Bill C-28 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2

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

Part 1 implements the following income tax measures proposed or referenced in Budget 2006:
–       the new Canada Employment Credit;
–       the new Textbook Tax Credit;
–       the new tax credit for public transit passes;
–       the new deduction for tradespeople’s tool expenses;
–       a complete exemption for scholarship income received in connection with enrolment at an institution which qualifies the student for the education tax credit;
–       the new Children’s Fitness Tax Credit;
–       a doubling, to $2,000 from $1,000, of the amount on which the pension income credit is calculated;
–       an extension of the $500,000 lifetime capital gains exemption, and various intergenerational rollovers, to fishers;
–       the new Apprenticeship Job Creation Tax Credit;
–       a reduction of the current 12 per cent small business tax rate to 11.5 per cent for 2008 and to 11 per cent thereafter;
–       an increase, to $400,000 from $300,000, of the amount that a small business can earn at the small business tax rate, effective January 1, 2007; and
–       a reduction of the minimum tax on financial institutions.
Part 2 implements the proposal in Budget 2006 to lower the income tax rate on large corporation dividends received by Canadians.
Part 3 implements the proposal in Budget 2006 to reduce excise duties for Canadian vintners and brewers.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

moved that Bill C-28, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006, be read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak at third reading of Bill C-28. Once passed, this bill will implement certain tax measures that were not part of last spring's budget implementation bill. That bill received royal assent on June 22, 2006.

Budget 2006 was the first budget for Canada's new government. It was well received by Canadians. However, the House should know that the best is yet to come.

By now, members of the House are well aware of what is contained in the bill before us. I would therefore like to focus my remarks on some of the particular proposals in this bill that will open up opportunities for Canadians, opportunities that will lead to a stronger, more prosperous Canada.

I am sure that any of the members of this House who are parents would want their children to have opportunities that perhaps they did not have. Canada's new government believes in creating those new opportunities for Canadians wherever they live in this great country. That is why budget 2006 took action to help families and individuals, as well as businesses, Canada's job creators, by lowering taxes, rewarding effort and making Canada a better place in which to live and do business.

One of our first actions was to return money to Canadians by reducing the GST. We also provided other significant personal and corporate tax relief and investments in the budget that will create jobs and boost Canada's economy by improving incentives to work, save and invest.

Most recently, we took decisive action by announcing a tax fairness plan that provides $1 billion per year in tax relief for seniors and pensioners. The tax fairness plan significantly enhances the incentives for Canadians to save and invest for family retirement security.

I want to talk today about the proposals in this bill that will set Canada on a firm track for tomorrow by providing opportunity today. I would like to start with the fitness tax credit, because our health and especially the health of our children is a key part of a prosperous future for Canada. After all, without our health, how can we enjoy all the great opportunities that this country has to offer?

There is little doubt that regular exercise improves the quality of life. Encouraging families to help their children get into the habit of being physically active is an important goal and one that is becoming increasingly important. Our new children's fitness tax credit will help families provide that encouragement to their children. In doing so, it will help our children to adopt a healthier lifestyle.

Specifically, Bill C-28 proposes that the credit cover eligible fees up to $500 for enrollment in an eligible program of physical activity effective January 1, 2007. That date is coming up pretty quickly.

The need for this tax credit is underscored by the challenges presented by childhood obesity. In the past two decades, obesity has emerged as one of the biggest health problems facing Canada. The purpose of this credit is to facilitate access by children and youth to eligible programs of physical activity and recreation. This will be an important catalyst to help children maintain regular exercise, balanced growth and, most important, a healthy lifestyle that they can take with them into adulthood.

To help the government decide which programs of physical activity should qualify for the children's fitness tax credit, the Minister of Finance appointed an expert panel, chaired by Dr. Kellie Leitch. The panel recently presented its report. I would like to thank Dr. Leitch and the panel members for their thoughtful insight into this issue.

The government is renewing the panel's recommendations to decide which programs of physical activity should qualify for the new credit. Healthy bodies promote healthy minds, and healthy minds go hand in hand with better learning.

This new government can help. We recognize the importance of education beyond high school in getting a good job with a secure future. Canada's new government wants to do all it can to help Canadians achieve that goal. To do that, Bill C-28 contains proposals from budget 2006 that will help with the costs of post-secondary education. Moreover, once graduates are in the workplace, there are measures from the budget that will help Canadians with some of their work related expenses. Let me briefly outline these important proposals. Let me start with education measures.

Any of us who have helped put our children through university or college know that textbooks are expensive. To help parents and students with these costs, Bill C-28 proposes a new non-refundable tax credit to provide better tax recognition for the cost of textbooks. This measure would be effective for 2006 and subsequent taxation years.

Eligibility rules for this new tax credit will be the same as those for the education tax credit and will provide benefits to almost two million post-secondary students. We know that not all students attend school full time. In recognition of that, the textbook tax credit applies to both full time and part time students. For full time students, the amount will be $65 for each month of full time post-secondary study. For part time students, the amount will be $20 for each month of part time post-secondary study.

What does this mean to the bottom line? To give an example, a full time student enrolled in college or university for eight months would qualify for a textbook tax credit of $520 for the year. This represents a reduction in that student's taxes of about $80. This all adds up for a student. Helping students with the cost of textbooks is one important step that Canada's new government has taken to help post-secondary students with their education related expenses, but we have done even more.

Many hard-working students earn scholarships. To help them meet their tuition expenses, Canada's new government wants to reward them for that dedicated hard work. As members of the House may know, under current legislation only the first $3,000 in scholarship, fellowship or bursary income received by a post-secondary student is not taxed. In other words, any money received in excess of $3,000 is included as income for tax purposes.

The government believes that students should be rewarded, not penalized, for their academic excellence. That is why in budget 2006 we proposed to fully exempt all scholarship, fellowship and bursary income from tax. Once the bill before us is passed by Parliament, this measure will provide tax relief to more than 100,000 deserving post-secondary students.

This government is well aware that in today's knowledge based economy, a more educated and skilled labour force is key to Canada's competitiveness in the world. Government investments in education and training are therefore critical to productivity and economic growth.

As I have just outlined, Bill C-28 proposes measures to help students with their post-secondary education, but we also recognize that there is a need to help Canadians once they are in the workforce. That is why the government, in this bill, has introduced specific measures to help in that regard.

First, the Canada employment credit complements the personal income tax reductions introduced in budget 2006 by recognizing the extra costs to Canadians sometimes associated with joining the workforce. For example, a uniform might be required to work in a particular store or business, or special safety equipment could be needed to work on a construction site. For some Canadians, and particularly low income workers, these expenses can sometimes make the difference between being able to accept a job or not.

In the past, Canadians have raised concerns that if they have their own business or are self-employed, they can get tax deductions for certain expenses, and if they are employed, they do not. We do not think that is fair.

Bill C-28 changes that by proposing the Canada employment tax credit to help Canadians offset the costs of working. A credit of $500 is now available on employment income and that credit will double to $1,000 starting January 1, 2007. Canadians can put this money toward work expenses, like uniforms and safety equipment, and that helps working Canadians.

Of course, finding the right job is not always easy. Some Canadians find themselves stuck in low paying jobs and for one reason or another, often financial, they are not encouraged to consider the trades as a possible career source. However, as we often hear, employers are crying out for people, especially skilled workers, for example, in the construction industry.

Budget 2006 helps by proposing a new apprenticeship job creation tax credit. This credit will encourage employers to hire new apprentices to learn a skilled trade. With the measures contained in Bill C-28, effective May 2, 2006, about six months ago which was budget day, eligible employers will receive a tax credit equal to 10% of the wages paid to qualifying apprentices in the first two years of their contract, to a maximum credit of $2,000 per apprentice per year.

I explained earlier how the Canada employment credit will provide financial relief in recognition of work related expenses incurred by employees. The new government also recognizes that many people employed in the trades must have their own tools as a condition of employment. Budget 2006 provides assistance for these workers with a tax deduction of up to $500 for the cost of tools in excess of $1,000. The Canada employment credit and tools deduction together will provide tax relief to some 700,000 employed tradespeople.

Canada's new government wants to make it easier for new Canadians to pursue their dreams. Certainly reducing taxes is part of our plan. We have done that and we are not finished yet. However, as I have outlined today, helping Canadians realize their dreams is about more than just cutting taxes. It is also about helping families encourage their children to become physically active and have healthier lifestyles. It is about helping students with their education. It is about helping Canadians get and keep good jobs.

With the measures in the bill we are debating today, the new government will help Canadians accomplish those goals. I therefore encourage all members of the House to work together to pass this bill so we can get on with creating even more opportunity and an even stronger more prosperous Canada for today's generation and for those who will follow us.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to my colleague's discourse on the bill. I have two questions for her.

The first question relates to tax cuts. I want to know why her government has implemented a tax strategy that will actually penalize the poor on two counts: one, it has decreased the basic personal exemption; and two, it implemented a system where it has actually increased the tax on the poorest.

My second question is on the school book tax credit which the hon. member mentioned. Is it not true that the $500 tax credit that her government is touting so proudly is actually only $77.50 in the hands of a student?

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

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the budget helps the poorest Canadians. In fact, it helps them to the extent that 650,000 of the poorest Canadians in our country are taken right off the tax rolls and pay no tax because of the measures in our budget.

With respect to the GST, this tax is paid by all Canadians and it falls most heavily on the poorest Canadians who pay no other tax. Cutting the GST helps the lowest income Canadians because it reduces their only tax burden. This is why, for example, the NDP campaigned in 1997 to cut the GST. It knew that would help the most vulnerable Canadians. The member's own government said in 1993 that it would scrap the GST. Why? I imagine, but I do not know because it never did it, it thought it would help Canadians.

Therefore, I find it odd that the Liberal Party, which wants to help vulnerable Canadians, would criticize the only measure that would help the lowest income Canadians.

With respect to the textbook tax credit, all these measures add up. They again help the lowest income Canadians because they give the biggest credit to them. All these measures help students. They help people who want to get an education, to get ahead, to get the skills to enter our workforce.

I urge the member, instead of criticizing these measures to help students and low income Canadians, to get behind them.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance referred to many new tax credits provided in this bill. However, this legislation does not change the tax credit for child care, and this is where Quebeckers are adversely affected.

Since Quebeckers decided to collectively establish a public child care program funded with their own taxes, Quebec parents are claiming much less of that tax credit because, instead of shelling out $25, $30 or $40 per day, they now only pay $7. They do pay the difference, but they do so through their taxes. This means that the federal treasury is making savings of $250 million annually.

Does the parliamentary secretary think it would be just and fair to respect the choice made collectively by Quebeckers to set up their own public child care program, and to give back the money saved by the federal treasury to the Quebec government, so that it can invest it in its child care initiative? Otherwise, if Quebeckers really want to be able to make their own collective choices with their taxes, is taking charge of their destiny and becoming a sovereign state the only solution for them?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that matters of child care are under provincial jurisdiction. I think Quebeckers are pleased with the arrangements in their province. I understand the $7 a day child care is supported in Quebec, even though other taxes must go into this system.

With respect to the federal government's contribution, the member will also know that matters of transfers between the federal government and the provinces are under active consideration. We are the first government to acknowledge that there has been an imbalance in the past in these transfers.

There have been several blue ribbon studies now on this issue. The federal and provincial finance ministers will be meeting next week on the issue. There will be accommodations reached in the next few months. I know the member will be anxiously watching to see what those are. We will have something to say once those are announced.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

There will be five minutes remaining in the time for questions and comments when the debate on this matter is resumed.

We will now move to statements by members and we will begin with the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-28, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006, be read the third time and passed.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

There are five minutes remaining in the time provided for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary a question about the fiscal imbalance.

In the last budget, the government promised to correct the fiscal imbalance. That is the only reason we supported that budget last spring. We have noticed that since the budget was tabled, the government has backtracked every chance it gets. Only two paragraphs of the recent economic statement referred to the fiscal imbalance, and only in very vague terms.

We in the Bloc Québécois are very concerned about what the government's next budget will include. We have established what Quebec is expecting, in light of the Séguin commission's figures, among others. Various calculations have been made, including the one Mr. Séguin tabled in the National Assembly, which called for $3.9 billion, as we have done.

But the Conservatives are saying that Mr. Séguin never called for $3.9 billion. In fact, Mr. Séguin asked that equalization be based on the 10-province standard and include all revenues, including non-renewable natural resources, which represents $2.8 billion. He asked that education transfers be restored to 1995 levels, adjusted for inflation, which adds $1.1 billion.

When we heard Mr. Séguin say that in the National Assembly, we asked our entire research team to closely examine those figures. We concluded that 2.8 plus 1.1 equalled 3.9, so $3.9 billion.

I therefore wanted to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance reached the same conclusion. Does she agree that $2.8 billion in equalization, added to $1.1 billion in education transfers, equals $3.9 billion, the total the Bloc Québécois arrived at?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that the government is moving ahead vigorously on this whole matter of fiscal imbalance and equalization. In budget 2006 we committed to bring forward proposals on a renewed and strengthened equalization and territorial formula financing program. We committed to a new approach to long term funding support for post-secondary education and training. We committed to a new framework for long term funding to support infrastructure programs and also to a new approach for allocating unplanned federal surpluses.

The government is also looking forward to making progress on other key initiatives, including the use of the federal spending power in areas of provincial responsibility and working with the provinces and territories to strengthen the economic union.

I understand everyone is working the numbers and putting forward proposals. The province of Quebec is doing that, and it is certainly entitled to do so. Other provinces are doing the same. The finance ministers are meeting with the federal finance minister next week. Therefore, I can well imagine there is some number crunching and some proposals being put forward.

However, the member and the House can rest assured that the government is committed to addressing these important issues. We will be doing so in a manner that is fair and transparent. I am sure my hon. colleague will be very happy when the final results and the final proposal comes forward from all these consultations.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, about 11 months ago, the then leader of the opposition, now Prime Minister, wrote a letter, in very detailed terms, to the Council of the Federation and the premiers making the explicit commitment that in the revision of equalization, his government, if it were elected, would completely remove non-renewable natural resources from the equalization calculation. It was a clear, unequivocal, specific commitment.

Could the parliamentary secretary confirm that this promise will be explicitly in the government's package of measures?

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

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague that the Prime Minister is very cognizant of his comments in this area. If he is not, I am sure he will have lots of help from members opposite.

The member will just have to wait and see how these difficult issues are resolved. I know he appreciates that there are a number of competing interests. The Government of Canada will do its very best to balance all those interests in a way that is fair and equitable for all provinces.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today. First, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Wascana who, as finance minister, left the best economic environment inherited by a new government in the history of Canada. As well, we had declining debt to GDP, significant budget surpluses, low inflation and low unemployment. After 13 years of Liberal government, Canadians were extraordinarily well served with fiscal responsibility and economic innovation that gave the new minority Conservative government an opportunity to make some very positive and forward thinking decisions.

Unfortunately, those decisions did not come. Unfortunately, we have a neo-Conservative ideology that consumes the Conservative government and threatens both Canada's social progressivity and economic prosperity.

Look at what the government has done in just a few months. It cancelled the Kelowna accord, cut literacy programs, slashed $5 million from the Status of Women, slashed programs and funding for museums, killed the court challenges program, which enabled Canadians to defend their charter rights, and cut the GST, while raising income taxes for low income Canadians.

The Prime Minister refers to himself sometimes as an economist. He must be the only economist on the planet who would support cutting a consumption tax in order to raise income taxes. Every other country in the world is moving to reduce income taxes and in fact in some cases increasing consumption taxes.

This is bad economic and social policy to cut the GST and raise income taxes on low income Canadians. It is a move that has been condemned by the IMF and the OECD. Instead of the minority Conservative government engaging in meaningful discussion around long term tax reform focused on growth, productivity, prosperity and doing the right thing, it is offering Canadians a grab bag of tax trinkets that are designed to buy votes, not to build prosperity or fairness.

There is a startling lack of vision. The government cannot look beyond this week's polls. It is so focused on wedge politics and dividing Canadians that it is ignoring the opportunity to unite Canadians around shared national objectives for the future of building a world class sustainable economy.

Today I will like to talk about some of the types of thinking and ideas that the Government of Canada ought to be pursuing if we are serious about building that world-class sustainable economy that Canadians desire and deserve, ideas such as: reform Canada's tax and income support system to create a fairer, more competitive and greener Canadian economy; a renewed architecture for income security; help the working poor, which is one of the greatest social and economic challenges facing the country, with a working income tax benefit, which was introduced by the previous finance minister, the member for Wascana, but cut by the minority Conservative government; corporate investment tax reform; and continue to reduce the burden on investment in Canada and on corporate earnings.

Canada has the eighth highest taxes on investment out of 61 industrialized countries. The Liberal government had reduced that tax burden on investment. Much more can be done in innovative ways that actually create greater wealth for all Canadians.

The government should create long term market based economic opportunities for Canada's aboriginal peoples, building on the success of the urban aboriginal enterprise zone in Saskatoon. It should work with other western Canadian cities to offer that kind of tax advantage and enterprise zone opportunity to Canada's aboriginal people. At the same time, it should create long term economic growth and prosperity and help address the urban aboriginal challenge that Canada faces, particularly cities in western Canadian.

It should be harnessing multiculturalism and immigration as economic drivers. For a long time we have treated multiculturalism as a social policy. In fact, with globalization and with some of the fastest growing markets in the world being represented by China, India and Brazil, our multicultural communities represent natural bridges to some of the fastest growing economies in the world. We need to harness that entrepreneurial capacity of our multicultural communities to build those bridges and to strengthen that trade.

Instead of doing that in places like China, for example, where Canada has traditionally had a strong trading relationship while at the same time advancing human rights on the agenda with the Chinese government, the Conservative government has actually pursued a policy of isolationism against China. Instead of engaging China on the economy and engaging China on human rights, the government has actually undone a tradition of over 30 years, a tradition of engaging China and creating economic growth and prosperity for the Chinese people and for Canadians and at the same time advancing human rights there.

There is only one thing that Richard Nixon and Pierre Trudeau ever agreed on and that was the engagement of China. George Bush and our present Prime Minister agree on isolating China. I believe they are wrong. They are pursuing a policy that is dead wrong economically and is fundamentally flawed from the perspective of the advancement of human rights as well.

Putting competitiveness on the federal-provincial agenda, working with the provinces to advance the idea of a national securities regulator, eliminating interprovincial trade barriers, and working with the provinces on a shared services agenda are things the Conservative government should be working on. It should be building on the Services Canada model that enabled the federal government, under the Liberals, to work with provincial governments to reduce the cost of government, improve the quality of services for Canadians, and recognize that there is only one taxpayer.

The government must invest in and attract private sector investment to rural and small town Canada through smarter rural and regional development. It should offer investment tax credits for areas of higher unemployment and broadband access for all Canadians. It should be helping rural Canadians and Canadians engaged in the agricultural sector benefit from the green revolution. It should be making Canada a leader in clean energy and environmental technologies, which could be the fastest growing area of the 21st century economy.

The Conservative government must make Canada a global leader in the research, development, commercialization and export of clean energy and clean energy technologies as part of Canada's overall strategy of taking a leadership role and reshaping our education, training and innovation strategies.

I want to focus on that area today, that idea and the vision of Canada as a global leader in the area of clean energy and environmental technologies.

We need to forget the old notion that good environmental policy hurts the economy. Clean energy and environmental technologies are the greatest economic opportunity that Canada has in the 21st century.

I believe that politicians of all stripes can sometimes take the economy for granted during good economic times. That would be a huge mistake, because we would lose the opportunity we have to build on the successes of the last 13 years and to move forward on a strong base.

The fact is that there are storm clouds on the horizon. Our global competitiveness is slipping while other countries are pulling ahead. In fact, the countries that are pulling ahead of us, such as Finland, Sweden and Norway, are countries that have embraced green technologies and environmental technologies and have understood that greening an economy is not only good for the environment, it is good for business.

According to the latest World Economic Forum or Davos survey, Canada has actually dropped to number 16 in the world from number 13 last year in terms of our global competitiveness. These other countries that have embraced environmental technologies, that understand the linkage between good environmental policy and good economic policy, are leaping ahead.

At the same time, while our competitiveness is slipping, we are actually enjoying a very significant and high level of prosperity. Let us ask ourselves how we as a country are enjoying such a high standard of living while our competitiveness and relative productivity are slipping every year.

The fact is that we are gobbling up non-renewable natural resources as if we have put the oil and the gas under the ground. Our generation is propping up our standard of living by robbing from future generations of Canadians, all while we are destroying the environment.

The countries and the companies that embrace the environment as a core priority will prosper in the 21st century. The other ones will be left in the dust.

Global warming is a real threat to our planet and our country, but it is also creating major economic opportunities for Canada.

In the 21st century, the growing economies of China, India and Brazil will cause the worldwide demand for energy to skyrocket. Canada can take on the challenge of helping the world meet its energy needs while protecting the planet. Both human development and economic growth depend on achieving this dual objective.

Energy is Canada's clear global advantage. We can be the world leader in clean energy production, technology and export. What we need is a plan.

We need to work with the energy industry to put that plan together and we need to recognize that in fact working to meet our Kyoto targets can, with new thinking and innovation, be good for the economy. The plan that I am talking about today can be good for the environment and good for business.

It starts with the tar sands, where we need larger investments in basic research and development and commercialization of new technologies. We need to work with the oil companies and the petroleum companies in the tar sands to produce cleaner energy and to work with them to find new methods to bury the carbon under the ground instead of spewing it into the air.

Canada's energy sector is rolling in profits. It should be investing more than 1% of those profits in research and development. Putting a price on carbon and providing tax incentives for research and development can help transform Canada's energy sector from a research and development laggard to a leader. The result could be cleaner oil, cleaner gas, cleaner coal and less carbon being pumped into the air.

The tar sands are the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. At the same time, they are remarkably profitable, pouring profits into shareholders' pockets and money into federal and provincial social programs. We need to change extraction methods to do it better and to do it cleaner.

It is not enough to lay the responsibility for fighting global warming exclusively at the feet of the energy companies. We must give all Canadian enterprises generous tax relief and fast write-offs to compensate for the cost of environmentally friendly energy technology and materials.

Simply put, we have to stop subsidizing companies that pollute and we have to start helping companies that produce clean energy and consume less energy.

Canada has among the highest taxes in the world on investment and corporations. We need to focus our tax reductions on activities that reward companies for investing in new technologies to cut their energy use.

Smart money is going green. We need to make Canada a magnet for the smart money and talent of this exciting new sector.

In 2003, Goldman Sachs estimated that $400 billion of international institutional capital was earmarked for investments in environmental technologies in clean energy. It was $400 billion in 2003. Today, in 2006, according to Goldman Sachs, that number has grown to $3 trillion.

Many are comparing the potential impact on capital markets and on business in general internationally, comparing this opportunity that clean energy represents, to the Internet revolution. In fact, some estimate that it will actually create greater levels of economic opportunity than the Internet did.

The Internet did create remarkable economic opportunity, but let us remember that if the Internet did not exist we would still be getting up every morning, we would be going to work and we would still be living our lives. The Internet satisfies a desire, a desire to communicate information more rapidly and more efficiently, but it does not really satisfy a need.

Environmental technologies and clean energy address a real global need. They will not impact how we live our lives; they will in fact impact whether or not we will be able to live our lives on our planet. The economic opportunities created by environmental technologies I believe will dwarf those created by the Internet revolution.

As a conventional energy producer, Canada has a ticket to the best economic game in town. Our goal is clear. Canada can be and should be the world leader in the research, development, sale and export of clean energy and clean energy solutions, everything from wind, solar and biofuel to tidal and fuel cells, and yes, we should have an open and honest discussion about the potential of nuclear.

Personal taxes are high in Canada. Why does the government not consider focusing personal tax reduction on tax credits for Canadians who buy green, for green cars, green home renovations and green heating systems? Instead, the government cancelled the EnerGuide program, a program that was actually helping low income Canadians renovate their homes to save energy, to save money and to save the environment.

We could go further. CMHC could back eco-mortgages to support environmentally efficient design and renovation.

Governments need to do more to go green. That means buying green and building green. As minister of public works, I implemented a program of green procurement. We also initiated in our department the first office of the greening of government in the history of Canada. We were moving through green building design and procurement to green the overall operations of government.

The Department of Public Works buys $13 billion worth of goods and services a year. If it buys green, it actually has a huge impact on creating a market for green products and technologies within Canada, ultimately helping to bring down the prices of those products so that ordinary consumers can afford them.

The Department of Public Works manages 7 million square metres of office space across Canada. If we lease green office space, and if we design, build and renovate greener buildings, it has a huge impact on the environment and, once again, a huge impact on creating a market for environmental technologies.

When governments buy green, when citizens buy green, then companies produce green products. It can create something called green growth. Instead of a gold rush, it could be what I call a green rush.

The Stern report to the British government concluded that the price of inaction could be an economic cost as great as $7 trillion. That would be an economic cost greater than that of World Wars I and II and the Great Depression combined.

We cannot afford to do nothing. Climate change is a global crisis. The solution will take leadership from Canada, a country with a history of punching above our weight.

We have a tremendous opportunity as a country to act and to make a real difference, to engage the private sector, to engage citizens, and to engage Canada's energy sector. It is important that political parties put aside partisanship and work together to develop and implement the best ideas.

Parliamentarians who sat in this House in the 20th century worked very hard and looked ahead to help shape a legacy for the 21st century for this Parliament and successive governments, and left a Canada that is one of the most socially progressive societies anywhere in the world.

I believe that if we get to work as a Parliament, and if governments, including the Conservative government, wake up and recognize the importance of the environment and the opportunity represented by environmental technologies and clean energy, that the legacy that we work toward at the end of the 21st century can be a Canada that is a global leader in the area of environmental technologies and clean energy, a Canada that has risen to the challenge, and a Canada wherein Canadians are proud of the role that we have played in terms of helping to address the biggest challenge facing the planet in the 21st century.

I cannot think of another issue that would engage Quebeckers and all Canadians, particularly young Canadians, that would have a greater impact on national unity in terms of shared national objectives than the environment. This is a tremendous economic opportunity for Canada and a tremendous moral imperative for us to act and act now.

I have taken the few minutes I had today to talk about some ideas for the future. That is something that we as parliamentarians ought to be doing more of. I offer these ideas to a government that I fear is going to be unwilling because of its narrow neo-conservative ideological focus to accept them, but I would hope that perhaps in the last 20 minutes I have been able to offer some ideas that would make some sense to the government. If not, we will simply have to replace it in the next election and we will go forward with building a cleaner, greener, more prosperous and productive Canadian economy.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech given by the member for Kings—Hants. I have a simple question for the member. There seems to be a glaring hypocrisy here from the member opposite or a glaring flip-flop. When the member opposite was a Progressive Conservative and actually ran for the leadership of that party, he made statements in this House. He is going to say that party no longer exists, but he cannot escape one simple fact and I would like him to specifically address this.

He made statements on the record in this House, and I wish I had them here to quote into the record, that Kyoto was nothing but malarkey. Then, after his conversion to the Liberals, the member is now apparently convert and believes in Kyoto. The people watching at home and Canadians would be interested to hear how this member explains this blatant contradiction from being a complete opponent to Kyoto--