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

[An hon. member]

Which one?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Barbados is the one they left remaining, exactly where the former prime minister, the current member for LaSalle—Émard, has nine of his dummy shell companies shielded from paying Canadian taxes in that particular tax haven. That is offensive to me. One would think a prime minister of Canada would be proud to pay his taxes in this country. I am not going to dwell on that because that is the past.

We now have a new Conservative government. Surely, it sees what is wrong when tax fugitives can use this blatant tax avoidance by setting up dummy companies. Some estimates say that the lost revenue is $7 billion a year. Why would the government nickel and dime all the little social programs that are important and critical to communities when it leaves $7 billion on the table? Who is it worried about offending?

The interesting thing about the changes to the election financing act is that big business can no longer buy elections or buy politicians. Who are we worried about offending by slamming the door shut on this last outrageous loophole? Big business cannot hurt anyone any more would be my message. We do not have to be afraid of Bay Street any more. We have been liberated. Why do we not stand up on our own hind legs and say that there will be no more freeloading and that companies can no longer be tax fugitives.

I got my information from this book that I will be happy to table. Pigs at the Trough: How Corporate Greed and Political Corruption Are Undermining America is the name of the book. I agree. Corporate greed, run rampant, is undermining democracy and certainly undermining the ability of elected officials like us to implement plans, programs and strategies because it is starving us of resources.

I cannot understand why this budget did not deal with the outrageous issue of this tax loophole of tax havens. In the textbooks at Revenue Canada it is called “tax motivated expatriation”. That is the nice title for what we call sleazy, tax cheating loopholes. We demand that they be plugged and we will not let up until we close that last tax haven loophole.

I have another thing I want to raise. I cannot understand how the government failed to make the connection between two of its strategic goals and that is that it missed the opportunity to address job creation through energy conservation, or these burgeoning new economic opportunities coming from the necessary reality that we need to conserve energy in order to save the planet.

There is a connection to be made there and progressive countries and political parties around the world are recognizing that saving the planet through energy conservation is not a negative and not an economic job killer. The job creation potential is enormous. The technological development potential is enormous.

I argue that there should have been some kind of policy statement through this budget from the government that Canada should lay claim to this new burgeoning technology. We should become a centre of excellence of energy conservation technology to show the world. It frustrates me. We have a cold, northern, winter climate and we could demonstrate to the world how we do not have to freeze in the dark to conserve energy. There is an appetite in the country that our R and D could lead the way to saving the planet from global warming. Why we did not make that connection with the opportunity of this budget frustrates me to no end.

I will close where I started by saying that regrettably the NDP cannot support Bill C-28, the budget implementation bill.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of my hon. colleague with interest and he had a couple of points that were worthy of further consideration.

He talked about horse trading. On January 23, Canadians got tired of the cattle and horse rustlers across the way when all they were left with was a pile of horse chips.

During the last campaign all four parties in the House professed a desire to get tough on crime. The NDP believes in cradle to grave socialism but apparently it has forgotten about cradle to grave protection from criminals. I am wondering why the NDP has now decided to go soft on its campaign commitment to get tough on crime and has left us doing it alone on this side of the House.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear my colleague say that. He should perhaps look at the problems in Manitoba and the examples of where there is no contradiction between being a social democrat and being tough on crime. There is no connection between being soft on crime and being NDP.

In actual fact, the leader of our party, during the election campaign, was within, I believe, six months in the debate arguing about mandatory minimum sentences. The policy of the Conservatives and the policy of the NDP on mandatory minimum sentences were six months apart. It is not such a big bridge.

I cannot understand why the Conservatives missed the connection, when talking about being tough on crime, in clamping down on these tax havens. I call it economic treason when a company undermines the best interest of Canada, even though it is enjoying the benefits of the Canadian corporate structure and the stability of our great nation. That wholesale tax avoidance should be deemed to be criminal, in my mind.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, just a quick follow up to my colleague's question in regard to getting tough on crime.

I have heard the member speak several times on this issue about problems that he has had in his own riding. He knows very well what I am talking about. I agree that the talk was out there during the election campaign. I heard it. I was on the platform with NDPers and Liberals, and even the Green Party was talking tough on crime.

What amazes me is what happens when we get here. We get to a committee and we have a bill before the committee, Bill C-9, which would get rid of house arrest, quit mollycoddling criminals and would get criminals to pay the penalties for the crimes they commit, which is called getting tough on crime, and yet the member and his party would not support that. They gutted that bill.

Those members listened to every soft on crime witness that came before the committee but they did not listen to the victims of crime or to the police forces. They did not listen to a number of witnesses who testified why we need to stop things like house arrest. What they call petty crimes, it is not a petty crime when someone breaks into a home. It is not a petty crime when there is a home invasion. These kinds of things need to be dealt with right on the ground. This government had a bill to do just what Canadians asked us all to do and something on which we all campaigned.

Could the member tell me why his party is not supporting getting rid of house arrest for certain crimes that should never be even considered?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think we would like to take the cliché one step further. When people say tough on crime, it has become so commonly used that it has become almost meaningless. We prefer to say that we are smart on crime because our activities and our directions are results-oriented.

However, I will give one example where we are working at committee to strengthen one of the crime bills where we think the Conservative government was too soft, and that is the proceeds of crime components of the money laundering bill. We believe the federal government should be able to seize the assets of known criminals who are associated with criminal gangs, not just their bank accounts but their homes, their luxury cars, their luxury motorboats, et cetera. If they cannot show that those luxury items were bought with legitimately earned moneys, then the items should be seized and the reverse onus put on them to prove to us that the items were not the proceeds of crime.

That would be getting tough on crime and that would ensure that crime does not pay. It would go a long way to send a message to the biker gangs and the criminal organizations that flaunt their wealth and their luxury items right under the noses of the police officers. We believe in giving the police the tools they need to do their jobs and to make the case that crime does not in fact pay.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns I have about this budget is the lack of consideration for our seniors, especially those widows and widowers of our veterans.

There are many problems within the system where we claw back, we take away and we do not give benefits to particular veterans or their families or the widowers of veterans because of technicalities in legislation. One would think that with a $13 billion surplus last year and a $6 billion surplus this year, which means the government is swimming in an extra $19 billion, it would have at least reached out to assist veterans and their widows.

I would just like the hon. member, who is from that great city of Winnipeg, to comment on what effect this has on his veterans and their families in Winnipeg.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore for his concern for seniors and specifically for veterans.

It is not often that we get a letter from the Prime Minister promising something in writing, and we have it right here in our own hands, but my colleague was talking about a program called the veterans independence program, a tiny little program that costs pennies on the global scale of things and helps veterans and their survivors stay a little longer in their own homes before they have to be put into nursing homes, et cetera.

I have here a letter from the Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, saying:

You will be pleased to know that a Conservative government would immediately extend Veterans Independence Program services to the widows of all Second World War and Korean War veterans regardless of when the Veteran died or how long they had been receiving the benefit before they passed away.

That is not just a campaign promise. That is a promise dated October 4, 2005. Why was that not in this budget? That tiny little budget line, this promise made, why was this not in the column of promises kept?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-28, a bill that implements certain provisions of budget 2006.

The Conservative government's first budget, however, fails to address the real needs of Canadians and Canadian families and it unfortunately fails to move the country forward. About the only positive aspect of this budget is that it builds on the eight consecutive budgetary surpluses delivered by our Liberal government. This budget promises another budgetary surplus and I hope the Conservatives deliver on that.

Given the strong fiscal record the Conservatives inherited from our former Liberal government, it is outrageous that the government is raising income taxes, slashing spending by $1 billion a year and excluding any real vision for the future of Canada's prosperity. Let me go through some examples of why this budget fails.

It fails to provide real tax relief for low income and middle income Canadians. Eliminating Liberal income tax cuts in favour of a 1% GST cut has been panned by every serious economist in this country as a plan that will benefit higher income Canadians at the expense of the more needy.

The Conservatives are hiking income taxes, which means that many people who got a refund for the 2005 tax year will end up paying in 2006. The Conservatives are increasing the basic personal amount by $200 and increasing to 15.5% the lowest tax bracket.

This budget fails to address the issue of climate change. The Conservative government has eliminated climate change programs and is abandoning the Kyoto accord. Its transit tax credit is costly and ineffective. It will cost about $400 million over two years and only increase transit use by 5%. This translates to a cost of $2,000 for each tonne of carbon dioxide saved, 10 to 100 times the cost per tonne under our Liberal government green plan.

Furthermore, the Conservatives are planning to finance this measure and their climate change plan, which they are still working on, by eliminating $2 billion worth of existing climate change programs.

Two of these programs are the EnerGuide for houses retrofit program and the wind power production incentive program.

EnerGuide worked. It was helping thousands of Canadian households achieve energy efficiency increases in the range of 30% and doing it in a way that was cost effective. The Conservative government should do the right thing, stand up for the environment and for Canadian consumers, and bring EnerGuide back. Our Liberal government's EnerGuide program supported the retrofitting of more than 100,000 homes for more efficient use of energy before the Conservative government cancelled it.

Wind power is another important component of Canada's response to the challenges of energy conservation and global warming. The wind power industry is responsible for thousands of direct and indirect jobs across the country, and our government's wind power production incentive program, or WPPI, as it is affectionately referred to, is essential to attracting investment and ensuring the viability of this industry.

The Conservative government has been exposed on this. We know that these programs were working and were cost effective. I am today calling for the government to immediately reinstate the EnerGuide program and the wind power production incentive program. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources recently adopted motions that also called for the reinstatement of these important programs.

Budget 2006 fails to provide a real child care choice for parents. As if $20 a week for child care is not bad enough, low income parents will be losing the young child supplement of the Canada child tax benefit. The Conservatives are cutting $1 billion from the Canada child tax benefit, a program that the Liberal government brought in and which was supposed to reach $10 billion this year.

Budget 2006 fails to establish a real plan to create child care spaces. Rather than honouring the Liberal child care agreements, something that the majority of provinces, parents and advocacy groups had demanded, the government insists on forging ahead with a nebulous plan which will mean that provinces will lose the stable funding agreed to by the previous government.

The budget offers nothing to meet the urgent needs of Canada's aboriginal peoples.

Rather than honour the historic Kelowna accord signed last November—which would have brought about great improvements in the lives of our first nations—the Conservative government chose to leave them behind and reduce planned funding by 80% from $5.3 million to just over $1 million.

Budget 2006 fails to make any significant investments in education and innovation. The Liberal government had a concrete vision that would have helped put us at the forefront of competitiveness and innovation. This lacklustre and visionless budget contains virtually nothing in this regard.

For example, our last fiscal update provided $2.5 billion for university research. The Conservative budget provides $200 million, less than one-tenth of our commitment. For student aid, our plan would have provided up to $6,000 per student for tuition over a four year program. The Conservative plan provides $80 for textbooks.

University students would like to see a portion of the Canada health and social transfer, the vehicle the federal government uses for transferring funds to the provinces and territories for social programs, dedicated to post-secondary education. This request I believe has some merit, provided accountability measures and performance benchmarks can be attached to these transfers along the lines of the 2004 health accord so that Canadians can evaluate how their province or territory is spending their money on post-secondary education and citizens can make comparisons with other jurisdictions. This makes some sense and is an example of a visionary initiative that is totally absent from budget 2006. Eighty dollars for students for textbooks just does not do it.

Budget 2006 fails because it cuts programs that help to build a highly trained and competitive workforce, programs like the training centre infrastructure fund. This fund was an important source for unions and management for the building of training centres. Union training centres are formed through partnerships among unions, management and government. They provide workers with the necessary information and on the job training to continuously improve their skills and remain at the top of their field.

The objectives of this partnership include developing and facilitating training programs that not only improve the vocational and safety skills of the industry but also enhance the employability of the students and meet changing and evolving market demands. In order to maintain this standard, training centres must upgrade their equipment and facilities to provide their students with the most innovative technology. The training centre infrastructure fund provided the necessary financial support to allow these centres to equip their facilities.

Recently, I attended the grand opening of a training centre operated by Local 285 of the Sheet Metal Worker's International Association in my riding. The local had been receiving funding from the training centre infrastructure fund until the Conservative government cut the program. The funding enabled the association to include in its training centre a state of the art welding laboratory and other equipment to ensure students receive the best training available.

The centre provides essential training to students entering the field and to professionals who have been working in the field for years but need to upgrade their skills to remain employable. It also plans to set up a training program to encourage more young people to get into welding. Unfortunately, the training centre infrastructure fund was cut, which means it will not have enough money to offer these programs now.

Budget 2006 also fails because it abandons Canada's forest industry and forest communities by caving in to the American lumber producers and the U.S. government and negotiating a bad softwood lumber deal that robs Canada of forest policy sovereignty. The U.S. will now dictate what forest policies we will have in Canada. The deals leaves $1 billion on the table in wrongly collected duties and it is in the hands of the U.S. government and U.S. producers.

The budget also stands by as our natural resource companies, companies like Inco and Falconbridge, are gobbled up by foreign companies. Are companies like Noranda and Husky Oil next? The government, with its laissez-faire attitude, does not care. I will be introducing legislation that will deal with this question and I am sure this House will have a good debate.

This budget really falls short. In 2007, or whenever the next budget is, the government will have a chance to rectify it. I look forward to that debate.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I note that the hon. member spent a great deal of time talking about the former Liberal government's environmental record. I am really surprised, because it has such an appalling record. I would never expose that kind of record to this House. In fact, under the previous government, the Liberals made commitments to reduce greenhouse emissions by 6% over 1990 levels and today we are about 35% over what we should have been.

How can we be proud of that kind of record? I would ask the member to simply comment on how he can defend an environmental record that was such an abject failure and that resulted in greenhouse gas emissions actually increasing by a substantial amount rather than going down by the 6% that his government committed to.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that our government committed to Kyoto. They were stretch targets. They were ambitious targets. In the last couple of years of our mandate, we were starting to make some progress with our project green.

How can that member stand up and justify this climate change response or clean air response with its intensity based targets, which means that the absolute amount of greenhouse gases, for example, in the oil sands, will increase dramatically? If this is not a sop to the oil and gas industry and the oil sands, I do not know what is.

The government does not have the vision, the wherewithal or the political savvy to do something that is appropriate and that will allow us to reach our greenhouse gas reduction targets.

The government's proposal, which is a plan to have a plan, does not really deal with climate change whatsoever. What we have to do is support our oil and gas industry, but we have to make sure it is done in a sustainable and environmentally responsible way. The government does not care one iota about that.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that member should be embarrassed to stand up and try to defend the failed environmental plan of the government of that day, the Liberal government.

First, something should be clearly said about the so-called Kyoto plan that the Liberals tried to sell to Canadians. Let me rephrase that. The Liberals tried to ram the so-called Kyoto plan down the throats of Canadian taxpayers. The Liberal plan had unreachable targets and unrealistic goals. As a matter of fact, there is speculation that the plan was written on the back of a napkin.

However, the important thing is this. While they were prepared to try to ram that Kyoto plan down the throats of taxpayers and target greenhouse gases in some obscure way, they were quite prepared to let cities like Vancouver, Toronto and Halifax and other major centres be totally untouched in regard to the air pollution and the smog created in those cities on a daily basis. There was nothing in the Liberal plan that dealt with smog in big cities or in any size of city.

All the Liberals had was an unworkable greenhouse gas plan, with no price attached to it, and unrealistic goals. That is an embarrassment for the government of that day. I am surprised at that member. He is quite a reasonable fellow and, I have been told, quite half-smart too. I am surprised that he would want to stand up and try to defend that at the risk of embarrassing himself.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, normally the member for Cariboo—Prince George speaks with some knowledge and integrity. This attack is totally uncalled for.

When I was a young person growing up, if I came home and said that I had tried to do well with the hockey team, but because the previous coach did this or that, it was screwed up, or whatever, my parents would have told me to grow up, to move forward and to take responsibility.

We hear this juvenile kind of attack by the Conservatives, time in and time out, about the Liberal government record. I am extremely proud of it. Our government accomplished so many good things during our mandate.

At one point the Conservatives have to take responsibility for their decisions. They have to move forward. The Conservatives cannot get away much longer with tossing the issues back to what the Liberals did when we were the government. We did a lot of tremendous things that Canada is much better for today, and I say that with some pride and some modesty.

The government is doing nothing about climate change. At least we committed ourselves to the Kyoto accord. They were tough targets. Frankly, we could have done a better job of providing the incentives, the signals and the market instruments to better get us there. The Liberal government started to make progress in the last couple of years of our mandate.

Instead of tossing stones, the government has to deal with the issue and move the country forward. The government is not doing that. It is ignoring the problem and Canada will not be a better place because of that.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague from Winnipeg said earlier, we in the NDP, and I am sure it is no surprise to my Conservative counterparts, will not support Bill C-28.

It is very simple to understand where the Conservative ideology comes from and that of the New Democratic Party.

The government earlier reported a $13.2 billion surplus, which was applied to a particular item called the debt. We can argue if that is a good thing or a bad thing. The fact is that was done. We now hear from media reports that the government has an additional $6 billion in the first five months of the year. Those are estimates. We have not see it. We are talking about almost $19 billion of extra money.

I have flipped through Bill C-28. I did not go word by word, but I gave it a pretty good glance. I do not see anything in it document that helps veterans and their families in any way, shape or form.

I will give an example. My colleague brought up a letter that was written on October 4, 2005, by the then leader of the official opposition, the now Prime Minister. I will read it word for word and then I will table the document later. I have raised this in the House before as has my hon. colleague from Cape Breton—Canso, but I am going to raise it again. The letter is to Joyce Carter of St. Peter's, Nova Scotia on Cape Breton. She is in her eighties. The letter states:

Dear Mrs. Carter:

On behalf of [the hon. member] thank you for your letter received on September 19. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond.

You will be pleased to know that a Conservative government would immediately extend Veterans Independence Program services to the widows of all Second World War and Korean veterans regardless of when the Veteran died or how long they had been receiving the benefit before they passed away.

We thank you again for writing and want to assure you that we are committed to improving the quality of life for Canadian seniors and veterans.

Here is the letter from Ms. Carter back to me and other MPs. She says:

Dear [member for Sackville—Eastern Shore]:

Enclosed are copies of the letters, one written to me on behalf of the hon. [Prime Minister]...

As you will see in the Williams Lake Tribune [the hon. Minister of veterans affairs]--

This is when he was up in July of this year. She goes on to say:

--noted that the VIP program actually saves the department money.... Otherwise they would have to go into a home or institutional care.

That is what happens to these widows. If they cannot be in their home, they have to go into institutionalized care which costs everyone a lot of money. She goes on to ask me to do everything in my power to work with other members of Parliament to ensure the Prime Minister kept his word.

We now have Bill C-28 on October 27 of this year. There is nothing in the document to maintain the promise that was made to a woman in her eighties to look after a veteran before he passed away.

I remind my hon. colleagues in the Conservative Party that the Liberals did not do anything on this issue. The Conservatives now have an opportunity. We all wear the poppy with pride and distinction and so we should. It is in honour of our veterans and those who served to give us peace, freedom and democracy.

As I said in a statement the other day, what happens after November 12 when the poppy comes off? These veterans and their families need assistance from the government in their old age. If the government is not going to provide the assistance when it is swimming in money, when is it going to do it? When will the Conservative Party actually put this program in the budget? There are many programs that should be instituted for veterans and their families, but this one program was promised.

The government cannot stand up and tell us to support our troops and our veterans and not institute the policies that assist them when they need help the most.

I remind the Conservative government, and many of my Conservative colleagues, who I consider my good friends, know this to be a fact, that our veterans are Canada's greatest volunteers. They sacrificed their youth so we can stand in this place and argue points of principle in a democratic fashion. It is great to live in a country where politicians can retire and they are not executed. The fact is we can only do that because of the sacrifice of Canadian veterans and their families.

Just a few days prior to Remembrance Day, these veterans and their widows are asking for these programs, which the government admits itself would save it money, yet it refuses to put them in the document.

What are we supposed to tell Joyce Carter and the thousands of women across the country? Do we tell them that the Conservatives are heartless, that they just write letters that are meaningless, that they are taking advantage of the elderly? Of course not. I do not believe the Conservatives are those types of individuals. However, a letter was written on behalf of their leader, now the Prime Minister, promising to do it immediately. Nine months later there is not a single word in the documents.

We in the NDP cannot stand up and allow this to continue. I am hoping either the veterans affairs minister, or the parliamentary secretary or even the Prime Minister will stand up in the House very soon, in fact it should be done today, and announce that the VIP program, as was promised, will be extended immediately, without reservation, for those, mostly women in their late seventies and eighties, who cared for our veterans and who are very proud individuals. It is unconscionable that the government would not do that.

I am offering the Conservatives the olive branch. If they do that, we will support their efforts in the VIP program.

We can go on and on regarding the budget. However, there is another item I want to bring forward. I cannot let it go by because I know my colleagues who sit next to me would question me as to my studiousness on it, and this is there is nothing in the budget on shipbuilding.

In 2001 the then minister, Mr. Tobin, called a meeting of the industry, labour and communities. They put together a policy called “Breaking Through: Canadian Shipbuilding Industry”. It has been sitting on the desk of the Minister of Industry since 2001.

We heard from the previous Liberal member who spoke that the Minister of International Trade, who was then a Liberal, said, “We're doing consultations”. Those consultations happened in 2001. The policy is a very thin read. It is only about 10 pages. They asked the previous Liberal government and the Liberals did absolutely nothing.

Now the Conservatives are here. I want to remind my Conservative colleagues that there is a potential of $22 billion worth of economic activity that would keep the five major shipyards in our country alive for a long time. Just maybe a lot of those Atlantic Canadians, who are working out west, can come back home and work.

The reason why we have so many Atlantic Canadians working in Ontario and out west is, as we jokingly say, we got all the work done back home and we are just helping the rest of the country out. If the government instituted a shipbuilding policy, the yards in Marystown, Halifax, Levis, Quebec, Port Welland and Vancouver would be humming along for many years. The government knows this.

The Coast Guard, the military, the ferries and the laker fleet need replacements. There are $22 billion of opportunity. What is the government hinting at? Free trade deals with EFTA and Korea, which would put the death knell on our industry. I encourage the government to very quickly announce the shipbuilding policy on replacements for our fleets so our families and our workers across the country can go back to work.

Again, budgetary times are times of opportunities. As I said on the VIP and the veterans program, the government missed out on that opportunity. It has missed out on the shipbuilding policy. These are lost opportunities.

I do not know why for the life of me the government would want to proceed with a budgetary process that allows oil and gas companies, some of the most profitable companies on the planet, swimming in excess profits, further tax breaks while seniors, students, new immigrants, people with disabilities, the environment, all take a back seat. I do not understand it.

I simply do not understand the thinking of the Conservative government. I speak to the individual members of the Conservative Party. I do know that most of them really do care about what they do. The fact is that their government is heading in the wrong direction. I ask them to steer that ship back, to get it on the right track.

We are here representing constituents, not the special interests in the large corporate world. Those are some of the reasons we in the NDP simply cannot at this time support the budgetary process.

I must say how disappointed I am in the Bloc Québécois. Many members of the Bloc are very decent hard-working people but within five minutes of the tabling of the budget documents, their leader went out and said, “No problem, we will support it”. He completely gave away the opportunity to negotiate and horse trade with the government. We did that with the Liberals which resulted in previous Bill C-48. I was very disappointed with the Bloc and I would hope that the Bloc would reconsider that position so that we can actually negotiate this thing, change it before it goes anywhere and maybe include some of the concerns that I and my hon. colleague from Winnipeg mentioned.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way knows the strong financial position that the government inherited from the Liberals, and as he mentioned, still the Conservatives have done nothing for veterans.

He also mentioned the string of years in which the former Liberal government had surpluses and that the surpluses were not put to some of the uses that he mentioned. I would remind him that the government of the day had to deal with the debt left by nine years of mismanagement by the Mulroney Conservative government. He has already pointed out that we have had nine months of mismanagement by the so-called new Conservative government. In his own words, they are swimming in cash and they have done nothing for the veterans.

How can any Canadians have confidence in the government when it cut the most needy in our country by $1 billion, a cut to the elderly, seniors, women's groups and the illiterate? And on the same day, the Conservatives took credit for a former surplus of $13.2 billion. How can anyone have any confidence in the so-called new Conservative government with the actions it has taken in its nine months of mismanagement?