afford post-secondary education.

This was an opportunity for the government to invest in our young people. This was an opportunity to give them something that would encourage them to pursue post-secondary education and the government failed miserably on this account.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with much of what was said by my hard-working colleague from Cape Breton—Canso.

There are two things we can say about this budget. First, it is dumb and, second, it is mean. It is dumb because it invests in the wrong things. The challenge for Canada is productivity. The challenge for Canada is to educate its people. The challenge is the emerging giants of China and India. They are not our enemies but they are our competitors.

We need to educate our children. The Liberals would have done that, particularly the lowest income children, if the economic update had been adopted in the fall. There would have been billions of dollars in direct assistance for low income Canadians, aboriginals and persons with disabilities, as well as expanding other scholarships.

My question is about the inequity of this budget, the meanness part, such as cutting the EnerGuide for low income houses and introducing a GST cut that disproportionately assists the rich. There are tax credits for education of $80 on tuition in my province, which is from $6,000 to $8,000 a year. The Conservatives' own brochure advertises this great cut, but for a family that makes $15,000, it will save, according to the government's own numbers, less than $100 a year in 2007 while families that make $150,000 a year will save over $1,200 a year.

The Conservatives advertised the GST cut and the example they used is a $375,000 house. I would like to ask my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso, does this budget even attempt to speak to the people of his riding or mine? How many in his riding live in $350,000 houses and how many make more than $150,000?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that was one aspect of the budget that really jumped off the page when I saw the $350,000 house. I know for some people in our urban centres a $350,000 house is not a strange thing, but one thing this misses is rural Canada. I have a coastal constituency. I probably have small streets in my riding that would not have $350,000 worth of real estate on them.

That is the sad part. It is the people who live in those homes, good Canadians trying to raise families and kids, and contribute to this country that this budget leaves behind. That is who this budget totally misses the mark on and that is why I will not be supporting this budget.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to the budget. There have been many comments made about missed opportunities and I want to look at a couple of those.

Before I do that, I want to take a couple of moments to talk about the philosophy behind the budget. Looking at it from a historical perspective, the budget is extremely interesting. In many ways it reminds me of the kind of strategy the Liberals used to take, and I go back as far as Marc Lalonde. There was a little for everyone, but in the end nothing for anyone. We have a lot of pronouncements about little things that might seem to be good on the surface, as many have mentioned, but when we look at the detail, there is little substance to what is delivered.

I refer back to the way that budgets used to be written. It is from a strategic, philosophical approach at odds. It is what is referred to by some political scientists as brokerage politics. It is broker this group, broker that group, be it regional, be it class-based, so the government can be seen as meeting the needs of everyone, but meeting the needs of no one in the end.

I will now go into more detail about what the budget does not do and the opportunities that were missed.

The opportunities missed were on child care. I take great exception with some of my Liberal colleagues who have said that so much would have been done if they just had another couple of months. Let us be real about this. There were 13 years of missed opportunities. Many deathbed conversions were made up until the last election, but Canadians were tired of that. The trust had been broken and as a result voters told the Liberals what they thought.

We did not have a child care act in place. We had child care agreements. Yes, that was better than nothing, but let us be clear about what it was not. It was not permanent child care. They were child care acts that, as we have seen with the new government, were taken away with the stroke of a pen.

What we have in the Conservative budget is not a child care act nor is it comprehensive child care. It is income support. While no one would critique the need for income support, particularly for those who are most vulnerable, we have to acknowledge that this is not what Canadians wanted and it is not what they asked for with regard to child care.

I think even within the Conservative Party some members would have to acknowledge that their mandate was not on the issue of child care, and it is a minority mandate. The issue for the Conservative government, and why I believe it was elected, was a consensus that a trust had been broken with the previous government and it was time for a change. I have heard this on talk shows, from people in my community and I have read it in letters to the editor. If people did vote for the Conservative Party, it was not because of child care or the $1,200.

My leader has said time and time again that it is important not just to oppose but to propose. What should we propose instead of what has been delivered? We have said is the $1,200 should be there, but it should not be seen as child care. It should be seen, as we had proposed in the election, as an increase to the child tax benefit. My predecessor, Mr. Broadbent, was the member who proposed that we eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. We know the sad story and record on that issue.

What we do know is the child tax benefit was a good, sound policy. We should have increased the amount of that benefit by $1,200 to attack child poverty. This is not what the government has put forward. It has said that the $1,200 is for child care and that is it.

The NDP has proposed that the government keep the $1,200 for the child tax benefit and do not tax it. Interestingly enough, the government is opening that up. We should ensure that we follow through with sound investments in child care. The NDP wants the government to bring forward a child care act, which will guarantee that no government can take away child care. It is so important and so crucial to our youngest citizens.

What would we have in the child care act? Beyond child care agreements with the provinces, we would have an agreement that would set out not only financial support, but standards as well.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Reluctantly, I have to interrupt the hon. member's speech. He will have four minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks when the debate resumes on the bill later this day.

We will now proceed to statements by members.

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, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the House agrees I would ask that the House revert to motions for just a moment so I can ask for concurrence once again on my motion.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Is there such agreement?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I left off in my comments about the budget I was referring to the concerns this party has and many Canadians have about the missed opportunity in child care.

I will now speak to the issues around education, particularly around those who are presently in post-secondary education and those who are looking for the promise of opportunity of post-secondary education.

In my first year of university my tuition level was $900 and the most I ever paid was $1,200. Today, sadly, students are incurring debt at an average of $25,000 to $30,000 and we hear stories of people walking out of university with student debts of $60,000 and more.

I am certainly not the oldest member of the House of Commons but neither am I the youngest, but I hesitate to believe that the intention of the government was to create more barriers for students and young people in the future.

I also want to underscore the fact that most members of Parliament who went to university or community college did not incur the kind of debt that young people are incurring now and the student debt that we will be placing on young people in the future. If we look at the student debt being incurred by young people today it is absolutely abysmal. All we have seen from the government is to give a couple of crumbs in the way of support for textbooks. Clearly, that is not enough.

This is not an ideological discussion. This is a pocketbook issue. It is an issue of parents wanting their sons or daughters to have opportunities and discovering that the opportunities for post-secondary education are not there. The opportunity is for more debt and this budget continues that legacy. It does not open up opportunities for young people.

In last spring's budget, we made some headway in making changes to provide relief for young people. The Conservative government took the money that was bookmarked for helping young people with their tuition and it put it into the capital investment for universities. I am sure everyone would agree that is an important priority because universities do need money and support for capital costs and for research and development, but when a government takes the money that was to go to young people and students and puts it into the capital investments of universities, it is on the wrong track.

In my time remaining I want to underline the fact that this was yet again a missed opportunity for the poor. I have not heard the issues of the poor and those who are most vulnerable talked about at all. In fact, what we see is that the opportunities and the supports that are being provided for in this budget will create more of a chasm between those who have and those who have not. This will be a legacy that we all have to answer for. I would hope that the government acknowledges that there will be further erosion of opportunity for those people who are the most vulnerable in our society.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the House today and offer my comments on the recent budget speech.

Preparing a budget, whether it is for a household or a nation, is a delicate balancing act of many worthwhile competing priorities. As a member of the Liberal Party, I have consistently advocated for support for Canadian families while promoting fiscal responsibility in building a solid economic foundation for the future.

The Conservative government's first federal budget presented on May 2 fails to provide a sound economic vision for the future and it also brings Canada dangerously close to being back in deficit. I find the budget to be irresponsible and short-sighted and I will not support it in the House.

Let me be clear. I support affordable tax cuts. I was proud to serve in a government that instigated Canada's strong economic growth with eight consecutive balanced budgets, $61.4 billion shaved off the debt and more than $100 billion in tax cuts, which was a historic record for the country. It was through fiscal prudence and responsible spending of Liberal governments that Canada eliminated its deficit and went on to build one of the strongest economies in the world.

The Conservative government's plan to cut the GST will benefit Canada's wealthiest while leaving lower income Canadians with very little benefit. An average Canadian two-earner income family with children currently earns about $72,000 a year while 48% of Canadian families earn less than $40,000 a year. Canadians earning less than $45,000 a year would have to spend 100% of their disposable income on taxable goods and services in order to save $320. This does not include the money that families would have spent on groceries, prescription drugs, rent or tuition and education.

I cannot in good conscience support a budget where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Lower income families work hard. They make sacrifices to make ends meet and income tax reduction puts money in their pockets. Income tax reductions give them a chance to change their financial situation so they too can flourish as part of our Canadian economy.

Canada as a whole has the potential to flourish in the 21st century global economy but we need to invest in our people and in our brainpower. Waterloo region has become synonymous with technology, innovation and education. The technology triangle contributes to the local prosperity and to job growth.

It is a huge disappointment that the Conservative government is unwilling to partner in research and development as evidenced in its recent budget. Its budget contains virtually nothing to help Canada go forward and to put us at the front of competitiveness, knowledge and innovation.

In my region of Waterloo, we are proud to be the home of several of our country's finest post-secondary education institutions. We have a thriving research and development and technology sector. Our region has reaped the rewards of an economy that is driven by ideas, innovation and technology.

The federal government must be a partner in this growth through investments in research and development. Tomorrow's jobs can be found in today's technologies. We cannot put our nation's future prosperity at risk by abandoning these economic issues.

My constituency of Kitchener Centre has seen a significant decline in employment in the manufacturing sector. These good paying jobs are hard to replace in my riding. I implore the government to revisit its plan. I implore it to develop a strategy for investment in research and development. We are a nation of ideas. Let us support our innovators and our researchers by enabling these ideas to get to the marketplace.

All residents of southwestern Ontario are acutely aware of the challenges of climate change, extreme heat waves contributing to air pollution and smog days. These pose serious health risks to the residents of the area.

Given the reality of climate change and the profound effect it will have, not only on our lives but on the lives of future generations, Canada needs a federal government that will be willing to address the impact of climate change and what that impact will have on our health and well-being.

The Conservative government has chosen to abolish several effective climate change programs and it is set to pull out of the Kyoto accord. A responsible government would recognize climate change as the crisis it truly is and it would increase, not slash, funding to mitigate its impact. The detrimental effects of climate change are expected to increase over time. This in turn will hurt future generations of Canadians.

I cannot support a budget that does not do everything possible to ensure the health and well-being of our children and our grandchildren.

It was a proud day for me when Canada committed to the Kyoto protocol. Good climate change policy contributes to a better quality of life and better health for Canadians today and for future generations. Canadians overwhelmingly support actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, at the same time, they expect all sectors of our economy, governments, industry and consumers, to be part of that process.

All Canadians got a wake-up call last summer on the quality of life of Canada's aboriginal peoples when we saw the evacuation of the Kashechewan reserve. The Liberal Party responded to that crisis with a historic landmark agreement between first ministers and aboriginal leaders in Kelowna, British Columbia. At that meeting, the government of the day committed to over $5 billion over five years to close the gap between aboriginal peoples and other Canadians in such significant areas as education, health, housing and economic opportunities.

The Conservative government has forsaken this agreement. Not only has it forsaken it but it has provided a mere $200 million to address these very important aboriginal issues.

The Conservative government has disappointed Canadians with a budget that falls short of addressing the real needs of families. It has cut programs essential to the prosperity of our country. It has canceled a national child care plan. In one year it will back away from provincial agreements that our government had forged with all provincial governments. It is cutting virtually all the funding to environmental programs like EnerGuide and REEP, programs which, from the evidence I have from groups in my riding, are effective and have not only taken greenhouse gas emissions out of the air but have saved home owners on average $750 a year.

The Conservative government has raised taxes of lower and middle income families. It truly does have a trickle down mentality, whether it comes to social programs or the economy. It intends to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. It is not ensuring that all Canadians can thrive with the prosperity that Canada now enjoys.

Canadians deserve much better than the first Conservative budget and the things that have been omitted. For all those reasons, I will not be supporting the budget.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I must say to my friend across the aisle that I have a very high regard for her and therefore I know she says these things with sincerity, but I still have to ask this question.

When she says that we raised the taxes for lower and middle income Canadians, I wonder if she would not agree that although in fact where the Liberals had promised a particular rate, that rate had not hit that point, and that we are at a difference of one-half of one per cent on the lowest rate. I wonder if she would not take into account the $1,000 employment allowance. I wonder if she would not take into account the trades benefits that are in our plan.

I wonder if she would not take into account the $1,200 that is payable to a parent of children under six years of age, which is payable entirely without tax if that person is earning no income. In other words, taking a look at that plus the GST rollback for people who are in the lowest possible range of income, who are just barely getting by to a point of not even being able to pay tax, can she not understand that in fact they are significantly better off as a result of the Conservative budget?

My second question is with respect to Kelowna. I wonder how she feels about the fact that on the Kelowna agreement there was absolutely no discussion and no part in that agreement for 50% of the aboriginal Canadians, that 50% of aboriginal Canadians who are not on reserve, those urban people who are in an urban situation. There was absolutely no place for that. It was a very wonderfully crafted show, but it did not really have the substance. We are going to be working on the substance.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member is a hard-working member of Parliament too, but I disagree. I would tell him that the Conservative budget lowers the rate of how much non-taxable money one can earn, so it has lowered the non-taxable income rate by $400 per annum. I would tell him that the 15% reduction the Liberal government had brought will go up to 15.5%. I think that is a real disservice to low income families.

I would also say that I think the $1,200 should not be paraded as a child care system at all. I am a mother of four children and I recognize how important it is for young families to have a choice. This will not create additional child care spots and that is what we hear parents want. They want to have some kind of variety.

The Liberal government introduced the national child tax benefit, which was something that helped all families with children. While the $1,200 that is given to families may be tax free if one is below the level at which one would pay income tax, the Conservative government did take away the supplementary benefit that went to the poorest of families with very young children so that they could afford formula and diapers.

So I would tell the member, no, I do not believe families are better off. I believe the government is affording families less choice. I come to this place being a clear advocate of child care, but the government ought not to dictate to families how they raise their children. By limiting the choice of young families, the government is limiting how they decide to raise their families.

As far as the Kelowna accord is concerned, I have always been very supportive of the kinds of services we need for urban aboriginals, and as a matter of fact, I have a fairly large component of urban aboriginals in my own riding of Kitchener Centre, but it should not be done at the cost of the Kelowna accord. The accord was landmark and historic because we had aboriginal leaders sitting with first ministers and the Government of Canada to work out a long term framework that would address some of the very serious concerns we see on reserves. I think it is a false dichotomy to pit urban aboriginals against on reserve aboriginals.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I am a bit disappointed that the last member who asked a question used up all the member's time, because I wanted to ask her a question. Perhaps we will do that some other time.

With regard to Bill C-13 and the budget, one matter stood out for me. To some degree it is a local matter, although it affects a number of communities across the country. It is a matter that was not addressed in spite of the long history of the Conservatives, and the Canadian Alliance and the Reform Party before them, in championing this issue of trying to attain some fairness and justice in the tax system. However, as soon as the Conservatives were in government, they seemed to forget about it. It is the issue of the manner in which we tax, in Canada, individual taxpayers who are receiving social security benefits from the United States.

This has been a longstanding issue. It goes back to 1996, at which point we entered into a treaty with the United States, saying that people who resided in Canada but received social security benefits from the United States would be taxed in Canada and the revenue from that would be collected in Canada. We would do the same thing with Canada pension benefits in the United States, that is, the United States would tax them, collect the revenue there and retain those funds. We had worked out a formula within the treaty, which in effect was to continue whatever the taxation rate was in those respective countries with regard to that income.

Immediately after that treaty was signed and we began to tax this in Canada, we in fact changed the formula. The way the formula worked in the United States was that because of the way money had been contributed to social security, the taxation of those revenues, that income, was to be on only 50% of the revenue.

Initially, the Liberal government--and to its eternal shame, because of some of the representations the Liberals made to the recipients of these funds--first taxed all the income, the full 100% of the income. The individual recipients began to lobby. They organized and they created associations, including a very strong one in my area of the country. They were able to get the government to move a little. Ultimately, in the 1997-98 period, the Liberals taxed on only 85% of the income. They reduced it by 15 points, but not down to what they should have, and that should have been to tax on only 50% of that revenue.

There have been a number of hearings on this, both in this chamber and in committee, and in the Senate. The groups of recipients who were opposed to this type of unfairness lobbied strongly, made representations and appeared before both houses, but they have been unsuccessful up to this point.

I wish to digress for a minute to speak about the impact this has had. One has to appreciate that for a large number of these recipients this is their total income. At the time this happened, of those who are receiving it now, for more than half of them it was their entire income. They had been living on that income. They had structured their finances accordingly. Suddenly they had this hugely increased tax burden. It was grossly unfair. They had lived their whole lives and had contributed to the social security in the United States with this program and scheme in place, which was completely legal. They planned their retirement and retired with that planning in place. Then, out of the blue, they were hit.

I have come across some horror stories. For example, one involved a member of my church, who has since passed away. Both he and his wife were receiving social security. They were still Canadian citizens. They returned to Canada and bought a house. They obtained not a large mortgage, but one they could afford with those incomes and that tax regime. When they both got hit with the increased taxation burden, they had to give up the house, something they had planned for through their entire lives. It had a devastating impact on them.

When I was campaigning in one of the elections, an elderly man told me about his brother, who had been forced to give up living independently because he had been hit the same way. For his whole life, he had planned for the way he was going to live his life. He had a small apartment and was living on his own. Because of the taxation burden he was forced to bear because of this new regime, he was forced to give up living independently in his apartment and move and share a room in his brother's house. This man said the only time his brother comes out of his room, and this had been going on for well over a year, is to come to meals and to go to the washroom. Other than that, he is embarrassed and depressed.

Those stories are repeated over and over again. The really sad part about this is that the government knows full well what is happening. There were three private members' bills put forward. On two different occasions, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, the member for Calgary Southeast, put private members' bills before the House that in effect would have put those people back into the position they were in at the time the treaty was signed, when the Liberal government attacked them. He was a champion for them. This was picked up more recently by the member for Essex, again, a government member. He also had a private member's bill before the House in the last session.

Both of those members lobbied the government heavily.When the Conservatives became the government of the land, when they took power, what happened is pretty simple: absolutely nothing. There were no changes. This is a simple change. It does not even require legislation. Those private members' bills are not absolutely necessary under the legal regime we have in this country. This decision can be made at the cabinet level with one meeting. The government fully understands what it is necessary to do. It knows about the unfairness. It knows about the injustice for these people.

One can only conclude that the government does not care about them, and in much the same way as the Liberal government before it, in a very cynical fashion. The government knows that the longer it draws this out, the more these individuals, who are in their later years, will pass away every year. The fight for fairness and justice keeps dwindling because they will become more elderly and there will be fewer of them. That cynicism is extremely regrettable. It does not bode well for the government or the two members who championed this, or at least allegedly championed it. We do not have the results we need, so the injustice and unfairness continue for literally thousands of people.

I want to make one final point on the subject. This is not a big ticket item. With all the tax breaks that were given in this budget, this would have been minuscule. When we look at the billions of dollars in tax breaks in this budget that went to major corporations, and international corporations in most cases, we can see that this would have been minuscule. That will continue now indefinitely. This size of tax break, which is really not a break at all but simply some justice for this group of taxpayers and citizens of this country, is a relatively small amount of money. The government is showing its inability to reflect any sense of fairness or justice for that group.

I know that my time is just about up, but I want to assure the recipients of this social security benefit that next week after the break I will be tabling a private member's bill, and this battle will continue. If the Conservative Party is not prepared to fight and get us justice and fairness, other members in the House are prepared to continue to fight for it.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I hear the government speak of EnerGuide and its high administration cost, I would say it is incredible, if not dubious, that it is including the assessment costs in that calculation. In fact, it would strike me that it seems to be doing this to meet a political goal. Would the member agree with that?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address that point, but I got so caught up in the other issue. It is such an issue of unfairness that I became sidetracked by the passion I feel about it.

I have been a long-time environmentalist. The EnerGuide program makes good sense in terms of environmental protection and it makes good economic sense as well. When I heard the announcements I could not help but think of what the Mike Harris government in Ontario did when it first took power. His government cut the same programs in Ontario in the same kind of timeframe. I was involved with one of the environmental groups that was deploying these services in the Windsor-Essex County area. The funds were cut completely over a very short period of time.

The government is misleading Canadians. The Minister of Natural Resources has said repeatedly, and we heard it again today from the parliamentary secretary that we are only getting 50¢ of every $1 in EnerGuide to the Canadian taxpayers. That is simply wrong. The government is not taking into account the assessments and the cost of those assessments. I am sure the governing party would be the last to suggest that this work should be done on a pro bono basis. That work is absolutely crucial.

An individual is hired from the private sector to do an assessment. The individual looks at the electrical and heating sources as well as the structure of the home and then gives an overall recommendation as to how the energy efficiency of the residence could be improved. It does not need a lot of understanding; that is how the system works, but it costs money. Depending on the nature of the building, the cost runs from a minimum of $150 to $200 all the way up to $400 or $500 per assessment.

The government is saying those numbers should be on the administration side, that somehow the public service is gathering this money up. It is not at all. Every single penny of the money is in the private sector. It is going to private contractors and is benefiting the owners of the residences. The government is leading Canadians to believe that somehow they are not benefiting from it.

The next stage in the process is to make the recommended improvements. A subsidy of up to $4,500 is available. But the second stage cannot be done unless the first stage has been done.

We absolutely need to spend that money. It is going to benefit Canadians. As those assessments have been completely cut off because all of the money has been cut off, the second stage is not going to be initiated anywhere near the same level. It is all gone. The people who need that incentive are going to drop out. The impact is quite devastating.

If we are going to seriously deal with climate change problems, global warming problems, and carbon dioxide emissions, we have to do a lot of work by way of energy conservation. The only way we can conserve energy is to have this type of program, not just in residential buildings, but in commercial and industrial buildings as well. The government has completely cut the ground from under that program, and has done it in a very misleading way.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the budget implementation act.

I want to make a few constructive suggestions that I hope will help the government change some of its plans and focus some of its initiatives in ways that could help the Canadian public. I am sure they would receive widespread support in our House.

There are a couple of quite egregious shortcomings. One the government's move in its budgetary projections to stop the planned and successive reduction of the income tax burden on the poor and the middle class, particularly the poor. One of our primary jobs is to make sure that the least fortunate in our society are able to have as much money as possible in their pockets consistent with how much they make.

For example, someone who makes $20,000 a year is taxed about $1,800. That is not right. Eighteen hundred dollars is an awful lot of money for somebody who is making $20,000 a year. The government could have put in measures to address that. Instead it decreased the basic personal exemption, the amount of money that is tax free. It also increased the lowest tax bracket. The Liberals had reduced it to 15% from 16%. The government is going to increase it from 15% to 15.5% and then on to 16%.

Does that make sense? Is that beneficial to those who make the least amount of money? Almost every economist in the country says very clearly that this is not a wise move. The best thing to do is to make sure that people have the money in their pockets as opposed to giving the bits and pieces of so-called tax breaks which the government introduced.

For example, the $500 textbook tax break sounds good on the surface, but the question is whether it really puts $500 into the pockets of the students. The answer is no, because it is calculated by the lowest tax break. In effect they would not be receiving $500. They would be receiving 15.5% of $500, which is $155. That needs to be known. Similarly with the $1,000 tax break for working individuals, they would only receive $155 in their pockets, not $1,000.

There are some glaring omissions in the budget. Number one is health care. Health care is the number one issue for Canadians from coast to coast. With our aging population, demands on our public health care system are very high. When we were in government, the former prime minister negotiated a landmark deal with the provinces to put $42 billion into the hands of the provinces for the health care of Canadians. It is difficult to get the provinces on side collectively at any time, but we accomplished that and we put money behind it.

Money is not the entire solution, but I think all Canadians and indeed members of this House were clearly looking for some leadership and solutions on the part of the government on the most important issue affecting Canadians. Did we see it? We did not. The government needs to take leadership. It is more than money. There are other areas that can be worked on in health care.

For example, why not bring together the provincial ministers of education and work to ensure that physical activity for children is part of the school curriculum from kindergarten right to grade 11 or 12? It is critically important to address the epidemic of childhood obesity, which we believe is going to shorten the lifespan of a generation of children. For the first time the longevity of Canadians will actually decline, we think as a result of the epidemic of childhood obesity.

Another way would be through the head start program. From Montreal, Quebec to Ypsilanti, Michigan the Y's head start program has had a good impact. There is also the work that our former MP, Claudette Bradshaw, did with respect to the head start program in Moncton, New Brunswick. That program should be integrated into an early learning program across the country. It strengthens the parent-child bond and has proven to have a profound impact upon an array of social issues, challenges such as teen pregnancies and youth crimes, issues that concern all of us.

There was a 50% to 60% reduction in youth crime with the introduction of a head start program for kids. The program works with parents and children to provide parents with good parenting skills and provide children with some basic knowledge in life skills. The savings are $7 for every $1 invested. A 25 year retrospective analysis was done on these programs around the world and the findings are consistent around the world. They will actually affect the very social challenges the government and indeed we in opposition are concerned about. They are pragmatic, affordable and doable. I urge the government to proceed in that way.

Turning to national defence, when we were in government we committed $13.7 billion over five years for our defence forces. All of us applaud and thank from the bottom of our hearts the hard work that has been done by the Canadian Forces not only here at home but also in Afghanistan. We thank them profoundly for what they are doing for us.

The Conservative government put in $1.1 billion over two years and $5 billion over five. That is a stark difference from the $13.7 billion that we committed over five years. Indeed in my one year as parliamentary secretary, our commitment over and beyond the base budget actually went to $1.1 billion for one year. I would ask the government to look at a more significant investment in the Canadian Forces.

I did not have a chance to speak during the recent debate on Afghanistan. I said to the government prior to that debate that we needed more than 36 hours' notice to make a decision on that which is arguably the most difficult and important decision any of us has to make, which concerns putting the lives of our troops in harm's way. We needed more than 36 hours, not because we are opposed to the mission, not because we do not support our troops, but because it is our moral responsibility to ask the questions that the troops and the Canadian public cannot ask on the mission's two year extension.

A case in point was that 12 hours after we heard that there was going to be a debate for six hours and then a vote, on the front page of the Globe and Mail there was a statement that NATO had requested that Canada take on the entire mission in Afghanistan. That is a very significant piece of information. We did not know about that until we read it in the Globe and Mail.

I said to the government that we needed a couple of weeks, not a long time, to get the information and briefings from national defence, foreign affairs and CIDA. We wanted to know the facts, to make sure that the conditions were there for the success of the mission for our troops. That is our responsibility. I would like answers to some questions.

First, in order for the success of our troops in Kandahar, the civil-military cooperation component, the CIMIC component, has to be there and completely funded. What are the plans for the CIMIC component? What moneys have been put into Kandahar? When I asked the Minister of International Cooperation she could not give me an answer.

The success of the CIMIC component is intimately entwined with the success of the mission. If I were a Canadian Forces member on the ground in Kandahar working my butt off in the interests of our country, putting my life on the line as they are doing for our country, I would want to make sure that the CIMIC component was there and fully funded. It is absolutely essential for the bottom line security conditions that are needed on the ground.

Second, how is the training going for the domestic security forces, the Afghan police and the army? Our exit strategy is predicated on the ability of the Afghan security forces to retain control over a reasonable part of their country so that the Taliban and al-Qaeda cannot take root again. That is the domestic interest in our being there. That is the end goal. I do not know how far we have got, but I simply want to have answers to those questions from the department officials.

I have run out of time and I have a list of questions. They are questions based on fact. They are not political but they are questions that I feel it is my responsibility to ask and to get answers to.

I support our troops, as do the vast majority of members in the House. The members of my party firmly support our troops, but we want to receive the answers to our questions that are critically important for us to be able to look CF family members in the eye and answer their questions directly.

It is a real shame the government did not take it upon itself to give us that opportunity to have those questions answered and execute our responsibilities and duties in a fair and fulsome manner.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question for my colleague from Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.

People who have followed both his career and my career know that we used to be in the same party a few years ago. He started out as a Reformer in the Reform Party, became a member of the Canadian Alliance and then, ultimately, made the decision to cross the floor and become a Liberal and sit with the Liberal Party. Then he ultimately rose through the ranks of the Liberal Party to be the parliamentary secretary.

I have heard and even have a very sympathetic ear to his quest to try to produce a head start program for children, parents and families. He has been championing this for years. I can remember conversations he and I had back in the early days of the Reform Party of Canada. He crossed the floor so he could be more influential with the Liberal Party, when it was the government, yet he was completely ineffective in getting the program going.

Upon reflection, when he looks at the choice that he made, does he still believe he made the right choice, considering that he is still talking about this worthwhile program but it has never happened?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment from the government whip. We share a lot of interests in this issue. I appreciate the conversations that we had in the past on this. I look forward to the government, with his influence, implementing such a program.

I did not leave my former party to be more effective. My former party left me.

I will give the hon. member some examples of that because he came from the same roots as I did, reform. I can ask him some rhetorical questions. How can tolerate the cluttering of our tax system and the increases in taxes to the poor? How can he tolerate the undemocratic ways of his government, the muzzling of his ministers, the muzzling of his MPs and the thin legislative agenda on five points? Given his reform roots, surely he cannot condone the undemocratic measures which his government is putting in. Quite frankly, true Reformers would be rolling over in their graves to know what the current Conservative government is doing, which is not the Reform Party of old. In fact, it is violating some very basic principles on democratic reform, which the members who voted for the Conservative Party would find egregious.

On the head start program, we had an early learning child care program. The early learning program was not simply a place for children to be put in a room for six hours to eights a day. It was a place where children would get quality early learning, where a lot of the influences would occur and where parents would be involved.

As the member probably knows, because we come from the same province, the early learning program put forward by the former minister was an individual program per province. Flexibility was built into the program for every province. I spoke to our provincial counterparts in British Columbia and that was the quid pro quo for our success in signing on so many provinces. The early learning program we had was not simply a day care program; it did involve an early learning component.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to speak Bill C-13, the budget implementation act. The bill intends to provide the legislative framework for the budget that was introduced on May 10 to many cheers from this side of the House, but far fewer down at this end.

Ultimately, it cannot be said enough that this is a budget of missed opportunity. After more than 12 years of broken promises from the Liberal government, this was an opportunity to reinvest in the priorities of Canadians. The only real multi-year plan in the budget is for corporate tax cuts. There is no multi-year commitment to child care, education, training or the environment.

The Liberals hid their broken promises behind claims of huge deficits long after the deficit was under control. The Conservatives are now ignoring the $8 billion surplus expected this year, not to mention the $83 billion surplus expected over the next five years.

These surpluses represent a massive fiscal capacity, a capacity to invest, an opportunity to invest. Instead the Prime Minister and the other members of the House chose to squander over $7 billion in corporate tax cuts.

While we pay record prices at gas pumps as prices continually spike, the Conservatives chose to keep the subsidies to oil and gas companies. The people of my riding know that this is a budget of missed opportunity. My constituents see the loss of federal funding for the best start program, which raised hope and expectation for the people of my community that affordable, accessible, child care would soon be available.

At the same time, as less affordable accessible child care spaces are available, working families will see the elimination of the young child supplement and will see the promised $100 per month taxed down to very few real dollars. They see no real money to fight for the environment such as the Hamilton harbour after decades of industrial pollution.

For Stelco and Dofasco workers, who have been through months and years of uncertainty, there are no changes to EI and no new retraining efforts that will help them as the industry continues restructuring and changing to meet the new challenges.

For students at McMaster University and the parents and families who support our youth getting a post-secondary education, the budget does not propose affordability. The Conservative's solution for the post-secondary crisis is an increased opportunity to acquire debt for education, but no investment to lower tuition fees or introduce grants.

Instead of the steps outlined in Bill C-13, we should be seeing a plan for child care that invests in children and their families. Seventy per cent of children under the age of six have a mother who is in the workplace. There are only enough regulated child care spaces for 15.5% of these children.

In my riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, the best start demo project area would have reached out to over 3,000 children and their families. Cancelling the child care agreements with the provinces amounts to a grab back of $3.6 billion in investment in our communities. Between 2005 and 2008, this was to represent an investment of over $93 million in our province alone.

What does the Conservative government budget cost the families of Ontario? It costs $30 million every year, $30 million that could have created spaces that are desperately needed, $30 million that would have been well spent on a partnership with the parents of Ontario's children.

Health care is the number one priority of Canadians, including the people of my community. It has been completely ignored. In the bill there is no investment to start a national pharmacare program, even though in a few short months our first ministers on health are expected to report back on the issue. In a recent series of mailings to my community, a large number of constituents wrote back to me asking for a national pharmacare program.

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, and of the motion that the question be now put.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the apology.

Drug costs have doubled since 1985 and, after hospitals, are the second biggest category of health related costs in our country.

Almost four years ago, Roy Romanow in his commission recommended catastrophic drug coverage as a start. Not only does Bill C-13 not make preparations for pharmacare generally, the government cannot even act on a four year old recommendation for catastrophic drug coverage.

In the budget there is no funding for home care, something many seniors and their families rely upon. There is no funding for the training of health professionals so that people at the Henderson, St. Josephs' and General Hospitals in Hamilton do not have to wait as long to see a doctor.

The Conservative government could also have taken the opportunity to introduce measures to adjust seniors' pensions to help those seniors who have expressed concern to me about having to decide what to buy: hydro or food. However the government did not take that opportunity to invest.

For the many seniors living on fixed incomes and in poverty in my community and across Canada, a 1% GST tax cut or an income tax cut that only applies to a higher tax bracket means very little. It likely will not even cover the increase in home heating oil or hydro costs this year.

Not only will oil and gas companies get big tax cuts, they also continue to get the estimated $1.4 billion in subsidies; $1.4 billion for gas companies, but only $500 million in the budget to fight pollution. That is the same amount that the NDP put in its budget last year for low income housing energy retrofits, money for people with lower incomes to do renovations that would help green their homes, help them fight pollution and do their part.

The budget cancels that NDP investment. The budget not only does not fight pollution, it is taking away the help the NDP wanted to provide to low income families for retrofit.

By opting out of Kyoto, the Conservatives think they can do better than the years of consensus building in the international community. They will make their own plan but they do not have a plan yet. It is not in the bill we are debating today. The government tells us that it is under development. Canadians have heard that story before. The Liberals promised a Kyoto plan for years. When they finally did introduce something, it did not even try to meet targets set at Kyoto in all areas.

The budget means pollution will go up. Just like the Liberals, the government has no plan to invest in what we need to do to cut greenhouse gas emissions and reduce pollution.

We often hear governments, businesses and people talking about economic innovation, greening the economy or products. We do not have to be political scientists to know that the world is changing around us, and with those changes, particularly in the economic arena, come many new challenges. However it is worth stating that with those new challenges, challenges like those faced by steelworkers in my riding and people working in manufacturing industries across the country, come new opportunities.

Manufacturing as a sector was mentioned at least 10 times in the preamble of the budget when it was presented in the House, mentioned because of the huge losses expected in the sector. Yet, in the Conservative budget plan, the only mention of the manufacturing sector is that it will be getting some of the proposed corporate income tax cuts that we see presented here in the bill.

If we can get in on the ground floor, we can become world leaders in these technologies, manufacturing processes and knowledge.

The Conservative budget does nothing for the manufacturing sector, even though the dollar is now hovering around the 90¢ mark.

However, these changes do not just happen overnight. We need more training and retraining opportunities. Training is the clearest example of how we can invest in working families to improve real life opportunities and to boost our dropping productivity rate. While there are some positive changes for training here in the bill, they are very limited and specific to apprentices and a small tax credit for trades people who buy their own tools. There is nothing for training and immigrant settlement programs even while more and more people are facing underemployment and lower paying jobs.

Instead of a vision for an integrated training role in the 21st century and a strategy to get us there, the Conservative budget gave us a few ad hoc fragments but no strategy.

The budget also did not broaden the EI program. Even though all workers pay into EI, fewer than 40% of them qualify for support. The greatest percentage of those who do not qualify are women who are most often in the part time, lowest paying and least secure jobs.

In the 1990s, 75% of workers qualified for EI benefits. Now, only 38% of workers qualify for EI. This bill, this Conservative budget, does not change eligibility requirements or benefits, which is another lost opportunity.

I was pleased, however, to second a bill that was proposed to make some changes in the EI program. It was put forward by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst a few weeks ago in the House and I commend him on his work in this area.

Bill C-265 would modify the employment insurance program so that benefits can be calculated on the basis of the best 12 out of 52 weeks. The private member's bill will also see the eligibility requirement at 360 hours for all benefit recipients in Canada. With a $49 billion surplus in this program, it is long past the time for these changes.

This bill is equally disappointing when we look at post-secondary education. Instead of keeping the tuition lowering oriented funding of the NDP budget at $1 billion, this bill proposes to convert that funding into one time education infrastructure funding. When four out of ten university students are unable to graduate on time because they dropped courses to work, we all lose. When 70% of high school graduates want to go to college but cannot, and list finances as the main reason for not getting a further education, we are all losing. We are losing out on the increased contributions that these graduates could be providing communities like my home town of Hamilton and others across the country.

This Conservative budget does nothing to address the most pressing financial issue related to students: the need to reduce debt loads. This budget does provide a few positive changes, such as removing the income tax on bursaries and scholarships and textbook credits. If the government will not invest when it has billions in surplus and corporations are not reinvesting the breaks they get through tax cuts and subsidies, who will invest?

That is why I stand with my NDP colleagues in opposition to this budget. It is a lost opportunity to invest and I do not believe it reflects what Canadians have asked us all to do in the House.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to reflect on a budget that did after the election precisely what was promised during the election. We promised we could cut the GST. Done. We promised we would deliver a $1,200 choice in child care allowance. Done. We promised we would take taxes off of educational scholarships. Done. We promised we would bring in a tax credit to help with the exorbitant costs of university textbooks. Done.

We promised we would give a tax credit to help parents with the cost of putting their children in sports so they can keep their kids active, healthy and out of trouble. Done. We promised a tax credit, which the NDP once supported, for public transit, to encourage people to get out of their cars and into public transit in efforts to reduce traffic and pollution. Done.

We have gone further and faster to deliver to the people who elected us precisely what we promised them. Why will the member not rise in the House of Commons and say that while he may disagree with what we have done, at least he can admit that we have done what we said we would do?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that the Conservatives have, without a doubt, done what they said they would do, but they have done it for 30% of the people who voted for them, excluding the 60% who did not. When one does not earn enough income to qualify for the tax breaks that are being offered, they are no good. The average students have been abandoned by the government because they will not even qualify for those tax breaks.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the areas my colleague talked about was his home town and how the men and women who work in the industrial sector have been affected. I would like his comments about the missed opportunities in this budget.

As we in our party have said, we should not just oppose but propose. I would like his ideas on what was missed in the budget but also what we can do to help the men and women in the manufacturing sector who are having a hard time, particularly those in his riding.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the population in the manufacturing sector the one thing that will strike us very quickly is that the shade of the hair is very much like my own. It is an aging population. Many of the people who have seen their manufacturing jobs collapse on them, and there have been many in the area of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, are lost. The Levi plant left recently and hundreds of people lost their jobs. Other plants have also moved on.

There has to be training and retraining with a particular emphasis on the older worker who sometimes has a harder time readjusting to the new technologies and the new work of today.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The question is on the motion that this question be now put. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between all the parties present this afternoon and I think if you seek it you could find unanimous consent to see the clock at 2:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would seek clarity. I would think there needs to be one more vote taken, which we would agree to on division. and then we would certainly concur with the suggestion of the chief government whip. I would not want Canadians to think that we were seeing the clock as 1:30 on division but I want to be clear as to the vote.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The Chair is seeking clarification from the chief government whip. Is he seeking the consent of the House to the motion for second reading of Bill C-13?

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

It being 1:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, May 29, 2006 at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1:30 p.m.)