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.

The House resumed from October 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-28, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

When we return to the study of Bill C-28 there will be three and a half minutes left in questions and comments for the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to comment on Bill C-28.

I am a member of the finance committee. The committee recently completed a tour. We went from Whitehorse to Vancouver to Fort McMurray to Saskatoon and Portage la Prairie and then out on the east coast to St. John's, Halifax, Quebec City and Toronto. We wound up yesterday afternoon. I think we heard from over 400 witnesses. After a while we got a flavour of what Canadians seem to think about this budget. I have to say that they do not seem to think too much of this budget. In fact, after a while there were patterns that developed in the testimony.

I would have thought that thee Chamber of Commerce would have been an organization that would instinctively or intuitively support Conservative budgets. That organization had some rather critical things to say about this particular budget. The Chamber of Commerce said:

We note that Budget 2006 introduced piecemeal personal tax credits for a myriad of items. We believe this only serves to complicate the tax system--

And we all know that the Income Tax Act of Canada is a pretty complicated statute to begin with.

and relief should be delivered more broadly through rate reduction on increasing the bracket thresholds where the next tax rate is levied.

We ask whether the 1% reduction in the Goods and Services Tax rate was the “correct” method to effect a decrease in overall personal tax burdens. Generally, consumption taxes are preferable to income taxes, therefore we recommend reductions to personal income taxes rather than consumption taxes.

This was from a group that I would respectfully suggest is one of the key supporters of the Conservative Party.

We turn to the bill before us and we see immediately what it is that these people are talking about.

The first one is the new Canada employment credit. That sounds like a good idea on the face of it. If a person's income is from something other than employment, for example, a pension, investments, or things of that nature, this tax credit is utterly useless to that person. What is the point? Why would the government do that as opposed to bumping up the personal base exemption or reducing rates generally overall? We want to favour this over that. It speaks to the Chamber of Commerce position that the government has introduced a myriad of tax credits that end up complicating the system way beyond where it needs to be.

There is a textbook tax credit. That is just great. That is just wonderful. A student has 80 bucks worth of tax credits and a $5,000 tuition bill. That is a choice one makes. An $80 tax credit for goodness' sake is going to buy one textbook. That is great. The student can buy the textbook, but he or she cannot get into the school.

Witness after witness would say to the committee that this is lunacy. What people need is better access. That request would come generally from the student groups. They had some good ideas, all of which were ignored in the budget. The university side and the college faculty side want better infrastructure.

What they are really panicked about, and they should be, is that the various foundations that were funded over 13 years of Liberal government, those funds are not being replenished. As a consequence, the universities are afraid that the brain gain that we have had in the last few years will reverse itself again and become a brain drain. This could happen because there is no money available for the new applications that researchers put in.

Those folks are highly mobile people. They can do their research in California as well as they can do it in Toronto. They can do their research in New York as well as they can do it in Halifax. If we do not keep these foundations well funded with the ability to provide grants to do the leading edge research which has made Canada the number one publicly funded research country in the world, then these folks will find other places in which to do their research. What did the Conservative Party offer? An $80 book credit.

Then we come to public transit passes. That sounds great, but it is going to cost something in the order of about $900 million. It will cost $900 million to, in theory, increase ridership by 5%. That is a pretty expensive increase in ridership, $900 million on an annual basis. That does not build one kilometre of subway in my riding, not one kilometre. It does not even build a station. It does not replace any of the TTC buses in my riding, in the city of Toronto or in the GTA. It does none of that.

That is great; I have my tax credit. I am now going to get a tax deduction after I file my tax return, which has become so complicated that I now have to hire somebody to prepare my return. I am going to hand it in but I am not going to take the bus because the bus has flat tires all the time. These are utterly brilliant choices.

Then there is a credit for trades tool expenses. I kind of like that. What is wrong with that? Folks should be able to deduct their tool expenses. If one really thought about it for more than two minutes, one would say that a deduction for employment expenses should be broadly based because most people do not make their living in the trades. Most people make their living in services. We are becoming a services oriented country, so this particular credit is useless to most people.

The children's fitness tax credit is another one. I play hockey. My kid is a swimmer. I paid literally thousands of dollars annually for my daughter to swim. She is a nationally rated swimmer and now swims with McMaster University. I am going to get that credit. I kind of like that idea. I am happy about that, but my other daughter who dances is not going to get a credit. If any of my other children were participating in artistic endeavours, the credit would not be there.

Witness after witness after witness said that dance should be included, painting should be included and all kinds of other activities should be included. No one is ever going to make everybody happy. That is why it is crazy to try to do this.

I do not know whether you caught this, Mr. Speaker. The report to the Minister of Finance on how to handle this was released. The “Report of the Expert Panel for the Children's Fitness Tax Credit” states:

Fees for camps that emphasize physical activity theme.

That sounds simple.

To qualify, the camp program would need to last at least five consecutive days--

--not four--

--during which at least 50% of the activity during the program hours of each day would involve physical activity.

I do not know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I send my kids to camp and I am not sure my kids would qualify. The counsellors run the kids from dawn to dusk and make them do all kinds of things, but the activities are not always physical. Sometimes there are activities for painting, sometimes there are activities for learning about the woods and nature and things such as that. Those camps will not qualify.

This is going to be administratively ridiculous. No one is going to be able to keep track. It will place an administrative burden on all of these camps and then there will have to be a huge audit scheme to find out whether in fact a particular camp at a particular time had a five day program which involved physical fitness and physical fitness only.

In conclusion, the way to go is the way the Liberals set out in our November update, which was to raise the basic personal exemption and lower tax rates across the board if we want to do something in the area of tax relief for Canadians. This hodgepodge, mishmash, myriad of tax credits is administratively ridiculous and simply adds to Canadians' burdens rather than detracts from them.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-28, the budget implementation bill.

First of all, I would just like to respond to the comments made by the Liberal members across the way. It really astounds us every time we hear Liberals get up and blame the NDP for their own downfall. They conveniently forget that we had an election and it was the people of Canada, it was the voters in this country, who voted them out because of their arrogance, their corruption, and this sense of entitlement that they have, that they are somehow entitled to power no matter what happens.

It is unbelievable and even after an election, even after the Canadian people have spoken, we still hear this kind of rhetoric coming out of Liberal members. I guess they just do not get it. As the member for Winnipeg Centre says, I guess they just do not get it and they should be in therapy. It will be a long therapy session, but they have some lessons to learn.

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the NDP caucus to serve notice that we will not support the budget implementation act, Bill C-28.

My time does not permit me to outline the many shortcomings of the budget but let me at least say that I am disappointed that we did not get an opportunity to manoeuvre or negotiate any benefits through the budget because five minutes after the budget was tabled in the House of Commons, the leader of the Bloc Québécois walked outside into the scrum area and told all and sundry that it sounded good to him and that he would take it.

All the Conservatives needed was a dance partner and they got their dance partner first off, which is when all negotiations stopped. Normally in a minority Parliament there are opportunities for the opposition parties to do a little bit of horse trading. We were denied that opportunity because one party cashed in all its chips before the bargaining even started.

I will simply preface my remarks by saying how disappointed I am as an opposition member of one of the opposition parties that this minority Parliament was not even allowed to function the way minority Parliaments are supposed to operate because of the self-interest and selfish action on the part of the Bloc Québécois.

Let me touch on two reasons why we are disappointed in the budget because time does not permit any more detail than that. I come from the riding of Winnipeg Centre that used to be represented by Stanley Knowles. Stanley Knowles has a reputation as one of the founders, the father perhaps, of the Canadian pension system. I can safely say that Stanley Knowles would be doing flip-flops in his grave today if he knew that after nine years of surplus budgets by two senior parties in the country, old age security paycheques for low income seniors are actually going down as a result of the budget.

It sounds shocking. Some would challenge me perhaps to the veracity of those facts. I had to do a lot of research to plough through our arcane and complicated tax system but here are the facts. In actual fact, seniors have walked into my office with their July OAS cheque and their September OAS cheque. It is $10 a month lower. The government actually lowered the basic personal exemption for OAS and GIS senior pensioners. In other words, pensioners are paying tax on $400 a year more than they were last year, which, at a rate of 15.25%, is $60 per year or $5 per month. However, because it is for this six months, it was doubled to average it out over the year. It is $10 a month for this six month period.

This only applies to seniors who, because they have such a low income and no other source of revenue, they qualify for the guaranteed income supplement. There is an offsetting pension credit in another category for private pension plans. However, if the person is one of those many low income seniors in my riding who are trying to survive on just his or her old age security and CPP, the person will get less this month than he or she did last month.

Maybe it is a byproduct or maybe it was an unforeseen consequence, I do not know. I am not accusing anybody of trying to starve low income seniors but that was the result and I cannot support it. I cannot do anything but condemn that result and consequence. The Conservatives should really rethink this. Surely, in a time of prosperity and record surpluses, we could do something for our low income seniors.

I talked with some anti-poverty groups and they said that the $10 a month probably represents four or even five days of a grocery budget for a low income senior. It is not quite one full week but what they have left over to spend for food, $10 a month is a significant drop. At the very least, it is a quality of life issue. It is one less thing that they will be able to do with their income.

That is one of the reasons I cannot support the budget. The other reason is perhaps what is not in the budget. I cannot understand for the life of me why in the first Conservative budget of a newly formed government, the Conservatives would not have done something to plug the outrageous tax loophole that allows Canadian companies to set up dummy companies offshore to avoid paying their taxes in Canada.

The House resumed from October 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-28, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-28.

The Conservative government is the most meanspirited retrograde government I have ever seen in the entire time that I have been in Parliament. It uses policies for politics, not for good governance. Let me give an example.

The Conservatives financed a cut in the GST by increasing income taxes. Good fiscal policy demands that there be a variety of tax sources. Most jurisdictions in the world have a consumption tax. The beauty of having a mix of taxes is that we are not victims in our fisc of economic circumstances. We can weather storms. This is the reason every single expert, economist, teacher, practitioner said that cutting the GST instead of personal income taxes was wrong.

When we cut personal income taxes, we are giving people options. They can spend the savings, as they can with the GST cut, but they can also have more money to invest and more money to save. That is why the income tax cuts that the Conservatives reversed on us were so important for the ongoing performance of our economy, to give us that money to reinvest in our capacity to compete in a global economy.

What did the Conservatives do with child care? We had meaningful child care spaces for parents in this country, as demanded by all of the groups. What did they do? They went back to something cut long ago, the baby bonus. Anyone with a child gets $100 a month. What does that do?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say that I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-28, but one has only to look at the content to realize that there is very little indeed to be pleased with in the first Conservative budget since the election.

Before making any comments on Bill C-28, let us go back to October 25, 1993 when the people of Canada chose the Liberal Party to form a government in the wake of nine years of Conservative rule. During those nine years we witnessed astounding short-sighted fiscal policies that left our country, one of the most prosperous in the world, with an enormous operating deficit and an ever increasing national debt.

Under the excellent stewardship of the new Liberal government that succeeded the Conservatives in 1993, we worked hard over the course of three mandates as our house was put into order. The operating deficit disappeared, the deficit was reduced, and Canadians received the services they both needed and deserved.

Imagine, upon taking office in 1993 the Government of Canada was operating with $40 billion annual deficits. Within four years the deficit was gone and Canadians had a balanced budget. The country's triple “A” credit rating was restored. The world could see what we had already come to know as a Liberal government put Canada's house in order.

I make mention of the fact that it was a Liberal government because from 1997 Canadians have to go back all the way to 1912 to find a Conservative balanced budget.

It was from this prudent fiscal management that the Liberal government was then able to move forward again with progressive policies that have made Canada the envy of the world.

In order to understand the differences in approach, we need only to look at the last Liberal budget in 2005 and the subsequent fiscal outlook also in 2005, both presented with great and deserved pride by the member for Wascana, our previous minister of finance.

What did we find in budget 2005? We found a robust economy, secure social foundations, a sustainable environment, and a sound fiscal framework. This sounds to me like the ingredients of a great fiscal policy that included responsibility, compassion for who needed our assistance, and a sound vision for the future.

In fact, the Liberal budget of 2005 recognized that the fiscal policy of the Liberal government had created the fastest rate of increase in living standards among the then G-7 countries since the budget was balanced in 1997.

What did we find in budget 2005? For one thing, we found a solid and measurable commitment to universal accessible policies and publicly funded health care for Canadians. This was not only talk, but action.

The Liberal budget of 2005 reaffirmed the government's commitment of $41.3 billion over 10 years to improve access and reduce wait times for Canadians.

This enormous commitment to health care highlighted in budget 2005 included investments in health based human resources, healthy living and chronic disease, pandemic preparedness, drug safety and environmental health.

These are the kinds of investments that we could make as a result of the sound fiscal management of the Liberal government since taking office in 1993.

Recognizing the unique challenges facing Canadians with disabilities, we changed tax policies to assist them and their caregivers.

The previous Liberal government increased the guaranteed income supplement over five years by $2.7 billion. Liberals understood the needs of senior citizens in this country and they acted.

Canadians with children also faced significant fiscal pressures and the Liberal government committed $5 billion over five years for our early learning and child care initiative.

The agreements and those being negotiated with the provinces would have created real and sustainable child care spaces. The Conservative government, of course, chose to cancel these significant steps forward and that is regrettable indeed.

In terms of the environment, the Liberal budget of 2005 included a $5 billion commitment to ensuring a sustainable environment.

The Liberal government was committed to the Kyoto accord which would have realized real and measurable action on greenhouse gas emissions. Once again, the Conservatives have chosen to join with the United States and abandon the Kyoto agreement in favour of an ineffective long term policy that has more to do with optics and political expediency than with any results on environmental protection.

What about our cities? The former Liberal government was delivering needed support to them with a share of the federal gas tax. This was a Liberal policy. It was innovative and it was welcome news in municipalities across the country. The total commitment was $5 billion over five years from gas tax revenues.

Canada has long been recognized as a leader in terms of assistance to developing countries across the world. The Liberal budget of 2005 increased our international assistance by $3.4 billion over five years. This was a sound and measurable commitment to those nations most in need.

These solid commitments, among many others, were reinstated in November 2005 when the Liberal government produced its final fiscal update. This plan outlined $2.2 billion over five years to improve financial assistance and to ensure that post-secondary education was within reach for lower and middle income Canadians.

Liberals believe that everyone deserves a chance to reach their maximum potential and that the country benefits when we all have the opportunity to achieve our goals.

There was $550 million over five years to extend Canada's access grants to all lower income students in post-secondary education. This was an incredible step forward that many students welcomed.

There were also tax benefits for low income Canadians contained in the fiscal update, as well as infrastructure commitments.

All of this was proposed while maintaining a sound fiscal footing within the context of a balanced budget. As all members of the House will know, the progressive commitments contained in the fiscal update were cast aside when members of the New Democratic Party joined with their associates, the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois to defeat the government in late November 2005. It was an election that nobody wanted and was completely unnecessary.

Members of the New Democratic Party will certainly need to reflect on the wisdom of their action now when casting an eye on Bill C-28. Gone are the major commitments in the 2005 fiscal update. Gone are the great strides forward in child care service in the country. Gone is the Kyoto agreement. The list goes on and on.

Instead of waiting a few short months, members of the New Democratic Party joined with the Conservatives and Bloc Québécois for the purpose of political expediency to force an election. They also caused some of the most progressive policies this country has seen in years to vanish with the cold wind of Conservatism that has swept through the esteemed corners of Parliament.

I am sure many of those who have in the past supported the New Democratic Party will now be asking themselves why their party would have joined with the Conservatives in voting against the Liberal government on that November day causing all of these commitments to vanish in a single vote. I am sure they will also have much to say about what took place in the House on October 24 when members of the New Democratic Party voted with the Conservative government against a Liberal motion which stated:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government inherited the best economic and fiscal position of any incoming federal government and has not demonstrated the need, value or wisdom of its announced expenditure cuts which unfairly disadvantage the most vulnerable groups in the Canadian society.

What possibly could the members of the New Democratic Party have found so offensive about this resolution that they would once again vote with the Conservative Party? The truth is that so much has been lost to so many Canadians as evidenced in the Conservatives' first budget.

For example, where would we find in the budget the great accomplishment that was the Kelowna accord? The answer is that we do not because it is not there.

The Kelowna accord budgeted $5 billion over five years to our native people in the country. It was negotiated with provincial premiers and aboriginal leaders. The Kelowna accord was described at the time as an unprecedented step forward. I believe this to be true. I believe the decision by the Conservative government to abandon the agreement is quite frankly an unprecedented step backward.

The reality is that there is little in the budget speech for ordinary Canadians. Even those things that have been heralded by the Conservatives as significant really amount to very little.

Take the so-called tax plan for public transit users. The Minister of Finance, and indeed the Prime Minister, make much of this part of the budget. However, when actually calculating the amount, it is about $12 a month for transit users, hardly anything to really cheer about it.

Ken Georgetti of the Canadian Labour Congress described the budget this way, “The arithmetic does not work for ordinary working Canadians”. This is true because at the end of the day there is very little in the budget for ordinary Canadians.

We can only look in disbelief and regret when we glance through the budget for the financial commitments that give substance to real action on the environment file. Stephen Hazell of the Green Budget Coalition stated after the budget was announced that there is virtually nothing in the budget to make good on the government's throne speech commitments to tangible reduction in pollution and greenhouse gases. He is right because there is nothing there.

Bill C-28, the budget bill, is really a confirmation that the government is not moving forward in a manner that reflects the real values of Canadians. We have only to compare the sparse commitments in this budget to those made by the previous Liberal government, both in budget 2005 and the fiscal update, to see the reality of the Conservative government.

Canadians are compassionate, hard-working and progressive people. Budgets are statements that reflect the priorities of the government. I cannot imagine any administration in recent memory more out of touch with the people of this country.

Canadians believe in the priorities outlined in the Liberals' fiscal plans, including the environment, seniors, public transit, cities, students and persons with disabilities.

We do not find much in Bill C-28. Clearly the government is very much out of touch with the people it is supposed to be governing. I trust all members will keep this in mind when it comes to cast a vote on Bill C-28, the Conservative budget.

[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.

[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.

[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.