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

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

No, they do not, not according to the Constitution of this country. Not according to what is stated. It was the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women that helped Canadian women get their constitutional rights.

If the hon. member is telling me that everything can happen by itself, why was it that in 1982 the Government of Canada in order to get the charter of rights, the compromise with the provinces was that women's rights were written out? There were no women's rights in the Constitution when it was first tabled. Why was it that the women of this country had to march on Ottawa in order to get themselves recognized in the Constitution of this country? It is only with that kind of assistance and the charter challenge program that women will have the ability to continue to help themselves in this country. By stating that equality is there by virtue of its existence is not good enough.

We can say that women are strong people. One of the members was mentioning today at committee that women are strong and must I admit that women are strong. Of course they are strong. My mother was a very strong woman. She worked for long hours in a factory that had no standards whatsoever. She was paid a pittance of a salary and she raised four children on it. She was a strong woman, but she should not have had to put up with that kind of situation, that kind of unhealthy work environment.

The fact that women are strong does not mean they deserve to continue to be abused. There are rights in this country. It is an issue of human rights. It is not an issue of alms or charity.

I resent that we are talking in terms of all the women pitching in a dollar. They pay taxes. They should not have to pitch in a dollar. The government has an obligation. We collectively have an obligation to help each other.

There is no question that our philosophies are different. Our ideologies are different. We believe in a collective responsibility of looking after one another. The Conservatives do not.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to Bill C-28, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006. This bill is over 130 pages long.

In this bill, the budget that the Minister of Finance tabled last spring is divided into five broad areas. It addresses a number of issues and sets out tax measures affecting individuals.

This bill also proposes to extend tax benefits given to farming and fishing businesses; it deals with corporate taxes; it amends the tax rate for banking institutions; and it reduces the excise tax on volumes of beer under 75,000 hectolitres.

In the 20 minutes allotted to me to talk about Bill C-28 today, I would like to address the aspect relating to tax measures affecting individuals, but more specifically the 15.5% non-refundable tax credit for public transit that was announced in the budget. In order to be eligible for the credit, taxpayers must supply a receipt or proof of purchase of a long-term public transit pass.

I certainly do not intend in this speech to dispute the measure proposed by the government in the last budget; rather, I would like to demonstrate that this one measure alone, the 15.5% non-refundable tax credit, is insufficient to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact the government committed itself in its budget to presenting us with a climate change plan, which we are still waiting for. The only environmental measure that the government is proposing is the non-refundable tax credit for public transit.

We believe, however, that this is not sufficient to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to meet Canada’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 6% from 1990 levels during the period between 2008 and 2012.

Why is it not sufficient? Because a 15.5% non-refundable tax credit is not a sufficient incentive for people to use public transit. If the government genuinely wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote public transit, it will have to ensure that this measure is accompanied by adequate funding for public transit infrastructures, particularly in municipalities.

In fact it bothers me that the government is presenting this measure to us today, because the Department of Finance submitted a report to its minister showing that this measure alone would be ineffective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions even before he tabled this budget.

The minister had available to him a report showing that this measure alone would lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of only 0.01%, when Canada has to reduce those emissions by 300 million tonnes. Plainly this measure alone will lead to a reduction of only 13,000 tonnes in Canada.

The government, which sometimes says it believes in climate change and sometimes says it does not, is presenting us today with this tax credit that is the only environmental measure it proposed. Obviously that measure alone will contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by only 0.01%.

This is not enough. We have a government that is refusing to honour the commitments Canada made in the fight against climate change and that, in its budget, is promising to table a climate change plan in the future. Where are we at today? We have a government that is refusing to honour the commitments Canada made in Kyoto, that had promised in the budget to table a climate change plan and that said it would use tax measures in the fight against climate change. What do we have now? A government that is not honouring its international commitments, that has not tabled a climate change plan and that is tabling tax measures and environmental measures that will enable us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a mere 0.01%.

How can the minister tell us today that this one measure will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions? According to his own department, the finance department, this measure will increase transit ridership in Canada by only 2.5% to 3.3%, even though this government feels that we must fight climate change.

The minister is well aware that there were at least five options on the table, and he chose the worst one, the one least effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Department of Finance and the report that department officials submitted to the minister before the budget was tabled, the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will be minimal. The government and the department had clearly indicated that this measure would not be effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and that, in addition, it was extremely costly. Officials estimated that it would cost $200 million annually to implement such a measure. What does that represent in terms of the cost of every tonne of greenhouse gas emissions that is eliminated? It represents $2,000.

So when the government tells us that we cannot achieve the Kyoto protocol targets and that it would cost a huge amount to do so, the government should look at the measure it has introduced. According to its own officials, this measure will cost the department $200 million a year, or $2,000 for every tonne of greenhouse gas emissions that is eliminated.

Far be it from me to criticize this measure, as I said earlier. I think that this measure can be effective only if the government decides to make the financial means available to the provinces to strengthen and improve the public transit network.

The government probably sees what I am getting at. The Government of Quebec wants $325 million to fund its plan to fight climate change. It clearly showed its hand to the government in Ottawa by saying it would use Ottawa's $325 million to strengthen its transportation network. That is the missing link that would make the measure announced in the budget—the 15.5% non-refundable tax credit for individuals who purchase public transit passes—really effective for Quebec.

I would like to quote an environmental economics professor at the Université de Sherbrooke, Alain Webster. He said, and I quote:

Ottawa's measure rewards people who are already doing the right things.

There is no clear evidence that the 15.5% credit will convince a lot of people to switch from cars to buses. On its own, such a measure is deceptive and totally inadequate.

This measure will not boost ridership. Yes, public transit ridership in Canada will increase, but according to the Department of Finance's own analyses, ridership will increase only from 2.5% to 3.3%. So what should we do? This is the only measure the government announced in its last budget to fight climate change.

What would we have liked to have seen? We would have liked the government to confirm Canada's support for Kyoto by committing to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.

We would also have liked the government to indicate that Ottawa intends to transfer to Quebec the $328 million committed by the federal government. That commitment was made not only by the previous government but also by the new government. We have some evidence of that. It has been confirmed not only by Bloc members but also by the Government of Quebec which, today, as part of a partnership, stated that it wants the Kyoto protocol commitments to be met in their entirety. Several individuals involved reacted by estimating that it would also take at least, and I insist on that, at least $328 million in order to ensure that Quebec reaches its targets.

We should point out that the government decided to continue with plans laid out by previous governments to give tax incentives of about $250 million to the Canadian oil industry—even though, since 1970, this industry has received more than $66 billion. That is quite a contrast with federal investments in renewable energy.

Why should we continue to fund the oil industry when we have a government, the Government of Quebec, that has submitted an action plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to respect the Kyoto protocol, and which is asking Ottawa for $328 million, or 20% of the action plan on climate change. Something does not add up.

What we believe is that if the government wants this measure to be effective, it must be accompanied by concrete agreements with the provinces. Concrete agreements that can result in improvements to infrastructure.

Some have said, and I will again quote an individual involved, “Such a measure was evaluated”. These are quotes and comments from federal public servants in the Department of Finance who made a recommendation to the minister regarding the measure included in the budget and who stated that such a measure had been evaluated. It could be implemented without fiscal implications.

What officials are saying is that we cannot consider this measure alone. Why did the government not announce a tax credit for more fuel efficient vehicles when it tabled the budget? Such a measure would have been more effective. According to the Department of Finance figures, this type of tax incentive for citizens who decide to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles would have resulted in a 0.3 million tonne reduction in greenhouse gases in 2010 and a 1 million tonne reduction in 2020.

We have always believed in this House that, in terms of fighting climate change, we must use both tools at our disposal: legislation and regulations, which must play in important role. Furthermore, upon analysis of the approach introduced by the government last week, what is it? It is an approach that aims only to go back to consultation with the provinces and discussion with industry. It is no more and no less than an approach in three phases, which might—and I stress might—lead to regulations in 2010.

I have been a member of this House since 1997 and I remember very well the previous government's commitments. In 2000, after ratifying and signing the Kyoto protocol, that government began extensive consultations with the provinces and with industry in order to implement the Kyoto protocol in Canada.

The government before us today has decided to throw away nearly six years of negotiations with the industrial sectors and begin all over again, although negotiations had already been undertaken by the Department of Natural Resources, among others.

I remember very well the Assistant Deputy Minister, Howard Brown, who had begun negotiations with the industrial sectors and was making progress in those negotiations. Of course, in certain cases, they led to only voluntary agreements. We would have liked to see stricter regulations, but this government decided not to take into account the negotiations with the various industrial sectors and to start all over again.

Consider, for instance, the automotive industry. It signed a voluntary agreement with the federal government in which it promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by five megatonnes within the automotive sector. What have we learned and what do we know about the viewpoint of the government sitting opposite, regarding that agreement? We are told that they are going to let that voluntary agreement run until 2010 and we will harmonize our automobile manufacturing standards with those of the United States, more particularly with the Environmental Protection Agency. While we were hoping that the government would harmonize our automobile manufacturing standards with more rigorous, model standards, such as those adopted by the state of California, our government decided to let the industry continue on its course, although, incidentally, that industry has yet to present any reports on how it is respecting that voluntary agreement.

I would say that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development informs and guides us on the evaluation of this agreement. She says there is no independent mechanism—independent being the operative word—to ensure that the automobile industry will respect its commitments on the five megatonne reduction in the voluntary agreement. There is no independent compliance mechanism and no guarantee that the industry will respect its commitments. By the way, the industry can withdraw from this agreement at any time.

In closing, this measure could be interesting provided that it comes with a significant transfer, for Quebec in particular, of $328 million to allow us to consolidate and broaden our public transportation network.

Alone, this measure will not result in significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; its impact is small. Furthermore, the government had five other options and it chose the least effective one as far as greenhouse gas emissions are concerned.

We hope the government now understands that Quebec wants this $328 million to allow us to meet our commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the Kyoto protocol.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I found the comments of the member across the way thought-invoking. Most of what he shared I found dishonest or misleading. He started by speaking about waiting for the plan and saying that we do not have a plan.

That is not true. Last Thursday, a week today, seven days ago--and I believe he was in the House--Bill C-30 was tabled. Actually, if he would take the time to read the Order Paper and Notice Paper, he would see that Bill C-30 is on page 22. I encourage him to look at that. The fact is that I encourage him to read the bill, our clean air act.

He talked about the transit tax credit and said it may not work. That is his premise: that it may not work. In reality, the Bloc and the Liberals have joined together to obstruct Bill C-30, the clean air act. This is an act that will move--

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

It's awful. It's a mess.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

We hear more rhetoric from the other side.

The clean air act will address pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, while the former Liberal plan, after 13 years, did nothing. We will deal with both pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. One in 12 Canadians dies from pollution related illness.

It will also deal with greenhouse gases in Canada and globally. The Liberal plan is what the member across the way is supporting in his obstruction of our bill, but in the Conservative plan, greenhouse gases are dealt with both in Canada and globally. As well, we are moving from a voluntary plan, which is the old plan that did not work, and going to mandatory. We have notice of regulations of what we have introduced. They are gazetted. This deals with every sector and industry in Canada. The member mentioned the auto sector. We will be dealing with that in part of our clean air plan.

Why is he obstructing the clean air act? That is my question for the member. He, his party and the Liberals have been on notice that they are going to oppose that bill before they have even read it. Canadians want to know why.

On Sunday night I was on a panel. The vast majority of Canadians who phoned in said that the clean air act, of which the member is apparently not aware, has to go to committee. All members are being encouraged to send it to committee for good debate. That is a good idea, but what we have seen here is obstruction.

A tree is known by its fruit. An apple tree has apples. Why is that member not supporting environmental issues? Why does he not support cleaning up the environment? Why is he against the environment? Why does he not support the clean air act going to committee where it needs to go?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the member that we are not debating the clean air act, but rather Bill C-28. I can tell him, however, why we oppose the clean air bill. We oppose it precisely because this government has refused to listen to the arguments put forward by the opposition, a majority of which, last spring, demanded in this House that the government table a climate change plan incorporating the Kyoto objectives.

We have in front of us a parliamentary secretary who is trying to shift onto the opposition the blame for an approach that Canadians and Quebeckers do not subscribe to. The reality is that we would not have to oppose the clean air bill, had the government stood behind the motion passed by Parliament, voted by a majority in this House. The reality is that the government is the one that decided to be at odds with Parliament. I can make a prediction about that: the Conservatives will have a high price to pay come the next election.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to follow up on what the member just said.

The particular act he is talking about might change the definition of what the federal government is allowed to do. It is a step backward. We will continue discussions for another four years which have already been completed, another step backward, while our children, for the next four years, are hurt when they could have had the programs in place that were cut. The government is going to set targets when they are 100 years old. What about our children? Maybe our grandchildren will benefit.

Does the member not think that it would have been better to at least have maintained the status quo, which was a plan that worked with all sorts of renewable energies, wind, solar, carbon sequestration and clean coal. It worked with the final emitters. It had worked for years to come up with a plan that would have been implemented soon. It was giving money to the provinces and the territories. He could talk about the money that was reneged to Quebec that could have been going into effect. The one-tonne challenge was cutting thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gases and the voluntary auto agreement is one of the best in the world.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that it would have been desirable for the government to put a moratorium on existing programs. We had the EnerGuide program, which people wanted and which worked. It provided an opportunity to work together in cooperation with the provinces. In Quebec, for example, the government worked together with the Agence de l'efficacité énergétique and community groups like Équiterre. Why did the government decide to cut funding for a program designed to promote energy efficiency? Why did the Canada Wind Energy Association say today, during its conference in Winnipeg, that the government is blocking all wind energy projects?

This goes to show that the government has not only decided not to respect the objectives set out in the Kyoto protocol, but also decided to cut effective programs aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As if not believing in climate change was not enough, this government is also taking away every tool available to the provinces and community groups to honour the commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member now admits that there is the clean air act. He does admit that his party will not be supporting it and one of his reasons was that he accuses the government of not respecting Kyoto.

We do respect Kyoto and we are very much a part of Kyoto. What we have done is we have been honest with Canadians. After 13 years of Liberal mismanagement and lack of leadership, which is what the environment commissioner said, we did not meet those targets. There were $6 billion worth of announcements and $1.6 billion spent and yet emissions went up dramatically. The member across the way is defending that. He is locked in step with the Liberals who are saying that we do not respect Kyoto, which is not true.

The fact is that next month, our Minister of the Environment will be going to Kenya and she has invited Minister Béchard from Quebec to accompany her. We are involved with AP6 and G-8 plus 5. We are looking at ways of dealing with greenhouse gas emissions.

A person can say that he supports the environment but, as I said before, a tree is known by its fruit. People cannot say that they support the environment and yet oppose the government's plan to clean it up, which is a good plan.

Why will the member not permit the clean air act to go to committee, as Canadians want it to? Why is he opposing and obstructing the government's plan to clean up?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government's big announcement today on climate change is that it has decided to invite Quebec's environment minister to a conference on climate change in Nairobi. That is ridiculous. While the Government of Quebec and 30 or so groups in Quebec are asking that the Kyoto protocol be respected and that the $328 million necessary to implement the plan be made available, the parliamentary secretary announced that the minister was inviting Mr. Béchard to an international conference.

I can tell the parliamentary secretary that we do not need an invitation from Ottawa to attend an international conference on climate change. We are quite capable of finding our own way there. What we want is not an invitation to an international conference, but the $328 million that would allow us to implement our action plan on climate change.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my speech by putting this budget we are debating today into context.

Much to everyone's astonishment, in the throne speech this year it contained only five items. It seemed like the Governor General had only begun to read it and before we knew it she rose and left. Everyone asked where the throne speech was. A quarter of a million employees work in the federal government and yet the Conservatives could only come up with five new things it felt needed to be done. We have over 40 federal agencies and departments. Did the government think 35 of them had no problems or no priorities? I am sure each of those organizations had a strategic plan. I am sure they did not say that nothing needed to be done. It was shocking. I was a bit disappointed by the fact that the Conservatives were not taken to task at the time. The previous Liberal plan had 77 priorities, and the Conservatives only had 5. Ninety-five per cent of Canada was left out of the budget.

Let me discuss wait times, which are now getting worse. A journalist caught the Prime Minister in a speech trying to put another priority in rather than his priority of wait times. He did not get away with it. The Prime Minister tried to say that it was not one of his government's five priorities because he realized he could not accomplish his goals with respect to wait times.

He said that Canada's place in the world would be his fifth priority but in the recent budget cuts he cut Canada's place in the world. He cut money to foreign embassies and he cut the student exchange program. Even the fifth priority that he added has now been downgraded.

I cannot remember exactly what the five priorities were. One might have been the GST cut. That was roundly criticized by all the major economists and analysts in Canada. They felt it would be more beneficial, more productive and more effective to give an income tax cut to Canadians.

One of the other priorities might have been defence. How many Canadians feel safer today than they did at the time that statement came out? A promise was made to provide three icebreakers for the north. Whether or not they believe in icebreakers, they should not have convinced northerners to vote for them and then break their promise and not go ahead with it. If we had increased our defence abilities, then we would be continuing Canada's place in the world in our traditional peacekeeping duties.

What have we done with this increased defence given the emerging situations in the world? Have we done anything in the Congo, in Zimbabwe, in Darfur or in Somalia? There is certainly nothing to show for that priority.

The government wants to get hard on crime. As was mentioned today in question period, we announced a smart crime proposal and plan. The government would not even expedite certain crime bills that we offered today.

However, the government's first major bill, Bill C-9, would not have made Canada much safer as witnesses stated before committee. Those witnesses convinced all parliamentarians except Conservative members that Canadians would be less safe. Major modifications had to be made to the bill to make Canada safer. For example, a committee member was told by a witness at the committee that prisoners had 47 days on average for treatment and rehabilitation in order to make them safe for society. Instead, with home arrest and the programs that go with that, they would have received 700 days of treatment. The 47 days would not make society safer because these offenders would have less chance of being rehabilitated or they would get a summary conviction or probation. That was a failure.

What is more important than its failure on the five priorities is that the government missed 95% of Canada in both the budget and throne speech. There was nothing for the most vulnerable, women, the poor and the elderly.

If governments have problems with their budgets it is usually that they cannot or do not implement them and they do not set aside money for all the things in the throne speech. However, I cannot say that the present government had that problem because if there is nothing in a throne speech it is pretty easy to fund it.

Let us look at the budget that we are talking about today. I am a positive person by nature but the government has made it very hard for me to be true to myself during the past year but I will mention some good things in the part of the budget addressed by Bill C-28.

In particular, there are two items in the budget that were former Liberal proposals. We are very happy to see the tax reduction on dividends and the $500,000 in capital gains being transferred to fishers.

Another thing that was good for my riding and something on which I lobbied for a long time was the excise tax reduction for brewers. We have a great micro brewery in Yukon that makes Yukon Gold and Arctic Red and it will certainly appreciate that particular cut.

I do not have any objections to other tax cuts for Canadians and businesses other than the fact that they were not applied equally. When the government has lots of money and it is in the best fiscal position in the history of surpluses with room to manoeuvre, why would it not extend the tax cuts equally to the most vulnerable?

The one example of that is the new textbook tax credit, which works out to $77. I talked to our college bookstore and I was told that a student could barely buy one book with that money. The Liberals were offering $3,000 toward the first year and $3,000 toward the last year of tuition, and for poor students that amount was for every year. What is the alternative choice? It is $77. The government really cannot be serious.

I will not go into the transit pass deduction except to say, as the member from the Bloc just pointed out, that all the experts in the government, the environment officials and the public servants, had respectfully recommended to the government that there were far more effective ways. They said that this deduction would primarily be a subsidy to people who were already using transit. There could have been all sorts of ways to get far more reductions in greenhouse gases and pollution than offering the credit.

Let us talk about the doubling of the pension income credit. It is great. I do not have an objection with that but when I asked the government the question earlier today about the seniors who do not get that income tax credit and who do not have the pension income to get the credit, there was no answer. In fact, for those seniors the government has increased income taxes. Why would it pick on seniors and increase their taxes from 12% to 12.5% unless they are very wealthy? Why would it reduce the basic exemption for everyone which means an increase in taxes for all Canadians?

I would not have a problem with the tax decreases had they been applied equally for everyone. Wealthy Canadians, by and large, are very generous. They donate to many social causes and do a lot of good work. They are not the type of people who would have asked for tax cuts and then said that we should not give it to the poorest in society, not give it to the single mother trying to feed her family and not increase her tax from 12% to 12.5% or reduce her basic exemption.

There would have been no problem in just giving everyone a tax cut. There is enough room in the budget to do that. The government has heard about it incessantly, especially because there were no items in the budget for those vulnerable groups as I outlined at the beginning of my speech.

If the member wants to put this in the context of the previous government, in the Liberal government's throne speeches and budgets there were all sorts of programs for aboriginal people, the disabled and students, and programs in regard to homelessness, which we were talking about today.

I will take the President of the Treasury Board at his word when he says the government will not cut the SCPI program. SCPI is a tremendous program that is very well used in my riding. There have been all sorts of successful projects. My party will fight to the end to make sure the program is maintained. I am delighted that the President of the Treasury Board said he would maintain that very important program. It is one of the many initiatives of the former government.

In foreign trade, we have seen the emerging economies of China, India and Brazil and an increased foreign presence in the world for Canada. In fact, in regard to the “responsibility to protect”, a year ago September I was very proud of the United Nations when Canada got that through. Yet now we have a government that recently cut the foreign presence in Canada.

Earlier in the House members talked about climate change and the initiatives the Liberals put in place. I will grant one thing to everyone: we were terrible about explaining what we had done. It was disastrous, because Canadians did not know about all the initiatives taken by the former government, although there is always more to be done.

Canadians did not know about our initiatives related to renewable energies, reducing fossil fuels, wind and solar energy, clean coal, carbon sequestration, ethanol and, as the Bloc member mentioned, of course there was our tremendous EnerGuide program. Thousands of Canadians across this country were using the EnerGuide program to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases. The Conservative government has allowed the program to expire.

And what did we get from the government? We got a plan that could reduce the legal authority of Canada to prevent pollution. The plan asks for four more years of talk, but all that talking has been done for the last four years. The plan was put in place. This is a real insult to the excellent public servants of Canada, who did that talking for the last four years and came up with plans. Some of those experts in the biocap areas that we were supporting are world renowned. I do not think the government should be challenging them and telling them to go back and talk for another four years while our children continue to breathe smog.

In the north, where we find the most devastating impact of greenhouse gas, where the species are changing and the infrastructure is crumbling, where traditional lives are affected so dramatically, are we just going to talk for another four years? In fact, the government will put in targets that will be accomplished when I am 100 years old. I am not really worried about that, but what about our children today?

The programs initiated by the Liberal government were not perfect and may not have been enough, but certainly there were some kicking in that would have been tremendous. The deal the Liberal government had with the auto companies is one of the best in the world, unlike the government's plan. We cannot agree with the Conservatives. Because our deal was voluntary and because the auto industry complied with all the other voluntary initiatives, of course there would be a lot more buy-in and a lot more enthusiasm. That is a lot more effective than trying to force it, as the opposition parties are suggesting.

Of course in the Liberal budgets there were items for the north. For the north, what is in these budgets that the Liberal government has not already announced? As for the northern strategy money for the north, there is nothing new and nothing at all for my area of the country and, as northern critic, I would say there is nothing new for the other parts of the country, except of course the promise on the icebreakers that was reneged on.

The forestry industry is suffering from the softwood lumber deal, on which it is going to lose a billion dollars . We had a plan to help the communities, a plan worth close to a billion dollars, I believe, or at least over half a billion. We had a plan to help the communities and the workers. None of that was in this particular budget.

Of course all the infrastructure programs from the past government were new additions and were constantly increased in size.

There was also the new horizons program for seniors, which was well used in my area. And what about the pension increases?

In spite of all this, the Liberal government still had the largest tax break in Canadian history to that time, and we had two tremendous national deals. One was a deal on equalization, with tremendous increases for the provinces and territories of this country. Another was on health care, with huge increases for that by the last two prime ministers.

To get all the provinces and territories to sign on to those agreements and the early childhood agreement is an historic accomplishment. Everyone knows what it is like to try to get the federal government and 11 provinces and territories to agree. These deals were a tremendous accomplishment in those times.

How does that compare to the five items in the last throne speech that were funded in a budget? Even they were not successful.

Let us look at the historic Kelowna agreement. Since Confederation, trying to increase the quality of life of one segment of the Canadian population so it is at least equal to that of the rest of Canadians has been a sore spot in Canada. It can only be done with them, thinking of the solutions, being part of the solutions and in agreement with the solutions, and with the provinces.

It was a historic agreement. It is unimaginable that it even happened. The premiers, the first nations leaders and the federal government got together and came up with a plan,and with the largest amount of money in history for aboriginal people, but more important was the buy-in, which was almost impossible. Where are all these funds in the budget we are debating? Gone. Gone for something else and I am not sure what.

As I said, I was a bit disappointed that these points did not get wider condemnation earlier on as these two things came out, but perhaps people were giving the new government the benefit of the doubt. However, I think the government showed its true colours a couple of weeks ago with the cuts, the cuts that have resounded across the country and have groups up in arms.

We have had two emergency debates on the cuts. In each debate I did not have time to finish reading the input just from my riding, 1/1000th of Canada, and the farthest away from Ottawa, where people would not hear about their complaints. People were surprised, shocked and disappointed that on the day a $13 billion surplus was announced, $1 billion for the most vulnerable in society was be cut.

They were surprised that the court challenges program was cut. It has been used many times to ensure the integrity of our laws so they match our Constitution. As we are a constitutional government, what parliamentarian would not want that integrity for our country?

There was also the cut to the Law Commission, which has done excellent work, also in the area of the law. Parliamentarians are law makers. What parliamentarian would not want outside expertise in doing projects such as the one that was done on historical aboriginal law?I believe first nations people in my riding were part of that.

What about tourism? Maybe I have to speak louder than everyone else because I have the one riding in a province or territory where tourism is the biggest private sector employer. Tourism helps Canadians all across the country. How could the government cut marketing money from the Canadian Tourism Commission, especially when a province like Queensland in Australia probably already spends more than the entire country of Canada spends? Why would marketing money be cut when we need to sell Canada to the world in an ever more difficult time for tourism because of high gas prices and terrorism, et cetera? Not only did the government cut marketing, it cut the GST rebate, which makes it about 6% more difficult for tour operators to entice conventions to come to Canada.

Why would the government cut summer students? The tourism industry and museums use summer students. The museums in this country, which are so poorly funded, were apoplectic with all the cuts, including the summer students they lost, the heritage building program they lost, and the huge cut to MAP, the museum assistance program, one of their few programs.

I am almost out of time so in one minute I will briefly mention the other cuts. I was going to talk about the cuts to the Status of Women budget, cuts to volunteers, for goodness' sake, and cuts to youth employment and youth strategy. Why would funds be cut for youth? Why would there be cuts to CMHC? Why would there be cuts for aboriginal people on the aboriginal smoking strategy?

The very worst of all, which caused an outcry all across the country, is the cut to literacy. One constituent wrote to me and said he probably would be dead without literacy money. I read the letter for the House of Commons last time I spoke.

This is not a direction that we can go in. This is not the direction that Canadians believe in. This is not the kind of Canada that we want to support.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Before I entertain questions and comments, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Ahuntsic, Status of Women.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Burnaby-Douglas.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today in the debate on Bill C-28, the budget implementation act, which deals with some of the tax measures that are necessary to implement the government's budget.

I want to begin by saying that when it comes to budgeting I want to outline the NDP's strong commitment to balanced budgeting. That is a very important commitment in this corner of the House. It is a commitment that we are very proud of on that issue. It is very important in these days to have that kind of responsible approach to the finances of the nation and the provinces and territories. I want to emphasize that the NDP has a very strong record in that area.

Often we get comments from other corners of the House on this issue, but the reality is found in a federal government study, a Department of Finance study. It is not an NDP study and is not done by some organization that might be sympathetic to the NDP. It is a federal government Department of Finance study from September 2006 that looks at the records of various provincial, territorial and federal governments between 1984 and 2006. It shows that 49% of the time the NDP had balanced budgets, 39% of the time Conservative governments had balanced budgets, and only 23% of the time did Liberal governments have balanced budgets.

I want to emphasize that record of the NDP and that NDP commitment to financial responsibility from this corner of the House. I also want to say that we believe in paying down the debt. We know that is a terrible burden on the country right now. The interest payments are huge and it is a burden for future generations in Canada. Therefore, we also have a commitment to responsible management of our finances and to paying down Canada's debt, a debt that was run up by previous Conservative and Liberal governments, I might add, not by NDP federal governments, at least not federal governments yet. We are going to have that chance someday and we are going to do it responsibly, but we do believe in paying down the debt as well.

I wanted to establish that context about our basic commitments on financial and budgetary matters because I think it is very important and informs the criticisms that we make of both this government and the previous Liberal government as well.

I want to talk about the huge budget surpluses that we have seen in recent years, absolutely huge budget surpluses, and surprise budget surpluses, or at least governments pretend they are surprises.

The Liberals did it and now the Conservatives have done it with massive billion dollar budget surpluses that were not planned for. They crop up and suddenly there is a big announcement and everyone in those corners of the House seems to celebrate the fact that they were way off budget by billions and billions of dollars and that there is a huge surplus of money that the government took in over what it spent. It is a little mind boggling that the government can be that far off in its budgeting, that far off in the process of trying to responsibly manage the government, and a little mind boggling that the government sees it as a reason for celebration.

Just weeks ago, we saw the current Conservative government announce a $13.2 billion budget surplus, another surprise. Here we have $13.2 billion that we did not expect to have and what did the government do? It put it all toward the debt. It ignored all of the other programming issues. The government ignored the social deficit that occurs in Canada every single day and put it all into reducing the debt. Frankly, on the same day, it announced budget cuts of a billion dollars to other federal government programs.

It is amazing that we can have this sort of surprise occasion of a massive surplus of $13.2 billion. How can that be part of a responsible budgeting process on the part of any government to be out by that much and to not allow that amount of money to figure in the planning process of the government when it is looking at the programs that are necessary for Canada and the operations of government? To be out by that much I think is a very serious problem.

It did not stop with that $13.2 billion announcement. Just yesterday we heard that in this fiscal year the government is already way beyond its budget projections in terms of what the surplus would be. The forecast was for a $3.6 billion surplus and already in the first five or six months of this fiscal year it is up to $6.7 billion. It looks like we are on our way to another surprise $13 billion budget surplus again this year.

It boggles the mind that governments could constantly be so off in their planning and that this amount of money can fall outside of any appropriate planning process around the spending of the government. It is irresponsible, frankly, and it is not like other organizations do not get it right. Other organizations in Canada estimated the budget surplus far more accurately than the Liberal and Conservatives governments did.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the alternative budget people, have been on target with the expected budget surpluses. If those folks can do it, I have a feeling the government can do it too. When the Conservatives were in opposition, the always accused the Liberals of lowballing the surplus projections so they could have these surprise announcements and celebrate how well they were doing in managing the financing. It seems like the shoe is on the other foot now. We still have the same problem of this being such an inaccurate process in government.

It has real implications. A couple of weeks ago, when the Conservatives announced the $13.2 billion surplus, the very same day, which the juxtaposition of the two I find troubling, they announced cutbacks of $1 billion in many programs. They cut student employment programs, literacy programs, the Status of Women and women's equality programs, the court challenges program, which allowed ordinary Canadians to take the government to court on particular human rights and charter issues. They cut the Law Commission of Canada. They cut out money to prepare a new Citizenship Act. At the same time they are talking about a review of certain citizenship issues. They cut money to museums. They cut the aboriginal non-smoking program. They cut money to volunteer programs, all incomprehensible in their own way.

These programs are very important because people in my riding of Burnaby—Douglas benefit greatly and depend on them in many ways. At the same time we have this huge surplus, these kinds of cuts are being made, which only serve to increase the social deficit in Canada and the programming needs of Canadians.

For instance, Conservatives cut student employment in my riding. It is a very serious issue. The summer career placement program has been a key component of summer employment prospects for university and high school students in my riding. These folks depend on the summer career placement program for excellent jobs in areas related to their chosen career path, and many agencies in Burnaby have provided that.

When the Minister of Human Resources was asked about that cut, she said that too many big corporations were benefiting from the wage subsidy that this program offered. In Burnaby—Douglas that could not be further from the truth as 86% of the projects approved last year were projects in the non-profit sector and the educational sector. Almost every one of the others were in small or medium sized business. It was not big corporations that were benefiting from subsidies, at least in Burnaby—Douglas. I know that is true of many other ridings across the country. This money was going to community agencies to do community programming. The number of day camps for children that will be affected by this cut is significant. It is going to mean that there are significantly fewer programs for children in Burnaby this coming summer if this cut is maintained. We are working hard to see it reversed.

The whole community economic development sector is dramatically affected. An organization like the Heights Merchants Association, which does important economic development work in Burnaby—Douglas, has always benefited in recent years from the summer career placement program. Its work is going to be dramatically affected by the loss and the cuts to this program.

Just one example on that long list of issues in the $1 billion cuts announced by the government is crucial to so many ridings, and to my riding in particular, to young people and to community programing. The cuts to museums and the court challenges program also affect Burnaby—Douglas.

How many people in Canada have depended on the court challenges program to allow them to assert their human rights and charter rights in Canada? We have seen it in language rights and in minority rights. It is important to the gay and lesbian community.

In fact, almost the very day of the announcement of these cuts, an important case was brought by the son of a former Canadian serviceman in World War II and a British war bride. A man in Victoria, named Joe Taylor, had won his case to assert his Canadian citizenship, which had been denied for various bureaucratic and other reasons over the years. He is a Canadian citizen, I firmly believe that. He won his case in federal court. Sadly, the government has chosen to appeal that. I encourage the government not to that because it is a very important decision and has great meaning for Canadian citizens like Mr. Taylor who want nothing more than to fully participate in Canada as a full citizen.

However, Mr. Taylor now will likely be unable to pursue his case, one that he has put significant resources of his own into, I think $40,000 now and counting, of having his Canadian citizenship recognized because he does not have the financial resources to go up against the government one more time. The court challenges program offered him real hope that this would be possible.

To have that option snatched away from him, right when he had this important victory, to have to face the appeal and then to have the potential funding source for pursuing the case is hugely disappointing to him and I think to all of us who care about people. In our belief, they are fully Canadian citizens, yet they still have to fight the government for that. The court challenges program offered them that opportunity. Seeing the demise of that program is significant. It is a real dark day for human rights in Canada to see that go down the drain.

It also mentioned earlier the money that was allocated to develop a new citizenship act, something we have recognized in this place for many years now as necessary. The current Citizenship Act dates from 1977 and there are some serious problems with it.

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration held hearings in 14 cities across the country last year. It heard about many of those problems. The former government tried to amend or introduce a new citizenship act three times over the past number of years, each time unsuccessfully. It never managed to get it through, often I think because the government did not give it priority on its parliamentary agenda. It is just an indication that it was very important to address these issues around citizenship.

Then this summer we had a situation where many people questioned the loyalty of dual citizens when we had the crisis in Lebanon. The war broke out in Lebanon and a lot of Canadian citizens needed our help to flee the violence and the death of that war. In fact Canadians did die in that situation. There was an appropriate response from the government to evacuate those Canadians, but it raised questions about the loyalty of dual citizens, and I think inappropriately. The government announced it would be doing a study of dual citizenship. Now I wonder how serious it is about making any change in the area of citizenship when it has cut the money that would have allowed the development of new legislation around citizenship.

It goes on. The juxtaposition of the $1 billion in cuts on the same day that a $13 billion surplus was announced, $13 billion that went in its entirety to debt reduction, is a very serious thing.

Generally there are all kinds of social issues that need to be addressed in Canada and addressed appropriately with the assistance of the federal government. Homelessness and affordable housing are incredibly serious issues in many communities, practically every community across the country. There is still nothing. There is no federal government programming around affordable housing.

We have heard that there are possible serious cuts coming down the pipe to the SCPI program, which helped many initiatives around homelessness. From over $130 million in the projections in the government's own estimates are down to $2 million in the coming two planning years. That is just a huge cut when there is such an incredible need on that score in so many communities.

We have seen the need to do other anti-poverty measures across the country. We see the crisis in post-secondary education where so many students cannot afford to get an education. Those who do get into university run up huge debts now in order to graduate. There is a crisis in post-secondary education. It is upsetting all of the progress that was made in making post-secondary education more acceptable. It is all going down the drain with the rising cost of post-secondary education, and that is a place that could certainly use some attention to drive down the cost of tuition.

We have seen the infrastructure deficit in Canada. So much of our infrastructure in communities is crumbling, and that is a serious problem. Surely, if we know we will be in a surplus position, if we only forecasted that accurately and with some integrity, we might be able to develop programs that would address some of these program issues and social deficits that exist across Canada. We might be able to ensure progress on child poverty. We might be able to ensure seniors had the kind of long term care and pharmacare that they so desperately need. We might be able to ensure our veterans had the kinds of programs that would support them appropriately. When we ignore, underestimate or lowball the surplus figures, we do not do the kind of planning and program development that we should and we do not take our responsibilities to Canadians seriously in that sense.

It is kind of like winning a lottery. These announcements about the budget surplus are almost like a lottery announcement. All of a sudden the winner is flush with cash. Sometimes when we win the big lottery prize, we do not spend it on things that it might be best spent on. We might buy the flashy car or the big house, but in the long run they might not have been the most appropriate places to spend our money.

It is kind of like that when we announce these big budget surpluses, the surprise surplus. The Liberals would often announce a program, but from where did that come? Through which process did it arrive when it was a last minute response to a so-called surprise budgetary surplus? There could be a much better planning process around all of that. We would hope the Conservative government would undertake a commitment to ensuring we do not have these continued so-called surprises.

I want to address a couple of specific issues in the legislation. I know the bill includes a tax credit for public transit passes. On the face of it, that is an important thing to do. We want to encourage people to use public transit. I am encouraged that some of the money the NDP managed to get in the last Parliament, under Bill C-48 for public transit, will go to support the building of new public transit infrastructure in Canada. That money has been maintained and will be spent on that important project.

On the issue of a tax credit for public transit passes, many of us have heard from people in our ridings who, as part of their collective bargaining process, managed to have public transit passes provided as a benefit of their employment. In my riding workers who are employed by the public transit companies, Coast Mountain transit and B.C. transit, negotiated that as part of their collective agreement, for both themselves and their families. Recently, after an audit, it was announced that the families of these people would have to see that as a taxable benefit. It seems to fly in the face of wanting to encourage the use of public transit to have these people claim this as a taxable benefit on their income tax. We heard from many people in my constituency about that.

I received a letter today from the minister, after having written to her, that it is under review at the moment and that there may be no action taken in this taxation year, with a decision still to come.

It seems to fly in the face of wanting to actually do something positive about encouraging people to get on to public transit and out of their own personal vehicles. I think that when groups of workers manage to succeed in getting this as part of their collective agreement, we would want to encourage that and ensure that it is of real benefit to them.

There is much more to be said on this bill, but I see that my time is up, so I look forward to questions and comments from members.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague talking on and on about the budget. He brought up several items that I thought were quite interesting. However, there is one part that I would like to talk to him about.

I have a background as an educator. I taught at a post-secondary level for five years. I have been a graduate of three post-secondary institutions with eight or nine years of post-secondary education behind me. Not once did I ever receive a tax credit or a tax write-off for my books. There was always money announced for education and so on, but not once did I get a tax credit for my books.

Another thing is, I applied for bursaries and for student loans, and a lot of this was under a Liberal government. I would apply for this money in the form of a student loan and I would get a little bit of money. Then I would go out and realize it was not enough to actually live on in Edmonton, or various other communities where I was living, to go to school. I would go to work and earn a little extra money for myself, so that I could help reduce the burden on the government. I would try to make it on my own, so that I would not be a burden on taxpayers because they were already generously paying 70% of my post-secondary costs to begin with on top of the fact that I was getting these student loans. The money was always clawed back .

So, in this budget which we see here, we are going to actually put money back into the hands of students. If we put money into education, a lot of it just gets swallowed by the system. As soon as organizations hear about more money coming in, there is always a rallying cry for more money to pay salaries and so on, but none of that money actually trickles down and benefits the students who are actually going there.

I would like to ask the hon. member if he is going to support this implementation which would put money back into the hands and the pockets of students to ensure that they will not have their bursaries and their scholarships clawed back when they have some extra cash for the hard work that they have done. Is he going to support that or is he going to reject this generous offer to students in Canada?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice and it is great that students can have a tax credit for their textbooks. However, in the long run, when students are emerging from university $20,000 in debt, $35,000 in debt, or $50,000 in debt, the tax credit on textbooks is not really going to make all that much difference. To me, it is great. How can anyone argue against doing that? However, it is a little band-aid on top of a big problem.

It is the same with ensuring that scholarship income is not taxable. It is another band-aid on top of a huge problem.

The staggering statistics around post-secondary education are not going to be altered by these two proposals that are in this particular bill.

The millennium scholarship foundation did a study that showed that four out of 10 university students were unable to graduate on time because they dropped courses because they had to go to work to pay for their education and living expenses. Some 66% of students worked on average 19 hours a week to afford to stay in school and three out of 10 students had to resort to private bank loans or family loans because of inadequate government student aid. Those are some of the people who are emerging with these huge debts coming out of university.

A Statistics Canada youth in transition survey found that more than 70% of high school graduates who wanted to go to college or university but did not listed finances as the main barrier that they faced in their decision not to go to university.

Between 1992 and 2002 university tuition fees increased by 135%. That is six times the rate of inflation in Canada. In face of those kinds of statistics, the two programs that the member talked about are really just tiny band-aids on the face of the whole issue.

In the previous Parliament, in this corner, we fought to turn back a tax break to wealthy Canadians and corporations and we asked the government of the day to put that money into reducing tuition. Unfortunately, that has not happened.

I am glad to say that the Conservative government did maintain that billion dollars and put it into infrastructure for the universities. I would have preferred that the money stayed with the original commitment to reducing tuition fees because I think that is where the pressure was. University administrators, I know, welcomed that money, but there is no sense building more classrooms if students cannot afford to get to the university in the first place.

We need to put the emphasis back where it really belongs, in ensuring that people can get to university. As I have said, the two programs that are part of this bill are just way too limited to do that job.