Bill C-28 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2

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

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

Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

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

The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Kings--Hants.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the hon. member to actually read the speech I gave in this House in 2001 at the time of the decision to ratify Kyoto in which I actually said I supported Kyoto. In fact, I attacked the government for not putting in place a plan at that time to meet Kyoto targets, so I was critical at that time of a government that did not implement a plan immediately to respect Kyoto targets. I was supportive of the Kyoto accord.

Today I find myself attacking a Conservative government that has actually undone a plan, has taken apart and destroyed a plan, that the Liberal government actually implemented. I supported that plan. I was part of a cabinet and in fact, under the leadership of my current leader who was environment minister at the time, a plan was implemented that made sense, that advanced the environmental file that would help us respect and achieve our Kyoto targets. This government is undoing it, so I am being entirely consistent.

I attacked when there was no plan to respect Kyoto targets and I am attacking today a government that completely gutted a Liberal government's plan to move toward meeting those Kyoto targets, so I have been entirely consistent.

One of the differences between the old Progressive Conservative Party and the Reform Party is that the old Progressive Conservative Party understood that climate change was a reality. It understood that we had to take action as a government, and in fact believed that Kyoto was the right thing but the plan needed to be in place to respect those targets.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I am going to give the floor to the member for Jeanne-Le Ber so he can ask a question.

I would like the hon. member for Kings--Hants to keep an eye on the Chair so that I can give him advice as to how the clock is running.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Kings—Hants and I was pleased, if surprised, to hear him talk about how our tax system must stop encouraging polluting industries and instead give tax benefits to companies in the sector who can contribute to improving our environment because major investments are needed. I was pleased because the Bloc Québécois has long held this position. If the member's riding were in Quebec, I think he would be ready to join the Bloc Québécois.

At the same time, I was surprised because many of the measures that help the oil industry were set up during the Liberal government's tenure. We remember the many gifts that were given, including accelerated capital cost allowances for 100% of oil sands investment. That means that according to the Liberal Party, an oil sands development has a useful life of one year. That is absolutely ridiculous.

Among other things, when the Standing Committee on Finance was drafting its pre-budget consultation report, I made a proposal to abolish this tax incentive, which encourages pollution. Unfortunately, the committee rejected the proposal.

I would like to know why we did not get his party's support to abolish a tax incentive that encourages polluters.

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

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

First, our government implemented positive changes to honour our commitments under the Kyoto accord: for example, EnerGuide and the other programs to encourage people and businesses to make a difference and invest in clean energy.

I absolutely agree with the member. We need to do more. That is why I have suggested ways of doing so.

It is clear to me that Quebeckers are particularly aware of environmental issues. I have confidence that Quebeckers and all Canadians can be rallied around a major national objective such as the environment. I hope that with effective policies, it will be possible to unite the country, Quebeckers and all Canadians, around this objective. Perhaps with that approach, it will be possible for us to work together in my party, the Liberal Party.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his thoughtful dissertation on the green economy and all the things we could do within it. Certainly, we have to make choices. We have made some choices in the past. One of the choices the Liberal administration made in the last few years, which was backed up by the Conservatives when they got in, was to encourage the development of liquefied natural gas terminals in Canada. These terminals would bring gas from other countries to Canada at very high environmental cost in terms of the CO₂ emissions to get the gas here. As early as May, the North American Energy Working Group was busy continuing this plan to develop the infrastructure of delivery of another fossil fuel from somewhere else.

As a Liberal member of cabinet before, does he now see the error in supporting the development of this new fossil fuel energy source for this country? It exports money and creates pollution in other countries. Does he think this is the kind of thing with which we should be moving ahead if we are really, truly talking about a green economy in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member refers, in a pejorative way, to fossil fuels. Perhaps he is of a different mindset because I know some people believe that we can achieve all the energy requirements that the world needs with wind, solar energy, biofuels and these others. In fact, that is not accurate.

We need to start with cleaner fossil fuel technology; the way we extract and the way we refine. We need to invest in the kinds of technologies that can lead to cleaner oil, cleaner gas and cleaner coal. However, we should not dismiss offhand any form of energy when the technology is available or waiting to be commercialized to actually produce it in a more environmentally sound way.

I mentioned earlier, and he may be adverse to this, that we have to have a broader discussion about nuclear power as a greater part of meeting our energy requirements in Canada. France is producing 78% of its energy with nuclear power. We cannot have a reasonable discussion on reducing greenhouse gas emissions unless we are willing to actually talk about nuclear power when it is one technology that does not produce or contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.

We as a country have significant uranium resources. I have been told that we are one of three countries in the world that is stably and democratically governed, until recently, and, at the same, has significant uranium resources. We need a broader discussion, but we should not be coming at it from an ideological perspective. I think that there are opportunities for us to produce all the forms of energy in a--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Kings—Hants had been asked to look at the Chair and I would have avoided interrupting him.

The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber may continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today about this notice of ways and means on the budget. Although the Bloc Québécois has always had serious reservations about this budget, we have decided to support it, as we believe it contains a number of gains that the Bloc Québécois has long been calling for. Moreover, today, during question period, I was glad to hear the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities remind this House that he needed the support of the Bloc Québécois. I think that clearly shows how useful and relevant the Bloc Québécois is.

Here are some of the gains and long-standing requests that we have successfully obtained from the government. The first is tax exemption on bursaries. We believe that if one level of government gives money to students for their studies, no part of that money should be taken away from them in the form of taxes. We also obtained tax improvements for micro-breweries. This is of particular concern to me, because the McAuslan brewery is in my riding. If time allows, I may discuss this further a little later. In any case, we had been calling for this for quite some time. A tax credit for public transit users, something that the Bloc Québécois requested on several occasions, was part of our platform. We are pleased to have obtained this. We had also long been asking for removal of the excise tax on jewellery, a tax credit for tools—the government even extended this to apprentices—and a 50% reduction in the right of landing fee.

As the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities stated this morning, the government needs the support of the Bloc Québécois in order to advance its issues. We are also working on another large file. We are hoping, as the parliamentary secretary said this morning, to be very pleasantly surprised and see the government finally fulfill its promise to correct the fiscal imbalance in the next budget.

However, I must confess that we are skeptical about this, to say the least, because, since tabling the last budget, all signs from the government seem to minimize the seriousness of the problem. We were even seriously told in this House and in committee that the GST reduction was helping to resolve the problem. This illustrates the government's failure to understand the problem of the fiscal imbalance. We are told that the problem is being resolved, although meanwhile, Ottawa cancelled a child care agreement with the Quebec government, thus adding to the fiscal imbalance.

Some say that the Bloc Québécois' requests are far-fetched, although the minister, Mr. Séguin, made the same requests in the National Assembly on behalf of Quebeckers. The number is the same. No matter how you try to calculate it, the answer is always $3.9 billion.

So, for us this is essential and it will be critical in the next budget. If the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities was serious this morning when he said that he needs the support of the Bloc Québécois, he will take note that this is our main demand. This is why Quebeckers put their trust in the Bloc Québécois. They know that we always follow up on our commitments, including resolving the fiscal imbalance issue. Quebec must receive $3.9 billion annually, through transfers or through the equalization program. In the short or the middle term, the government will also have to consider a true tax room transfer. Indeed, the middle or long term solution that is needed to solve the fiscal imbalance issue can only be achieved through a tax transfer.

No one in Quebec wants to be subjected to the risks that result from having various governments in Ottawa, various parties that change the programs, that abolish them, or that suddenly reduce federal transfers, like the Liberals did in 1995. We want to be able to manage our own financial resources, since it is our taxes that we are sending to Ottawa. This is a top priority for the Bloc Québécois.

In his economic statement, the Minister of Finance also talked about the government's intention to limit the federal government's spending power.

We are not opposed to that. On the contrary, this is interesting but, once again, we are very skeptical.

I asked the minister, when he appeared before the committee, to elaborate a little more on this, but he said very little. Now that this House has recognized that Quebeckers form a nation, it would be nice to include, in the next budget, real and concrete measures to limit the federal government's spending power.

What does this mean? When we talk about restricting the federal government's spending power, it is clear, at least in Quebec, that we are talking about the right to opt out with full financial compensation from any program put in place by the federal government in a Quebec or provincial jurisdiction. This measure will also have to be retroactive, so that the governments of Quebec and the provinces can say, “There is currently a program in my jurisdiction. We are asking for the right to opt out with full compensation, to be able to set up our own programs”.

This could be the case, for example, with the child care program. The approach used by the government in this area is totally different from the one selected by Quebec, which is to establish a public child care program shared by all.

If the government is really serious about limiting the use of its spending power, it has to expect that the Government of Quebec might say, for instance, “We are withdrawing from this program, taking the money currently provided by the federal government for child care and investing it in our own program”.

In its next budget, the government will have to correct errors and problems with taxation which penalize Quebeckers. I touched on that earlier this morning. The biggest problem was the impact of the child care program and cuts to Quebec in terms of the tax credit for child care, among other things.

In the rest of Canada, parents claiming tax credits for child care may claim $25, $30 or $40 a day, while in Quebec, parents who have access to public day care can claim only $7 a day. They still have to pay the difference through their taxes in Quebec, but they cannot claim more than $7 a day on their federal income tax. This makes for substantial savings for the federal treasury, while Quebeckers lose control over that money.

I questioned the parliamentary secretary this morning. As part of the Conservative government's alleged commitment to flexible federalism, will her government announce that it will respect the choice made by Quebeckers? Will it give back to the Quebec government the money saved each year on tax credits unclaimed by Quebec parents, so that this money can be invested in Quebec's own child care services? The parliamentary secretary would not commit to do so. It is very sad to see that this commitment to flexible federalism has remained little more than lip service. Flexible federalism really has to be taken to mean, “We are prepared to make an effort whenever it is no trouble and it serves us. Otherwise, it's your problem. We will not go out of our way for you”.

Quebeckers have to come to the realization that the only real choice left is to become our own country, to be able to make our own decisions and our own choices without having to ask permission of other levels of government. In the meantime, the Bloc Québécois will be here to try to limit the damage.

Moreover, there is absolutely nothing about Kyoto in this budget, which is very sad. Not only is there nothing on Kyoto, but the Minister of the Environment told us earlier this year that she would not give the $320 million that Quebec needs to implement its Kyoto plan.

In this regard, there is a similarity between the Conservatives and the Liberals. Neither of these parties acted on the Kyoto protocol. Yes, the Liberals ratified the protocol. The leader of the official opposition held a nice conference in Montreal and said a lot of nice things, but that does not change the fact that, under the previous government, Canada's record with regard to greenhouse gas emissions was nothing less than catastrophic.

For years the Liberals told us that it was important to meet our targets, but they did nothing. As for the Conservatives, they told us that it was impossible to meet our targets, so they did nothing. The Conservatives know they are incompetent and unable to deal with this problem, whereas the Liberals pretended they did not know. I think it is the only difference between those two parties. We hope that the next budget will include funds for the environment and for the Kyoto protocol and that the Government of Quebec will at least receive the money it has requested to fund its plan.

There is something else missing in this budget. It is a shame because what is missing would not cost much. I am talking about funding to set up an appeal tribunal for refugees, in accordance with the legislation. The regulatory and legislative framework already exists. The government just needs to fund this tribunal so that refugee status claimants can fully affirm their rights. They are currently dealing with commissioners who are often appointed for partisan purposes.

We recently saw in the media that the Conservatives are blocking some appointments for partisan reasons. By having an appeal division with truly independent judges, a refugee claimant who is the victim of a commissioner's error could appeal the decision and truly obtain justice. In my riding, there is a very real, very concrete example in the case of Abdelkader Belaouni, who is a refugee in sanctuary in a church basement in Pointe-Saint-Charles. This person was clearly wronged by a commissioner. This example is clear and striking because Laurier Thibault, the commissioner who denied Mr. Belaouni's claim, has not approved a single claim in the past two years. This is a commissioner who denies almost 100% of all claims. That cannot be right.

If a true appeal tribunal were set up, we would notice this situation even more. Maybe that is what the government is afraid of. Impartial judges might not have a 100% rejection rate and would see that many claims are justified and legitimate. Furthermore, Abdelkader Belaouni is quite involved in Pointe-Saint-Charles and has the community's support. This man wants to contribute to society and he wants to work. He has been here for 10 years. It is truly sad to see that such situations exist in Canada because the Minister of Finance did not include in his budget a few million dollars to set up this appeal tribunal.

In the meantime, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration should personally intervene, as far as the law allows him, in order to compensate Abdelkader Belaouni and regularize his situation. Since there was no appeal tribunal in place to prevent this situation, the minister must act to repair the damage done, at least. This would be a good way to make amends.

The ways and means motion before us would implement part of the budget, Bill C-28. As I have said, the Bloc Québécois asked for a number of measures, including a tax credit for public transit, a tax credit for textbooks and tax deductions for microbreweries. We support these measures, as well as measures to assist and reduce the burden on small and medium businesses in Quebec.

It is therefore not surprising that we will support Bill C-28 even though we have serious concerns about this budget overall.

There is one particularly interesting measure that I mentioned before: a different excise tax for micro-breweries. Since the budget was tabled, the measure has been modified somewhat to cover nearly all Canadian breweries. Even so, it will help a lot and we are pleased to have made progress in this area. As I said, I think that this will help local economies like those in my riding where the McAuslan microbrewery is located. It produces a good product, does excellent work, employs people and helps our communities survive. This is an excellent example of how the Bloc Québécois can contribute by encouraging the government to make good decisions for people.

With respect to individual taxation, the tax credit for toolkits purchased by tradespeople is also something we have been asking for for a long time. In many cases, people whose jobs require tools end up spending a lot of money every year. This is how they make their living, so they do not have a choice. They must buy these tools. Therefore, we are very pleased with this measure, which we have been asking for for so long.

As for the transit tax credit, that was in our 2004 election platform and we are pleased to see that the government finally listened to reason and included this measure in its budget. Obviously, this will not solve the problem with greenhouse gas emissions or the problem with public transit in general. The issue of underfunding must be addressed through the elimination of the fiscal imbalance. If the government is really serious about wanting to deal with transit issues, it will have to deal with the fiscal imbalance.

There are also a few measures for the most disadvantaged, including increasing to $1000 the amount deductible from the taxable income for pensioners. This is a good measure. However, it would be hard not to say that this does not even compensate for the billions of dollars still owed to seniors who were cheated out of the guaranteed income supplement. This program was too difficult to understand and too difficult to use for many of them. There are people who, for years, would have been entitled to apply for the GIS but never did. When they became aware of it, it was too late. The government agreed to pay the money back only for the last 11 months. That was under the Liberals. We would have thought that the Conservatives would act differently, but no, they are still refusing to give full retroactivity to those seniors who were cheated out of the guaranteed income supplement.

Yet, I challenge anyone not to pay taxes for four or five years and then tell the government, when it asks for its money, that it will only get the last 11 months worth of taxes, and that it is too bad if it did not notice anything sooner. Of course, that would not work. The person would have to pay the taxes owed for the whole period of time. The Bloc Québécois thinks that the government should refund seniors for the whole period during which they did not get the support that they needed.

Finally, as regards corporate taxation, we are also in favour of increasing the sales figure that allows small and medium size businesses to benefit from a reduced tax rate. We think this is a measure that will help develop the Quebec economy. In fact, we talked about this in our 2000 election platform, when the Bloc proposed a reform of corporate taxation to give more leeway to small and medium size businesses by reducing their tax burden, because this would allow them to better compete on international markets. So, we like this measure.

In conclusion, the next budget will have to include a true support program for older workers, as pledged by the government in its throne speech. That has not been done, but it will have to be done in the next budget.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned some issues surrounding the fiscal imbalance and the tax points that he would like to see as part of this fiscal imbalance and how we can move money from the federal government to the provinces.

In this budget and in the budgets of the Liberal Party prior to this one, for many years we have seen reductions in corporate tax rates and that has not allowed provinces to pick up tax points.

Corporations in this country are free to file their tax returns in whatever province they want. In my territory, the Northwest Territories, we have had extreme difficulty with our fiscal situation when we adjust the corporate tax rate. Either we scare off all the corporations and they run to another province to file or we lower the rate and they run to us.

I would like my hon. colleague to speak to how we can deal with the corporate tax rate in Canada that is applied in provinces. Do we not need some kind of agreement across the country to fix the corporate tax rate that will apply and will prevent these corporations from treating us as pawns in their game to reduce their after tax rate?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely that tax reductions, whether for corporate taxes, personal income tax, the GST and so on, are not the answer to correcting the fiscal imbalance. These are measures aimed at giving money back to Canadians, measures often suggesting that the government is trying to please the population by distributing a little money here and there, but this is in no way a genuine solution to the fiscal imbalance issue.

As for general tax reductions for corporations, I would point out that, in recent years, although tax rates have been considerably reduced for Canadian businesses, there has been no real increase in investments made by businesses. One might wonder where that money went? Where did those freed up assets go, if not into investments? We might assume that they went directly into the hands of shareholders and that, in the end, it was not as beneficial for our economy as we thought.

The Bloc Québécois always tries to take an approach that offers real, targeted measures. Consider, for instance, the refundable tax credits for businesses that are willing to invest in research. In this budget, for example, targeted measures for small and medium size businesses can be effective, such as special tax rates for small businesses that are expanding. However, simply lowering the general tax rates for all big businesses does not have any useful effect on our economy. This would no doubt please a certain lobby, but it would not be very effective and would in no way contribute to correcting the fiscal imbalance.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the measures in the budget, the tax credit for the cost of riding public transit, would make the cost of a monthly transit pass tax deductible. The Greater Vancouver Transit Authority has released figures showing that ridership for this year increased 10% in June, a further 10% in July and 13% in August. Those are the latest figures we have.

Would my colleague give us his view of whether this sort of measure to encourage the use of public transit should be encouraged and would he have any other studies or figures that might show whether such measures are effective?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are already on the record as supporting this measure. In fact, we put it forward in our 2004 election platform.

I think it is a matter of letting public transit users know that the government supports what they are doing.

I am not sure, however, to what extent this measure will have a significant effect on ridership. We would have preferred a refundable tax credit, because public transit users are in large part student who, more often than not, do not pay taxes. It is less of an incentive for them. I brought this up when the minister came to committee.

While people do talk to me about the cost of public transit—lower costs would certainly be welcome—running times, frequency, routes and infrastructure are also of concern to them. Those who do not use public transit often argue that it takes too long, that it is too difficult to use, that there are not sufficient routes and that the schedules are not flexible enough.

Transit authorities should be allowed to provide expanded service in terms of frequency, scheduling, flexibility and routes. This has to happen at the level of transit authorities, which come under the purview of the provinces.

If the government is really serious about resolving these issues, it has to stop choking the provinces and provide them with all they need to deliver these services to their inhabitants.

Fiscal imbalance really has to be dealt with. We will work on it with the government, which we will support if it gives back to Quebec the $3.9 billion requested to correct the fiscal imbalance.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber on his excellent speech.

I take this opportunity to add to the remarks made by the parliamentary secretary, who forgot to mention that the Bloc Québécois had already introduced in the House on two occasions, through its members, bills concerning the opportunity of such a tax credit. We wanted a refundable tax credit.

We obviously managed to half convince the Conservatives, who were more open than they are now when they were in opposition. Again, as representatives of the Quebec nation, we are happy the carry the real message.

The tax credit is a step in the right direction but next time, it should really be a refundable tax credit. This could be included in the next federal budget to ensure that it is not only taxpayers who are encouraged to use public transit and that those who do not pay taxes receive a fair refund. That would encourage them to use public transit more.

Does my colleague think this is realistic?

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

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

It is true that we need to go further, and the Bloc Québécois will continue to work toward that goal. As I said earlier, I will continue to talk about this in committee and make recommendations. When the minister came, I told him my thoughts on this.

I will certainly continue to work with the parliamentary secretary and all members of the committee to move this file forward.

I believe that the Bloc Québécois' progress, though not yet complete, once again demonstrates the importance of the Bloc Québécois' work. This coincides with what the Minister of Transport said earlier this morning when he was explaining to the House that he needed the Bloc Québécois' support.

We will continue to do our work rigorously and effectively. The parliamentary secretary also sought our opinion on and support for the public transit tax credit, and we gave it.

It would certainly be nice if the Minister of Transport and the parliamentary secretary explained to some of their Conservative colleagues, who like to talk themselves hoarse criticizing the Bloc Québécois, that the party is useful and that they need it to advance the interests of Canadians and—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Western Arctic

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak in this budget debate. I noted with interest some of the comments the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance made at the beginning of her speech. She set the tone that the government wanted to follow. With this bill, she felt it was opening up new opportunities for Canadians to be better served in the tax system and she spoke to a number of specific instances of that.

She also spoke of the importance of working Canadians as part of the whole tax structure, and in a way we all are. Working Canadians are the wealth creators. I come from a region of the country which is doing very well in creating wealth for Canadians, with the diamonds, oil and gas in the Northwest Territories. We are starting to push a lot of wealth into the rest of the country.

We can look the oil and gas industry in northern B.C. and say the same thing. People working in that part of the country are creating a lot of wealth for the country. We could say the same thing about northern Alberta. We can go to northern Saskatchewan where the uranium mines are now pumping out enormous profits, another indicator of wealth creation.

The development of hydroelectric power in Manitoba will create more wealth. The northern Ontario diamond mines, the potential great hydroelectric developments in Quebec, the Labrador nickel, and the list goes on, create more wealth. Throughout northern Canada, working people create wealth for the rest of the country. Wealth is a good thing; it makes our world work.

Within the concept of that, we need workers in the north. We need people to live, work raise their families and have a normal life there, just like every other Canadian. That is very important. It creates wealth and helps the whole country out.

In the mid-eighties we had some pretty far-sighted Conservatives in the Mulroney government who realized it was important that northerners be well protected in terms of their ability to live and work. To their great credit, they created what was called the northern residents' tax deduction. That spoke to fairness.

However, when we look at 2006, and in preparation for next year's budget, we need to talk about what the north needs. We need measures to deal with the high cost of living. The tax deduction created in 1986 and remains the same amount in 2006 does not accomplish that purpose. It does not deliver that for northerners any more.

According to information provided by the NWT Bureau of Statistics, a food item which costs $1 in Yellowknife, on average costs $1.35 in Fort Liard, $1.70 in Wekweti, $1.91 in Fort Good Hope and $2.22 in Pawitik. These increased costs do not reflect the fact that the costs of items in Yellowknife are already significantly higher than southern Canadian cities like Edmonton.

On average, households of northerners spend $15,000 more per year on living essentials than other Canadians. Some will argue that higher northern wages make up for these increased costs. If we were talking about a time many years ago, we might say that was the case. However, when we look at Statistics Canada and we look at the wages across the country, we see it is not the case.

The other day I had the opportunity to travel on a plane with a young fellow from Newfoundland who had worked in northern Canada and in Alberta. When I asked him if he was better paid in the north, he said that his paycheque was larger for less work in Alberta than it was when he worked at the diamond mines in the Northwest Territories. This young fellow was a skilled tradesman whose skills could be used anywhere in the country. It is not working for northerners any more.

High wages are not really the answer. It is not about that. High wages only benefit those who have a job which pays well. For the unemployed and the working poor, the high cost in the north only adds to their burdens. The majority of people in northern communities across the country are working for very low wages in very substandard conditions.

Some would say that the much promoted cut to the GST has helped northerners to deal with the high cost of living. In reality, the 1% cut lowered the price of a cup of coffee in Yellowknife by a whopping 1%. A 1¢ drop in the price of a cup of coffee really helps when the price of a litre of milk is $4 or $5 and when someone needs a loan to buy fresh fruit, vegetables and groceries. The GST is very perverse in what it does to northern communities where the cost of living is high. Northerners pay more GST for every item they buy than southerners. In some respects, we in the north pay more taxes than those who live in the southern part of Canada. The GST, the tax on consumption, exacerbates that issue.

If the government really wants to help northerners, and I am talking about northerners in every province and territory, then it should increase the northern residents tax deduction. This is a pretty simple thing to do.

As many members know, since being elected to the House, I have called for the northern residents tax deduction to be increased by 50%, with future increases indexed to a northern inflationary measure. It has been estimated that for each increase of $1,000 to the deduction, $3 million would be put back into the pockets of northerners.

If the Minister of Finance cannot take my advice, then perhaps he will take the advice of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. At its annual general meeting in Saskatoon, chamber members, those very progressive and enlightened people we all know as the backbone of the country with their large and small businesses, voted to support the federal government in: reviewing the provisions allowing for income tax deductions for northern residents and increasing the housing deduction to reflect the actual inflation index costs of housing in northern areas; reducing record burdens by eliminating the current employer specified vacation travel deduction and replacing it with a standardized inflation indexed northern vacation deduction based on the number of people in the taxpayer's household and the area of residence; and dispensing with the limit on medical travel being the lowest return air fare and allowing northern taxpayers the deduction for their actual costs incurred in medical travel.

These tremendously progressive statements came from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I thank the members for those statements. I thank them for their support because they truly recognize that northern workers are making a difference to our economy. They will continue to add wealth into the country and will continue to support the efforts of southern Canadians to live in a good fashion.

Maybe the Minister of Finance will take the advice of the legislative assembly in the Northwest Territories that unanimously supported a motion to increase the deduction.

Also calling for this change is the NWT Chamber of Commerce and the Hay River Chamber of Commerce. The head of the Hay River Chamber of Commerce said:

Hay River is experiencing a period of rapid economic growth, but to sustain this prosperity we must retain and attract residents.

He went on to point out that in order to address this need for residents, there must be an increase in the northern residents tax deduction. What a good idea.

I do not know if the federal government realizes this, but if we pay the cost of flying people in and out of the north, that adds to the company's costs and reduces its taxes, which go back to the federal government.

By encouraging northerners to live in the north, we are going to improve the financial viability of companies and we are going to see a return to the federal government. That is not a bad idea; it is a good idea. This is what we want to create in our country.

Increasing the northern residents' tax deduction will help ordinary northerners, but more is needed, and I will not stop there. I speak to that first because it is an issue for people and people first is the way our party deals with things. We also need to speak to the increased need of funding to our territorial governments.

During the election, the Prime Minister wrote to the Premier of the Northwest Territories, saying:

We recognize the unique circumstances faced in the North regarding the delivery of programs and services to residents [in small, remote communities] and we are prepared to discuss the challenges regarding the costs and circumstances for the delivery of those services.

I appreciate the Prime Minister's comments. We all appreciate them. We want them backed up in the budgets of the government so they reflect what the Prime Minister said. That seems to be pretty straightforward. The government has had plenty of time to talk. It has had an expert panel report, advising how to change the funding formulas for the territories.

The Northwest Territories has identified four key issues that stand in the way of the north achieving its full potential. First among them is a need for a new fiscal relationship with Ottawa, one that reflects the needs of the Northwest Territories. The current fiscal arrangement simply cannot continue. They are deep-seated. Our territorial government, representing the full number of the people in the Northwest Territories, can only borrow up to $300 million. Most of that is tied up already in debt on public utility systems, which of course it has to provide.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It is with regret that I interrupt the hon. member. When we return to the study of Bill C-28, there will be seven and a half minutes left to the hon. member for Western Arctic.

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.

The House resumed from December 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-28, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006, be read the third time and passed.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

When we last considered Bill C-28, the hon. member for Western Arctic had seven and a half minutes left for his comments. He has the floor.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, during my previous speech I spoke about the serious issue of tax fairness for northern people. As I indicated, the other issue that I wanted to speak to in this discussion regarding northern issues is the need to change the way that we are funding northern territories. We have had an expert panel reporting on how to change the funding formula for the territories, and I had just started in on this when my time was up on Friday.

I will just repeat that we have identified four key issues that stand in the way of the north achieving its full potential.

The first is a new fiscal arrangement with Ottawa, one that truly reflects the needs of the Northwest Territories. The current fiscal arrangement cannot continue. Not only is it inadequate but in many ways it acts as a disincentive to the Northwest Territories moving forward.

My territory is very much controlled by this august Parliament, unlike the other provinces and regions of this country. This Parliament really does play such an important role in what happens in the north. As a northerner, I have railed against that for my whole life. I have felt, in some ways, the inadequacy of my citizenship, living where I do in the north. Certainly, part of it is the way that the Government of Canada deals with northerners.

As such, we all hope that as the resources of our territory are extracted and developed, they will mean more self-determination for us as citizens of the north. There is no question about that. If our resources simply get taken and we end up, at the end of the day, with what we have now, that would be a tremendous letdown and a tremendous failure of the Canadian system which is to recognize that we are all equal across this country and that we all have equal political rights.

The federal government provides about 70% of the funds for the Northwest Territories, but that really does not make the NWT a have region because this government, not the northerners, owns the vast riches of the territories. Nearly as much goes to Ottawa in royalties, in land sales and in corporate taxation. Nearly as much goes to Ottawa right now from the Northwest Territories as comes in to the Northwest Territories.

With a proper fiscal regime that would put our resources on the same level as other provinces where governments collect considerably more royalty revenues, we would be in a positive situation in the Northwest Territories. We would be ahead of the game.

The Government of Canada has chosen to subsidize businesses that develop in the north at the expense of royalties and taxation that could make the difference between us being a have and a have not province. Province is a term I use somewhat lightly because we are a province in waiting. In the Prime Minister's letter to the NWT, he wrote:

The Conservative Party of Canada agrees unequivocally with the principle that northerners should be the primary beneficiaries of the revenues generated by resource development in the Northwest Territories similar to other jurisdictions in Canada. We also agree that the transfer of authority over lands and resources from Canada to the Northwest Territories (devolution) is the next logical step in the political development of the Northwest Territories.

Northerners would really like to know when this is going to happen and how this is going to happen. If this is the mandate of the Government of Canada, will it say it very clearly to its new emissary, Mr. Harvie Andre?

In 2004-05, public accounts showed that the federal government took in over $270 million in royalties and resource revenue from the Northwest Territories and the amount is growing every year. That amount went up quite a bit last year as well. Those figures have not come out, but that is because our second diamond mine is now into production. At the same time that does not include the corporate taxation that goes with that.

In comparison, the Northwest Territories public accounts showed only $3.5 million in corporate income taxes in that same year. This goes back to a problem that we have just like every other province or political region in the Northwest Territories and that is, if we set our corporate tax rate a little higher than anyone else, then of course the corporations are all filing somewhere else.

We have bounced around over the years because where we had huge surpluses, we lowered the rate and then everyone followed us down and then we balanced out. Then we raised the rate and then we got nothing. That is a fundamental problem with the tax system in Canada which should be addressed by the federal government. There should be some federal-provincial understanding on corporate taxation to avoid this kind of loophole, to avoid this kind of competition that takes the money out of the hands of the provinces and the regions.

People in the north simply want a fair deal from Canada in how our interests are treated. Whether it is on taxation or funding for government programs and services, we actually want to benefit and build our territory on the resources that we have. We want to make that happen for Canadians for the future. I hope in the future that the government will do much better than this budget in dealing with northern concerns and issues. The improvement has to take place.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Questions and comments. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

My apologies to the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay. I did not see him. I recognize him under questions and comments.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was thinking I might have to start wearing some brighter coloured clothes like my colleagues from the Bloc just so that I would be recognized.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question based on his experience in the Northwest Territories because what he speaks of mirrors so closely the experience we have in northern Ontario. We too are a region which is based on resources. We are based on hydro. We produce some of the cheapest hydro in the world and yet our industries have no access to that cheap hydro. We are paying what they pay in Mississauga when they turn on their air conditioners in the summer.

We are based on mining and mining is non-renewable. We have had many communities that have been driving the economic engine of Ontario through hard times, yet when these towns fall on hard times, they disappear off the map.

We have forestry which is another mainstay of our economy. Many of our forestry communities are going under. There is question that has been asked again and again in northern Ontario. A fundamental disparity exists when a region is resource-based. It has to be able to access some of the wealth of the region in order to diversify and build an economy that is not simply based on drawing out the water and cutting the trees, but is based on taking that wealth and building a sustainable and diverse economy.

Given the hon. member's experience in the Northwest Territories, how does he suggest a region like the Northwest Territories, the northern Arctic or northern Ontario can move forward with an agenda that works for the resource-dependent regions of the north?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague sometimes blends into the windows that are behind him.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I am so shy.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

And he is so shy that it makes it difficult.

There are fundamental differences in the Northwest Territories, which is an autonomous region and which theoretically, quite plausibly, along with northern Ontario should be a province in waiting.

What is not different about those areas is what the member alluded to. He said that when the government does not pay attention to the northern regions, when it allows them to be exploited without building the infrastructure and proper communities, without making the things happen that will leave behind substance, we end up with something far less satisfactory.

When the government does not do that and we allow ourselves to be manipulated by government and large corporations into doing things in the cheap and dirty fashion, which has been the practice for the last 20 years and which is a practice that has to stop in this country, we end up with something that is far less satisfactory than what we have.

I know that the hon. member's riding has representation at Queen's Park. Ontario is one of the dominant provinces of Canada. How these conditions can go on in this region year after year is something that really shocks me.

In my own territory, I can always blame it on Ottawa. I am able to say that Ottawa is not doing its share. My colleague has to deal with that provincial relationship.

What binds us across the north are the things that the federal government is able to do. I spoke about this earlier when I talked about tax fairness. We need some fairness in the system. The federal government agreed in the 1980s that it was fair to offer northerners right across the country an extra tax break because of their high costs. The government has recognized northern and remote communities in Parliament and in our taxation. What we need to do is to make it fair again.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-28, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006.

When looking at a budget, the challenge of any government is to balance a budget that is going to ensure economic productivity and competitiveness and ensure people have money in their pockets. It should try to find a balance, that yin and yang between being able to have a productive dynamic economy and having the resources to provide the social programs we enjoy. As well, ensuring that individual Canadians have the maximum amount of money in their pockets and that governments do not waste money is the challenge of any budget.

The fundamental question of this budget is whether it meets that test. Does it enable our country to have a productive, dynamic economy and also provide the resources to allow us invest in the infrastructure we require in order to have a productive economy? Does it enable us to have the resources to provide for the social programs that all Canadians enjoy? I would argue that this budget fails on all of those counts. I will go through the reasons.

If we look at the global context, we can see in the future a greater amount of competitiveness in the world from giants such as India and China. They are on an economic juggernaut that will increase as time passes. It is up to us to change, modify, improvise and become more dynamic in order to stay ahead of those countries. If we fail to do so, we will suffer.

Right now Canada stands at eighth or ninth in the world in terms of economic productivity. That is okay, but we can do better. I am going to outline ways in which this budget fails as well as solutions for how our country can improve its productivity, for the reasons I mentioned.

This bill deals with a number of income tax measures. I am going to go through them in a second. I also want to say that the fundamental aspects of a balanced budget that will be useful are that the budget is indeed balanced, that there is responsible spending, there is debt reduction and there are tax reductions so that we will have a competitive international tax rate. I have mentioned the reasons why we ought to do that.

I also want to mention one of the profoundly disappointing aspects of this budget. Canadians would be very interested and very disappointed, I think, to know that this budget by the present government actually increases the taxes on the most vulnerable in society, the poor and the lower middle class.

How does it do that? The government increased the lowest tax rate that exists in our country. It also reduced the basic personal exemption. The government argues that the balance to that is the dropping of the GST, a consumption tax, but does a consumption tax really benefit the middle class and the poor? Dropping a consumption tax like the GST benefits primarily the rich, because in order to benefit from that, one has to spend. The more one spends, the more one benefits.

The people who are struggling to survive do not spend that much; ergo, they do not benefit as much. When government takes money out of the pockets of Canadians, it hurts Canadians selectively. Therefore, the wisest thing the government could have done in terms of productivity and of fairness, I would argue, would have been to drop the lowest income tax rates and increase the basic personal exemption. That puts real money in the hands of Canadians.

There is a reason why this budget is so peculiar and particular in certain areas, why it cherry picks certain benefits and does not deal with global tax reductions for individuals, particularly the poor and middle class. The reason is that this is a cynical budget. It is a budget that is designed to curry favour with the electorate. Naturally all political parties want to do that, but to do that by cynically parking one's brains at the door and not implementing solutions based on fact, reason and science is irresponsible.

Instead, the government and this budget are engaging in irresponsible behaviour because the solutions are based on cynically trying to curry favour with the public and putting forth woolly-headed solutions that sound good on the one hand but are not very effective. I gave the example of the GST cut. On the surface it sounds very exciting and good, but unless one spends a whole lot of money, which means one is rich, it is not really going to benefit the rest of Canadians. The fact is that Canadians with low or modest incomes are struggling hard these days. The increased tax burden on them is irresponsible.

One of the tax benefits the government has introduced in this bill is something called the Canadian employment tax credit. On the surface, that sounds wonderful. It is $1,000, but in reality, if we read carefully, we see that it is a tax credit for those who are working. Those who are unemployed and those who are really struggling, the most vulnerable, cannot access this. In fact, those who are working and making minimum wage or close to it do not pay very much in the way of taxes, so this kind of tax credit is not of as much benefit to the most vulnerable in our society at all. It does not help them at all.

What would be smarter? Earlier this year, I introduced something called the Canadian low income supplement, for which I have a private member's bill that will be introduced in the House in the next little while, a bill saying that a person who makes $20,000 or less will receive a cheque for $2,000, tax free. That number will decline to zero in a linear fashion, down to $40,000.

Why? Because this is real money in the hands of those who need it the most. A tax credit for those who do not make much money is utterly immaterial, because either they do not pay tax or the tax is so small that it does not really amount to much. When we so-called help those who are of modest means, we give them $50 a year.

Also, my bill does not apply only to people who work. It applies to people who do not work and who are on fixed incomes. For example, all of us here know seniors in our ridings who are living on fixed incomes. They have given their lives to our country and are living on a very tiny amount of money. The amount of money in my bill, the $2,000, is real money, tax free, in their hands. It will enable them to live and put food on the table. If people are younger, this will enable their children to have various benefits. If people are older and retired, it will enable them to pay for medications that are not covered, as well as a host of other challenges our seniors face day in and day out.

The Canadian low income tax supplement that I introduced earlier this year is something that the government ought to adopt. I hope Canadians who are listening will put pressure on the government, because this would mean real money in the hands of the most vulnerable in our society. It is fair, equitable and humane. It will help those in our society who are most impoverished.

Let us look at another couple of tax measures that are in this bill. One is the Canadian textbook credit of $500 annually, a credit for textbooks for students. On the surface it sounds good, but how does it actually materialize and get into the hands of a student? The tax credit is multiplied by the lowest income tax bracket. Therefore, this tax benefit is actually worth only $77.50. That is right. This $500 tax credit is worth only $77.50 in the hands of students. That, as we know, will not pay for even one single textbook for most courses in post-secondary education.

The next issue is the transit tax to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We know that the government's so-called clean air act has been an absolute bust full of hot air. What would be a series of solutions that would actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions? I will give members a few.

If we take a look at greenhouse gas emission reduction, we will see that it is tied to our burning of fossil fuels, so the question is, how do we reduce fossil fuel consumption? I have a few suggestions.

Perhaps the simplest way of doing that is tied to how we build our homes. We lose an incredible amount of energy in our homes. We know that the technology exists today to build our homes more efficiently and substantially reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. China is making buildings that produce 70% less greenhouse gas emissions than buildings of a similar size in North America.

What the government can do is go back to adopting the EnerGuide program that it so callously cut because it was so-called Liberal. It may be something that we introduced, but the reality is that the EnerGuide is a good program. It enables people to have the tools, resources and know-how to provide and implement those changes in their homes that will reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and, therefore, the production of greenhouse gas emissions.

I have another couple of suggestions. As we know, cars made before 1986 produce 37 times the number of greenhouse gas emissions produced by a car made after 1996. That is absolutely staggering. By removing from the road one car built prior to 1986, we are actually reducing by the equivalent of removing 37 cars made after 1996.

The government should provide a tax break or eliminate the GST for anybody who takes a 1986 car off the road and buys a car made after 1996. It would be simple and easy to do. In effect, this is an example of tax shifting. The Minister of Finance should take a look at it. Frankly, it ought to be in this bill. It would enable us to shift the tax and encourage people to adopt actions that are more energy sensitive and environmentally sensitive.

Another issue is the Canadian children's fitness tax credit. This is a $500 tax credit for a parent, but again, it is only worth $77.50 because it is multiplied by the lowest tax rate. A parent would actually receive $77.50, not $500. The purpose behind this tax credit was noble: helping parents get their kids to become more active. We know that childhood obesity is at epidemic proportions in our country. How do we deal with this issue?

It would be smart to do two things. First, as I have argued repeatedly in the House, and in fact we passed it in this House in 1998, would be a headstart program for children. It could be adopted in the following way. The Minister of Health should call together all the ministers of health and the ministers of education from across Canada and tell them they should be providing this program for all children up to and including grade 3. Parents would be allowed to go into the class once every two weeks for two hours, if they wanted to, and they would deal with issues such as physical education, literacy and nutrition. Parents would be working with their kids on these three important things.

Literacy and physical education would be used, along with proper discipline, proper care and nutrition. This would have a profound impact on the lives of these children. The pillars and benchmarks would be laid for a solid individual in the future. Prior to the age of 8, neurons in a child's brain are actually quite malleable. They change. What a child experiences at that time could have a positive or negative impact on their future. It would be a smart move if the Minister of Health worked with his counterparts across the country to implement a headstart program.

The other thing that could be done is the implementation of a mandatory physical education program in schools, up to and including grade 11. Mandatory physical education would be very helpful in getting kids physically active during the course of the day.

As I said, it is very important that a budget such as this deal with productivity. I am going to outline a few solutions we could implement that would dramatically improve our productivity and enable us to be really competitive with those giants at our heels right now, particularly India and China.

First, we could reduce the basic personal exemption. Second, we could reduce the lowest tax rate. Third, we have to make sure that we reduce the tax rates on businesses so they are competitive across our country. Ensuring that we have a competitive business tax regime is extremely important.

With respect to surpluses, we should implement the one-third, one-third, one-third rule. One-third would be debt reduction; one-third would be spending on critical areas, which I will mention in a second; and one-third would be tax reductions for businesses and individuals.

With respect to investment, it is very disappointing that the government did not continue the research and development investments that my party made over the last five years. Rx and D is an absolutely integral part of our ability to be competitive. Therefore, I have no idea why the Conservative government chose to dramatically decrease research and development investment. This is one of the pillars of a vibrant and productive economy. Some of that money ought to be going to universities and colleges. Some of it should be used to encourage the private sector to reinvest profits into businesses.

The government should work with the provinces to harmonize the PST and GST to ensure that provincial sales taxes are not applied to business inputs but into their businesses.

The PST in some provinces is exempt from business inputs and in others it is not. The federal government could work with the provinces to ensure there is no PST or GST on business inputs, which would enable companies to make the investments they require.

On education, let us enable our students to get the higher education they require. With costs escalating, I find it reprehensible that individuals in our society are barred from accessing higher education because of the amount of money in their pockets. A fundamental tenet of our country is that everyone has the equal opportunity for success, not equal outcomes but an equal opportunity to be the best that they can become.

The fact that tuition fees have escalated so high and, quite frankly, have become a barrier for some people to access the education they require, is something the government should put its full effort into with its provincial counterparts.

In infrastructure, the government should be adopting the cities agenda that we started. The cities agenda is extremely valuable in ensuring that investments and monies that we have at the federal level will be driven at the municipal level for the needs of local communities. We did that. The agreements were hammered out with the provinces and municipalities and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities was very happy with that. I implore the government to continue with the program.

As the House knows, there are greater barriers to trade east-west than there are north-south. My province of British Columbia has signed a landmark deal with the province of Alberta to dramatically reduce and almost remove the barriers to trade between British Columbia and Alberta. There is no reason that the federal government cannot take a leadership role with the provinces to do this.

How would it work? The Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Industry should work with their provincial counterparts to call a trade council together where we put forward the trade barriers, eliminate those that are unnecessary and useless and we move on. It is a major restriction.

I will give one example, which is labour. The fact that somebody who is trained in Ontario cannot work in British Columbia or that somebody trained in B.C. cannot work in Newfoundland is ridiculous. The fact that we are all trained in the same country and yet our skills are provincial specific is an absurd situation. It is a major restriction to labour mobility and a major drain on the ability of our country to be economically competitive. I encourage the government to work with its provincial counterparts to do that.

When we were in government we started the smart regulation initiative, which took a ruthless look at the regulations. We started hacking away at and removing all those regulations that were unnecessary. The groundwork is there. The minister should take a look at this, continue with the smart regulation initiative and reduce those barriers to trade.

My last point is on the issue of immigration. With our changing demographics we know that the ratio between the retired population to worker population is increasing. We can do two things. First, retire the mandatory age of retirement. If the 65 of today is the new 50, why on earth do we not allow people who are 65 and above to work? It is absurd given the demographic changes that we require. These are smart, productive, willing people who want to work. They would be a boon to our economy.

Second, with respect to immigrants, many of the immigrants in our country are working on the margins because they may be here illegally. However, to ensure we honour the law but also enable these people to become integrated into our society and not live at the margins, we should give these people an opportunity to come in from the cold, apply for a worker's permits, give them a two year permit and renew it a couple of times. If they are law-abiding, pay their taxes and are employed, we then give them the chance to become Canadian citizens.

I have provided the government with a series of solutions and opportunities that it can take which would enable our country to be more productive. I am sure the government will find widespread support from across Parliament to give effective solutions to the benefit of our great people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the notion of moving up the mandatory retirement age from 65. I think that is a good idea and something that needs to be looked into.

One of the things we have repeatedly heard at the finance committee concerns bumping up the age at which we need to convert our RRSP into RRIF. The suggestion has been that we move the age from 69 to 71, which is what it was before the change was made about 10 years ago.

I wonder whether the hon. member has a comment on whether that appears to be a good idea. It is consistent with his notions of changing the retirement date. Does he have any thoughts as to whether, given his mental--I mean medical background, possibly his mental background as well or possibly his heavy metal background, for which I am sure there is some hearing loss, 71 or 73 might be a more appropriate age given that we are all medically a little healthier than we were in the past?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not make any comment about his preamble as it would be telling far too much.

As the former parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance, he is well-versed in these issues. We can do a few things. I agree with him about shifting the age upward for the RRIF but we can two more things.

First, we could allow people to take, say, $10,000 from their RRSP after the age of 55, tax free, if they make below a certain amount of money. The reason for that is that there are costs we incur as we get older, particularly medical costs. Why not allow people to access those funds from their RRSPs, tax free, to enable them to provide for themselves? That could be something innovative.

Second, if we were to completely abolish the mandatory age of retirement, in order to give an incentive to keep people engaged in the workforce but also lessen the pressure on our CPP, we could do the following. I introduced a bill that would work like this: at 65 we would receive 50% of our CPP, tax free; at 66, 60%; at 67, 70%; and at 68, 80%. What would this do? It would keep people engaged in the workforce, lower the demands on the CPP, improve our productivity and give people more money in their pockets at a time when they may need those moneys in their pockets because of personal circumstances. In doing so, it would be a win-win situation for all concerned.

Those are innovative solutions that we could adopt and they would be helpful to people as they get older.

It is interesting that when the mandatory age of retirement was put forward at 65, the average life expectancy was only 58. People thought they would never reach that age so they thought it was a small thing. Women are now living to the age of 82 and men to 79. It is now incumbent upon us to rethink the situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of any other interventions, I think this is actually an interesting conversation. I like to see that the hon. member has actually thought about some of these issues.

Another issue that came up at the finance committee was allowing self-employed people to have access to actual pension plans that operate like an employer pension plan as opposed to an RRSP. I thought there was some merit in that idea because a lot of people are not very versed in investments and things of that nature. We could have a fiduciary entity, such as a large trust company, a fund company of some kind or another or possibly the government itself, operate as the pension entity so that people could actually make contributions in the same way that they make contributions to their pension, as would their employer make contributions.

I was wondering whether, for self-employed people or for people who have irregular income, the hon. member thinks that might be an idea that is worth exploring by the government?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is very well versed on this and, as a parliamentary secretary, I know he has worked extremely hard with our former minister of finance to implement many of the solutions.

If viewers were to look back in history and look at the innovative partnership that occurred there, they would see the types of innovations that were implemented on behalf of the Canadian public.

The member's suggestion is very good because those people who are self-employed do tend to fall between the cracks. Their income ebbs and flows as time passes. It is very important that we look at the fiscal pressures that are placed on people as they get older.

I suggest that the demographic time bomb that is before us is the most under-represented and underappreciated issue of our day. Unless we implement the solutions today to deal with those challenges, a lot of people will be unnecessarily hurt.

Quite frankly, all we need to do is take a look at the European experience and the pressures being applied to the pension structure in Europe and we will see how worrisome this is. We need to look at that in order to implement the solutions today that will ensure Canadians as they get older will have the money they need. Some solutions that we have worked on for some time could provide that.

However, if we fail to deal with this today it will be a gross act of negligence on the part of the government. I implore the government to do that and to work with the rest of us to implement these solutions for the benefit of our citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, the area that the hon. member is talking about is at least one of the foremost challenges facing any government today, and it does not really much matter whether it is Liberal or Conservative.

Does the hon. member have some comments with respect to not only moving up the age, but what the impact of moving up the age from 65 to something else would be in situations where there is a defined benefit plan which is in trouble? My recollection is that there is something in the order of 50% of plans that are not fiscally sustainable at this point, given the year and the date at which the beneficiaries would cash in. If the date were moved forward, or up, their fiscal sustainability would be there.

It would also have an interesting impact on the Canada pension plan. Right now, due to the work of the previous government, the Canada pension plan is fiscally sustainable for another 75 years. If there were small changes such as that, we would suddenly take the pension crisis that we are potentially facing and, as I say, it does not matter which government will be on that side of the aisle, change the entire conversation and the dynamics. How to deal with people who have legitimate expectations at 65 is another issue.

Has the hon. member given some thought to that kind of an issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think there is a situation that people must understand. When I said that one could retire later on, I think there should be no mandatory age of retirement. However, if people want to retire at 65, that would be the age upon which they could access their CPP. They would receive their full CPP if they simply chose to retire at 65 and they would access all of what they were entitled to.

However, if people wanted to continue to work, the incentive for them to work would be that they would receive 50% of their CPP at 65 and it would increase as time passed year by year, receiving full CPP at the age of 70 if they were to continue to work, and there is no reason on earth why they cannot.

What we need to realize about this demographic time bomb is that if nothing is done we not only have a shrinking workforce, but we also have increasing demands on our social programs.

Many good people in this country have done some great work, including those at Simon Fraser University and in the House, such as my hon. colleague. All of us would be willing to help the government to deal with this issue that is most pressing.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-28, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006. As we all know, the Bloc Québécois supported that budget.

I am especially pleased to speak to Bill C-28 here today because several measures in this bill are quite similar to measures that the Bloc Québécois has been proposing for many years. Consider, for example, the tax credit for public transit passes. I seem to recall that one of our colleagues already proposed in this House a private member's bill that was very similar. Another example is the textbook tax credit. For some time, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for the elimination of taxes on all products and services related to books. This has been done in Quebec. This encourages access, not just to textbooks, but to all literature, regardless of target audience, since we must start somewhere.

Finally, the tax break for microbreweries—in fact, the government has extended it to all breweries—is completely in line with what the Bloc Québécois has been proposing. The Standing Committee on Finance also looked at this issue several times. Bill C-28 finally contains this provision, which we have wanted for quite a while now.

There are also provisions to help the next generation. This has been a major concern of the Bloc for quite some time. We even organized a symposium together with the Union des producteurs agricoles on the next generation of farmers. It is important, therefore, to have provisions in the act that facilitate the intergenerational transfer of businesses, although I will have a chance later, of course, to say that much more could have been done in this regard and in other regards as well.

In addition, there are provisions to help apprentices and tradespeople acquire the tools they need. Other provisions help out family fishing firms. Finally, a whole series of tax measures help to strengthen small business, which is the real economic backbone of Quebec. The Bloc Québécois will obviously, therefore, support these measures.

In general, much still needs to be done, but we have a few steps here in the right direction and the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-28.

I would like, first, to describe the bill because it contains a host of provisions. It is important for the people listening to us to understand the full scope of what is in this bill. Basically, there are five main groups of provisions.

The first is a whole series of tax provisions for individuals. Here we find the tax credit for apprentices and tradespeople, an increase in the non-refundable credit for people receiving a pension, the establishment of a public transit tax credit, and an increase in the refundable credit for medical expenses. This first group is aimed, therefore, at individuals.

The second group extends benefits already given to farms to fishing firms as well. The fishing sector is in serious difficulty at the present time. These benefits are therefore very important to us, especially in regions such as the Gaspé, the Lower St. Lawrence and the North Shore. So as I was saying, the second group extends certain provisions previously available to farms to fishing firms as well.

There are various measures dealing with capital gains, the transfer of a business to other members of the family and agribusiness tax benefits.

A third main group of provisions in Bill C-28 has to do with various tax measures for businesses including, among others, the abolition of the surtax on the revenue of Canadian corporations and an increase in the amount a small or medium-sized business can earn if it wants to benefit from a tax credit.

A fourth series of legislative changes pertains to lowering the tax rate on capital gains of Canadian banks.

The last series of measures aims to lower the excise tax on the first 75,000 hectolitres of beer brewed in Canada in order to stimulate the growth of this sector and microbreweries in particular. This is an emerging sector that has had significant growth in recent years.

This sector has been growing in the regions also. For example, in the Joliette region, the Alchimiste microbrewery was experiencing difficulties because taxation by some of our European and American trading partners benefited their microbreweries. In the Canadian tax system, no distinction is made between a major brewery—such as Molson or Labatt—and microbreweries.

We will see that the minister has somewhat changed his tune from his initial announcement. It is interesting to note. We will all have the opportunity to comment on the reasons that led the minister to apply this measure not just to microbreweries but to breweries in general, as requested by the Standing Committee on Finance. The lower excise tax will also apply to major breweries as well.

I would now like to come back to the first series of measures: tax measures for individuals. The first measure for individuals introduced in this notice of ways and means and in Bill C-28 implements a mechanism allowing apprentices and tradespeople to deduct expenses for certain tools. Deductible expenses may not exceed $1,000 or 5% of the apprentice's annual income, whichever is greater. It also allows tradespeople to deduct up to $500 of the cost of certain tools.

Next, the bill implements indexation of the tax credit for apprentices and tradespeople. The maximum non-refundable credit for some people receiving pension income will double from $1,000 to $2,000. It also creates a $1,000 non-refundable tax credit for employment income starting at $250 for 2006 and increasing to $1,000 in 2007.

It creates a non-refundable tax credit for public transit. To be eligible for the credit, taxpayers must supply a receipt or proof of purchase of a long-term public transit pass. Obviously, this does not apply to daily or weekly passes because we want to promote the use of public transit and relieve congestion on our roads. We could also have talked about meeting the Kyoto protocol targets or helping meet them, but because that word has become taboo for this government, we thought it best not to mention it.

This bill also creates a tax credit for textbooks of $65 per month of full-time study and $20 per month of part-time study. The refundable medical expense supplement will be increased from $767 to $1,000 and continue to be indexed to the cost of living. In addition, the bill will reduce the threshold for deducting medical expenses to the 2005 level. It will then continue to be indexed.

This first series of measures for individuals, some of which are better than others, aligns with what the Bloc Québécois has been proposing over the past few years.

The second group of provisions extends the same tax benefits currently enjoyed by fishing businesses to agricultural businesses as well. Thus, tax measures such as forward averaging when transferring a family business that includes agricultural capital property will also apply to fishing businesses.

The third group of provisions has to do with corporate taxation. The business limit under which Canadian and Quebec small and medium-sized businesses can seek a reduced income tax rate is being increased from $300,000 to $400,000. This will reduce the tax rate for small and medium-sized business from 12% in 2007 to 11.5% in 2008 and 11% in 2009. This measure will allow small and medium sized businesses to generate the liquidity they need for future investments.

This bill will eliminate the 1.2% surtax targeted for Canadian controlled private corporations in 2008, with a subsequent reduction of 0.5% planned for corporate income tax in 2009 and 1% in 2010. As a result, this will translate into a corporate income tax reduction from 22.2% in 2006 to 19% in 2010. These measures should encourage investments, although a generalized tax reduction such as this does not automatically lead to increased investment, as we have learned in recent years.

The corporate tax rate was some 28% in the early 1990s, but has fallen to 22.2%. Despite that, the rate of investment last year was not as high as expected, and Canada has moved down in the ranks in terms of productivity. We are currently ranked 15th or 16th, although we ranked much higher just a few years ago.

These measures are necessary, but are not enough to ensure that the Canadian and Quebec economies regain their former productivity. This is important, as we all know, especially considering our aging population and the knowledge-based economy.

The fourth group of provisions amends the tax rate for banking institutions. A single tax rate will now be applied on the taxable capital surplus of financial institutions, and the threshold at which financial institutions start paying tax is being increased. Previously, banks were taxed according to a sliding scale. For example, corporations did not have to pay tax on surplus capital of $0 to $2 million. Between $2 million and $300 million, the tax rate was 1% and for higher amounts it was 1.25%.

The new legislation amends the tax scale whereby a 1.25% rate will apply when taxable capital exceeds $1 billion. In future, we will have a uniform tax rate at a tax level that is quite interesting, especially for small and medium-sized banks, as I was saying.

The last group of provisions has to do with reducing excise duties on beer brewed in volumes up to 75,000 hectolitres. This new measure amends the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, 2001, by implementing a sliding scale based on the number of hectolitres brewed.

As I mentioned earlier, prior to this amendment all breweries, no matter the amount brewed, paid a fixed duty according to the volume of beer brewed. This new measure is favourable to microbreweries. In addition, and this is rather surprising, major breweries will also benefit from the reduction in excise tax payable on the first 75,000 hectolitres produced. I am almost certain that some of these major breweries exerted pressure on the government to have this measure apply across the board. Nevertheless, what is important to us it that it will benefit microbreweries and allow them to compete with American and European microbreweries in particular.

I would now like to comment on our position on these provisions. With regard to the first group, concerning taxation of individuals, as I mentioned, we have been calling for a tax credit for tradespeople's tools for some time. These workers often have to pay for their tools out of their own pockets even if employed by a garage or shop. It is quite a significant expense for them. In our opinion, this tax credit will be a tremendous help, particularly for apprentices who not only have to upgrade their tools but also purchase a basic set of tools.

The second measure pertains to public transit. I mentioned that a non-refundable tax credit is being proposed by the government. I have two comments in this regard. We would have preferred a refundable credit because quite often, people who use the bus, subway or public transit are not well off, do not pay income tax and thus cannot benefit from this measure. Consequently, we feel they could have gone one step further by providing a refundable tax credit.

Naturally, we do not believe that the overall number of users of public transit in Canada and Quebec will increase solely because of this measure. We need much more, particularly in light of the fiscal imbalance, to ensure that municipalities and transit commissions to have the necessary means to provide good service at affordable prices. Once again we support this measure in view of attaining the Kyoto targets.

What about the elderly and other segments of the population such as individuals receiving disability pensions, for whom these benefits represent their main source of income?

We in the Bloc Québécois have always maintained that older people should receive special treatment. Obviously, we would like to go much farther than that. Specifically, we are calling on the government, as we have done for a number of years, to ensure that all older people who qualify for the guaranteed income supplement receive it. A few years ago, we noticed that tens of thousands of people who were entitled to the supplement were not claiming it, because they did not know the program existed. Unfortunately, this is still true. At the time, Marcel Gagnon, the member for Champlain, travelled across Quebec. We were able to locate many people who did not think they qualified for this program. Unfortunately, many people still are unaware that they qualify.

As for the tax credit for textbooks, I repeat that we are not opposed to this measure, but we would have thought a refundable tax credit would be preferable, because students, especially full-time students, usually work only during the summer and therefore do not pay income tax, because they do not have sufficient income. They will therefore not benefit from this measure. I know that students can carry this credit forward, but they are purchasing books now. It therefore would have been preferable to have it now.

I know that the Minister of Finance was interested in the suggestion my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber made at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance to look into this. In my view, it should go further.

As well, we are calling for the abolition of the GST on books. Once again, this is vital for us, especially when we are talking about a knowledge-based economy.

Now, if we look into the second main group of provisions—new measures for fishing businesses—as I have mentioned, we are in favour of the new measure aimed at introducing the same types of forward tax averaging in the fishing industry as for farm businesses. However, we think that this benefit could have been more widely accessible. The measure proposed by the government applies to transfers between people in the same family. We think that the government could have gone further and extended the measure to intergenerational transfers outside the family.

As to the third series of provisions, corporate taxation, as I was saying, we fully support increasing the amount of revenue that would allow small and medium-sized businesses to have access to a lower tax rate. In fact, that was part of our 2000 election platform. The Bloc Québécois will stand up for measures that strengthen our SMEs, especially in Quebec, where the economy is made up of small and medium enterprises.

We are aware that competition exists among different countries and jurisdictions with respect to taxation. We must therefore also reduce the corporate surtax.

However, in the case of oil, there is no danger of relocation because companies cannot transfer the oil supply to China or Mexico. Therefore, we think it makes sense to maintain a surtax for oil companies and to abolish rapid amortization in the oil sands, where all investments can be written off in one year, instead of 25% per year, as is the case for conventional oil and gas. We think that is abusive.

I mentioned the fourth group of provisions, which has to do with taxation of banks. Obviously, the proposed measure benefits all banks, but it could also have an impact on the smaller banking institutions. I would like to remind the House that, as we have said in relation to Bill C-37, we have been trying for many years to increase competition in the banking sector, which is extremely concentrated. Five big banks control nearly all of the activity and do not really offer consumers any choice. The proposed measure will most likely have a positive impact in this respect. Let us hope it does.

I would like to conclude by saying that we are very pleased with the measure to reduce the excise tax for microbreweries. I am certain that the entire microbrewery sector, particularly in Quebec, will benefit from this new measure. Might I remind the House that we have been asking—

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole]

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great fascination to my colleague's support for the budget, particularly in two areas. We follow with great interest the Conservatives' changing position on climate change. First, was that it did not exist, that it was something made up by the eco-freaks. Then we heard the theory that the last round of global warming was caused by dinosaur flatulence. Then they finally admitted there was some global warming, but we were not to worry, that a bus pass would stop the glaciers from melting. I believe that position was brought forward to Nairobi and was laughed out of the joint.

However, I am amazed that the members of the Bloc Québécois are now agreeing that the science of the Conservatives is exact, that thank God they have brought in a bus pass because it is going to stop global warming and go a long way toward achieving our Kyoto targets. The budget has trashed all the Kyoto targets, but the Bloc totally supports it.

The other thing I found interesting was our students getting a tax deduction to buy school books. I do not know what the students in his riding go through in terms of debt, but students in my riding rack up $40,000 worth of debt. They come to southern Ontario from northern Ontario and spend four or five years going to university. Guess what? They fall in love and that gives them $80,000 worth of debt with which to come home. The New Democrats feel we need a policy to lower student debt.

However, I am glad to see the Conservatives have an ally in the Bloc. It believes that getting a $65 break on a text book is all students need. I guess I am somewhat flummoxed that this is the Bloc's position. On top of that, the other reason it supports a budget this bad is it helps microbreweries. I like beer as much as the next man, however, I did not think that was the basis of a national strategy or a budget.

Does my hon. colleague believe the budget really does do anything for Kyoto or is he just trying to prop the government up?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question, but I would also like to clarify a few things. We supported the budget on May 2. Our leader was very clear about that. We supported the budget because the government promised to correct the fiscal imbalance as of the next budget. Last December 19, while he was on the campaign trail in Quebec, the Prime Minister promised to do so. We expect the Conservative government to correct the fiscal imbalance once and for all next February. By our calculations, it amounts to $12 billion for all of Canada and $3.9 billion for Quebec.

Of Quebec's $3.9 billion, $1.2 billion is for post-secondary education and social programs. The rest of Canada will be spending $5 billion on those objectives. I would like to remind my colleague that university rectors, professors' associations and unions and student unions agree on those figures.

We are working to ensure that the education sector receives adequate financing and, within the next few weeks, we expect the Conservative government to agree to this request made by the Bloc Québécois and all education stakeholders.

That said, it is clear that, taken together, these measures do not do enough. Nevertheless, we believe that many of them are a step in the right direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand how the Bloc would accept the budget, given the cut in 2007 of all funding that would create child care programs. My understanding is that Quebec is in line to receive, supposedly, over $800 million for children. In Quebec many kids and families have been waiting for child care. Yes, there is a very good program there, however, the funding for child care is not enough. As a result of that, there is a very long waiting list. That is one area in the budget that I am sure parents and children in Quebec would not want the Bloc to support.

Also, there is no plan in the budget for municipal infrastructure debt. My understanding is there are billions dollars of infrastructure deficit in Quebec and outside Quebec as well. Many municipalities across the country are saying that their bridges, their water infrastructure, such as sewage, and their public transit are in desperate shape and they need a lot more funding from the federal government.

On the issue of student debt, students are graduating with over $20,000 debt.

All these areas are important for children, for families, for young people and for municipalities and the budget does nothing for them. I do not quite understand how the Bloc could support it.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate what I said earlier. We supported the budget because of the promise to correct the fiscal imbalance. Through that correction, we will be able to support not only education and health care, but also Quebec's child care network. I would remind the House that it is not a public child care network. It consists of social economy enterprises often created by parents, and jointly managed by both the workers, primarily female workers, and parents. Out of the $3.9 billion—the amount needed to correct the fiscal imbalance, according to the Bloc Québécois—$270 million would serve as compensation for the Conservative government's unilateral decision to end the national child care program. We are also working on this.

As for loans and grants, and transfer payments for post-secondary education and social programs, I would remind the hon. member that we have a loans and grants system in Quebec. This means that our student debt problem is not as serious as it is in the rest of Canada. In that regard, what is important to us is that the fiscal imbalance be corrected in the next budget, which is why the Bloc Québécois supported the budget as a whole.

Now, a number of measures within Bill C-28 are a step in the right direction, but, unfortunately, as I said, this bill does not go far enough. For example, we called for all books to be exempt from the GST, as is the case in Quebec. There is no sales tax on books, because we want to promote Quebec culture and facilitate access to the documentation needed to really develop a knowledge based economy. We are therefore being entirely consistent. I am anxious to see if the NDP will display the same consistency over the coming months.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Bloc will vote for this troubled budget. However, is it true that the Bloc will not vote for the next budget if it does not get $3.9 billion more for equalization?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we will not vote in favour of the next budget if the fiscal imbalance is not corrected. We put the figure at $12 billion for all of Canada and $3.9 billion for Quebec. This essentially involves four things. First, we want to see a $1.2 billion increase in the transfer payment for post-secondary education and social programs in Quebec. Second, we want the federal government to cover 25% of health costs. That translates into an additional $400 million for Quebec. Then we want—and I mentioned this earlier—compensation for the unilateral decision by the Conservative government to end the Canada-wide child care program. Fourth, we want an equalization program that includes all the provinces and 100% of their revenue. We are talking about $2.1 billion for Quebec. This is imperative to us. I am anxious to see what will happen on Friday, in Vancouver, during the meeting of the finance ministers, and whether this government will do the right thing. If not, then it better not count on our support next February or March.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with a lot of the member's comments. He dealt with the details in the budget and the positive aspects of it.

The member will know that the finance committee had a chance to study and spend some time on the oil sands in Alberta and get a clear understanding of the tremendous benefits the they provided for both the province and the country. One of the things we talked about, and the member touched on it, was the accelerated capital cost allowance of machinery. That not only takes place in the oil sands in Alberta, but also in the mines in Quebec. If he is saying there should be less support, does he agree there is going to be less support for the mines and companies in Quebec?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that we are in complete agreement with the principle of the accelerated capital cost allowance. However, I will say this: the Liberals amended tax rules with Bill C-48, with the result that mines have had their deductions for research and development and exploration expenses cut in exchange for reduced royalties. It is the same for the oil industry. The problem is that the provinces are getting practically no royalties from the mining sector. An undue advantage has been given to the oil industry, which has saved $250 million in tax while the mines have had their benefits cut. We have to continue to work on promoting the development of the sector—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is our last opportunity to put on record the concerns of Canadians about the Conservatives' budget. It is very important to realize that today we are talking about the last stage, the final touches of the first budget the Conservatives brought in following the election. A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since that time. One would think from listening to today's debate, especially after listening to the Bloc, that we are dealing with a very specific set of tax credits that would benefit people and therefore what do we have to complain about.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

That is correct.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

My colleague the member for Burlington said that is correct.

It is more important than ever for us to tell Canadians what the Conservatives want us to pass today. They want Bill C-28 to get through the House, into the Senate, and then to receive royal assent so all is finished and done.

Today we are deciding on whether or not the Conservative budget should be given any kind of support and treated with any sense of credibility and integrity.

I remind members and all Canadians who are watching that we are dealing with a budget that was an absolute missed opportunity for the vast majority of Canadians who are struggling to make a living. Canadians want to provide for themselves and their families. They want to contribute to this great country. They have much to offer by way of talent, energy and expertise but are being denied from doing so because of the regressive and repressive policies of the current government, and the governments before it, that keep working families down, that do not lift them up and encourage them to contribute.

This holiday season it is more apparent than ever what kind of a Canada the Conservatives and the Liberals together are creating. It is important for us to remind Canadians that there is an alternative, that there is hope, that there are other ways to approach the way budgets are done and the way this country is ruled and regulated.

The New Democratic Party has always said when it comes to budgets that they are a road map. They are an indication of where a government wants the country to go. We look at this budget in terms of how it would build a better future for everyone in our society.

We have always said it must be a balanced approach. We are not here to suggest all extra revenues should go into spending programs. We are not here to suggest there should never ever be a tax cut to anyone in our society. Nor are we here to suggest that no money should go against the debt. We are here to say that a good budget, one which we were hoping the Conservatives would have brought in, would actually balance those competing demands and would ensure that all areas were recognized and treated responsibly. That means addressing the shortfall in those programs that actually help people make a difference. It means redressing the 13 years of the tightfisted, budget cutting, meanspirited ways of the Liberals.

A good budget would ensure that a portion of any surplus, not all of it, not the whole kit and caboodle, but a portion of it went against the debt.

A good budget would look at the income distribution in this country, at which groups are trying to make ends meet, and ensure that where possible some tax relief went in the direction of people who need it the most.

What did we get with Bill C-28? A budget that basically ignored all of the needs of Canadians in terms of health care, child care, housing and the environment. It gave more tax breaks to the wealthy and big corporations, and in the aftermath of the budget the government put every penny that was left in terms of surplus against the debt.

Canadians did not get the balance they were looking for. They did not get the good government they thought they were getting when the Conservatives were lucky enough to form the government of this country. Much as Canadians are very skeptical about Conservatives, after 13 years of Liberal rule, they were certainly looking forward to some sort of change and had some optimism about the future, but they were sorely disappointed. We have to continue to find ways to address those concerns.

Let me also say that since this budget, as I mentioned at the outset, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge, lots and lots of water. Included in the list of things that have flowed under the bridge is $1 billion worth of cutbacks that have hurt Canadians in very many ways. It is something that has to be addressed in this context because we are talking about a budget and we are talking about the future.

When the Conservatives had a chance to redress some of the wrongs of the Liberals, to right things and to bring balance, they chose to follow the Liberal path of letting the surplus build up, not announcing it and dealing with it before the final days of the end of the fiscal year. Consequently they put $13 billion against the debt and at the same time cut $1 billion out of programs and important areas for Canadians. I want to reference a couple of them, because we need to go back and persuade the Conservatives to right a few wrongs.

The first has to do with literacy. As I have said over and over again, how could a government, if it is concerned about giving people the tools they need to contribute to this economy, cut the very ground out from under those people? How could it destroy the very things Canadians need in order to gain the skills to participate fully in this world?

Time and time again, the Conservatives have suggested that the cutbacks to literacy were all administrative.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

It is true.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

The member for Burlington said it is true. Unfortunately, he has been given a bill of goods by the human resources minister, because it is absolutely not true. The government has proceeded to cut the heart and soul out of programs that actually deliver services to Canadians.

I want to reference about 200 letters, all of them handwritten, from individuals who have benefited from programs that provide literacy and numeracy training. I want to read a couple of them so that my friend from Burlington and his colleagues will have a better appreciation of just how hard people are being hit by the Conservatives' actions.

In this first letter, the writer is referring to the Luxton adult learning program.

This program (the Luxton Adult Learning Program) means that I am able to keep my job at the Health Sciences Centre in Winnipeg. In August 2004, I was granted the privilege of an interview after many years of trying to gain employment into their many different medical secretary fields. I attended the University of Manitoba and Herzing Career College as a mature student. After searching for years on Winnipeg's adult literacy programs, I found the Luxton Adult Literacy Program. It was the right and beneficial program for me. Let me explain.

After graduating with a diploma in hand from Herzing Career College in 1986, I worked for sole proprietors, small clinics and the Misericordia General Hospital. I did not need my grade 12 or the GED program at that time. Therefore, the Luxton Adult Learning Program was not a concern to me....

Life hardships and experiences played the role of hindering my success at obtaining employment at the Health Sciences Centre....

The environment is at a children's school, and the instructors are mature adults like myself and other students. Every student comes into the program for their own private reasons, which are kept confidential....Every student learns at their own pace of learning....It is a secure, safe environment and offers a professional environment to learn. Most every student feels the same way.

This person accessed the adult literacy program at a school in my riding. As a result of that, she was able to go on and get a job, secure employment, and gain the confidence to participate in all kinds of ways offered by our society, which had been denied to her up until that point.

Many others have expressed the same thing. Here is one from April:

I am in this program for my reading, writing, spelling and math. I am doing good on all of it but I hope to get better on all of it. If this program was not here I would feel bad because I need the help I am getting in this program.I need the program to help me on all the things I need help on.

Let me read a couple more:

My name is Elsie and I am nineteen years old and I'm writing this letter to you because I want you to know what it means to me to come back to school. When I was a young teenager in high school I had a hard time. I didn't have many friends and a lot of people there were so mean to me they would tease me and bully me around all the time. It got to me to the point that I just dropped out. I thought that it would be ok for me not to have the education that I should have had when I was younger, but one day I tried to get a job and I was told that I didn't have the education that was required for that job. So that's when it hit me that I needed education. If it wasn't for the program Literacy, upgrading, and the funding from the government, then I don't know what I would do. It means a lot for people like me to be able to come back to school and be able to get the education that we need. I feel a lot better knowing that I can get the education that I need. I feel like a new person and that I would be able to get a good job and have a stable home for my family.

I could go on. There are hundreds of those letters, all written personally. They are all real stories of real people who are being hurt by the government's cutbacks.

If there is anything I could do today at this time of dealing with budget matters it would be to try to persuade the Conservative government to go back and look at what its cuts to literacy programs actually meant and did. If there was administrative stuff that could be cut out of the program, so be it. The member for Burlington does not seem to get that what the government did was not just cut extras and things that were not about direct services; it cut into the very heart and soul of programs that helped people help themselves.

Another good example is in the area of women's funding and women's programming. The Conservatives said that they are cutting away any extra administrative costs, that they are taking the money that was going into administration and putting it in the hands of people, into the hands of women.

In reality, that is a good cover for a cutback that is directed at an important group in our society who should be fully participating and cannot because of systemic discrimination and a whole variety of factors. They are not people who want a handout from the government. They want to access these programs that help them to become full participants in our society. That is what is wrong with the cutbacks in the Status of Women file.

It is ridiculous for the minister, as she did yesterday when the huge demonstrations took place, to suggest that she is not hurting women. She is hurting women. The government is hurting women's groups that are providing services to help women deal with some very difficult situations.

I think about my own riding of Winnipeg North. The North End Women's Centre has done so many projects to help women who are at the very bottom and are almost giving up completely. The centre helps them get on their feet and start again. One of those projects is Money & Women, to help women get ID so that they can access a credit union or a bank. It helps women figure out how they can avoid being ripped off by payday lenders. That is an important service.

Why does the government continue to cut back the heart and soul of this country in terms of our values of caring and compassion?

I want to touch on an issue that was part of this budget and it is the money that was gleaned out of the system by the NDP when the Liberals were in power in their minority year. It is money that was approved by Parliament for education, housing and the environment.

While we have been going through this debate, the Conservatives have taken great delight in all this money they are expending in these areas, without mentioning that the money that has been put in those areas is the money that happened as a result of NDP pressure during the Liberal minority government.

The only new money in this budget for education and housing is a result of the bit of money we were able to win from Parliament as a result of the minority situation. We expected that money to not only flow, which the Conservatives allowed to happen, but we also expected that there would have been something in addition, that the Conservatives would want to build on those initiatives which actually help people access important programs that make a difference, whether it be education services or affordable housing.

Let us be clear that what we need to do is not simply take credit for other people's hard work. I do not care who gets the credit for this, but the Conservatives should not simply sit back, say they have put money into trust funds and now they can rest on their laurels and not do anything. The fact of the matter is there are many communities that are desperately in need of some support, particularly in the area of housing. It makes no sense to anyone why the government would simply take that money, put it in a trust fund, wash its hands of it and say it is over.

I can reference a local situation. Folks in the House will know about Gilbert Park, a housing project in northwest Winnipeg which was on the news very recently. A fire was started by young kids who tried to put a child with a disability into the burning building. It made the news. The community is working hard to overcome some very difficult situations, but it really needs a federal government that is willing to partner with it to renovate the houses people live in and build the kind of community that will prevent that kind of delinquency on the part of young people.

We are talking about a housing project where almost 50% of the population is under the age of 18. Can anyone imagine? This is a community that is living in almost abject poverty and half of the population is kids. There is no money for crime prevention programs, cultural programs or women's program because the government, like the government before it, believes that if it gives more tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy it will trickle down and somehow, somewhere Gilbert Park will reap the benefits. It does not work that way. It just does not happen. It defies all logic and has no basis in fact whatsoever.

We need a government that balances the need to be fiscally responsible by ensuring every year some money goes against the debt. That we support. We need a government that is willing to take some of the surplus dollars and put them into communities and programs that actually help people overcome problems, many of which are beyond their own individual responsibility and control.

That is the role of government in the final analysis. That is the essence of what we are here for. We are here to ensure that people are given the supports they need to help themselves. If we fail that, then we have misunderstood our responsibilities, we have denied Canadians their right to access a good parliamentary process, and we will have in fact only ensured that we are negligent in the final analysis.

It may be too late to stop this bill given the fact that the Bloc are supporting the Conservatives, but I would urge the government to look at real people, real issues and the reality of Canadians, and start to turn these situations around.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the tax credits in this second act on the budget has to do with public transit passes. This is an issue which has been linked somewhat to the whole idea of reducing harmful emissions into the air and get more people using the transit system.

Since the member is on the finance committee, I wonder if she can tell the House whether or not there was an objective analysis or appraisal of the potential effectiveness under Treasury Board guidelines. A program would be in violation of those guidelines if it does not have a reasonable prospect of being successful in achieving its objectives.

It would appear to me that the tax credit will certainly benefit all of the people who currently buy transit passes, but very small numbers of people would take out transit passes. Even then, it would appear that many of our major urban transit systems have infrastructure deficiencies right now which will require substantial investments to expand the system to be able to get any kind of reasonable expansion to handle any more passengers in any event.

I wonder if the member could advise the House if there was any insight into the potential effectiveness of this transit pass credit.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is replete with numerous tax credits all of which probably offer a little benefit to some people and certainly they are not to be dismissed as insignificant. However, the member makes a good point in terms of whether or not the appropriate work was done to ensure the proper formulation of this program.

I want to remind the member though that all us in the House on numerous occasions have debated, discussed and approved the idea of a credit for using public transportation. We certainly support the idea.

We have real concerns with a government that focuses only on these kinds of tax credits and does not really look at the bigger picture. My colleague who just spoke before me was quite right when he asked how anybody could think that this measure was going solve the problems of Kyoto or climate change. We need a much broader approach and that is something that the Conservatives are unwilling to do.

Let me say one more thing on this issue. There is always a need to ensure that whatever tax breaks are given a solid analysis is done and the decisions are made on a cost benefit basis. We have found on numerous occasions that it never seems to apply when we are talking about wealthy Canadians or large corporations.

During the process at finance committee around Bill C-28 and before that around the prebudget consultations, we tried very hard to get a cost benefit analysis done of all tax breaks to gas companies and oil companies who are involved in the non-renewable area. We could not get the government to agree to that. Nor could we get the Liberals to support that initiative.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are fewer children in Canada. The annual number of births in Canada decreased by 14% between 1994 and 2003. Back then there were 4 million kids. Now it has dropped to 3.4 million kids under 10. There is severe shortage of regulated child care spaces in Canada. Over 2.2 million kids are placed in unregulated care each day.

Because of the way Canada is treating its kids, many families are living below the poverty line, which is $15,000 per year. In fact, there are 1.2 million kids living in poverty. No wonder. Canada devotes over 5% of GDP to social programs and our child poverty rate is almost 15%. Therefore, we know that there are missed opportunities for children and there are missed opportunities for our young people as well in this budget.

Researchers studying youth between the ages of 10 and 18 over an eight year period found that those who live in smoggy communities were nearly five times more likely to have clinically low lung function compared to teens living in low pollution areas. What would the NDP do for children and youth?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the question because when it comes to Bill C-28 and the federal Conservative budget of May 2006, this budget misses the mark totally when it comes to addressing the needs of children and youth.

In fact, under this budget that we are now wrapping up here today, child care wait lists will go up and more parents who are trying to juggle work and family responsibilities will be left with a very untenable situation by putting their children into unregulated child care environments. Nothing the Conservatives have done will address this very serious issue and we are only creating huge problems down the road by neglecting this urgent situation right now.

It is important to note that many in the House really do believe that we have to invest in child care spaces in a program that ensures quality of care for our children, our most precious resource. It is not good enough to simply say we are giving a little bit of money to parents with children under the age of six because that money does not buy the spaces that they need and want. It does not ensure that they will be able to put their kids in a safe protected environment with good quality care.

Most people in this country want to do their best, want to make a contribution. We have talented people willing to work to grow our economy, but they really need to know that our government cares as much about children as it does about paying off the fiscal debt or giving tax cuts to corporations. The government really needs to get a signal that children are the most valuable part of our whole society.

First of all, we would continue to work with the child care community to get an appropriate number of spaces every year. Second, the government should stop the cutbacks that just happened in terms of the youth career placement program. It is through that avenue that we are able to help students and young people get the experience and exposure they need to go on to pursue education and jobs that benefit all of us in the long run.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the member a chance to comment at more length on the reprehensible cuts to: women's programs, Status of Women's offices, court challenges program, Law Reform Commission, museums, literacy, summer students, volunteers, tourism, aboriginal people, greenhouse gas cutting programs, child care and Kelowna. I know the budget will pass because of the Bloc, but we just cannot speak enough about these reprehensible cuts.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, they are reprehensible cuts and one of my colleagues on the Conservative benches said they are meanspirited. A Conservative said that. Yes, they are meanspirited and they are reprehensible, but most of all, they do not make sense from a cost benefit point of view.

Conservatives seem so keen on making sure that everything is fiscally responsible that they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. They are cutting off programs that help people earn a living, pay taxes and help grow our economy. They are keeping people out of the workforce that want to be in the workforce. They are denying young people opportunities. They are even taking away the opportunity for people to volunteer in our society. Does that make sense?

In the past when it came to women's cuts, I suggested, and I got howled at from the Conservative benches, that they wanted women to be at home, barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

See, they are howling again. Let me finish by saying, and it is journalists who will say it: pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen, a Tory woman. Now, Mr. Speaker--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The time for questions and comments has expired.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-28, which is the second bill to implement certain budget provisions.

What concerns me is the government is not speaking to its own bill. A budget is important to Canadians and there are many important provisions in the legislation. A lot of work has gone into it. It is as if there is no need for the government to explain to Canadians what happened as it went through committee, when various witnesses were heard. Surely, some witnesses must have had some input into the various provisions.

Let me remind hon. members about some of the proposals in this second bill to implement certain provisions of the budget.

One of the proposals is the new Canada employment credit. I wonder if there was any questions about whether anybody would slip through the cracks. All of a sudden we have an income tax system which has some principle and some balance to it. It is a progressive tax system where the ability to pay is taken into account. We understand that some Canadians do not even make enough money to pay any income tax.

Another proposal in the legislation is the textbook tax credit. I do not know whether there will be any input with respect to this.

With regard to the transit pass tax credit, I have to wonder if there was any input on this. This credit is linked to the whole issue of our environmental policy with respect to greenhouse gases, smog emissions and the like and to get people to be more cognizant of their options to make a contribution. Individuals have a contribution to make. The Conservatives have not risen to reinforce why they think this proposal is one of the best ways to go and what it adds in terms of the whole scheme of our environmental policy.

What about the new deduction of tool expenses for tradespeople? Who is left out with respect to this deduction? I know some people have been left out because they do not qualify under the definitions. Did they go before committee?

How can we make an informed decision and vote on a bill if members do not defend it and show how the budget and the budget bill address the needs of the most number of Canadians possible?

There is also the exemption for scholarship income received in connection with enrolment in an institution, which qualifies a student for the education tax credit. How many people qualify for that exemption? What else has been done to ensure that those who cannot afford to go to university get to go? I understand it is important to promote excellence, but have we also balanced the need to promote access and affordability?

Another proposal in the legislation is the children's fitness tax credit. I do not know very much about it. It is a modest amount. I am not sure whether there were some concerns about it.

With respect to the pension income credit, the government has subsequently come up with a scheme of pension splitting. This will help certain Canadians. Canadians with a pension income in excess of about $35,600 will be able to split with a partner or a spouse who has less income. However, it does nothing for people with a pension income of less than $35,600. This does nothing for people who do not have a partner.

We are shifting the burden of taxation here and I am not sure of the objective of the government. I have not heard from any Conservatives. They have not spoken to the bill. They have not explained why these things are happening. They have not told Canadians their vision. How do the Conservatives see this unfolding? I cannot explain it.

Another proposal in the bill is the extension of the $500,000 lifetime capital gains exemption and various intergenerational rollovers to fishers. I certainly understand this proposal with respect to the fishery because it is a very important area. I would have hoped somebody from the Conservatives would have spoken about why this was necessary, why the extension of the exemption, and how it translated into meeting the objectives of the Government of Canada on behalf of Canadians, particularly in this sector.

We also have the apprenticeship job creation tax credit. Apprenticeship training has been a priority of every government since I have been here. It is extremely important, but I do not know whether we have done enough on the apprenticeship side. I would have hoped somebody from the Conservative government would have made the case on behalf of those who were seeking to build on their skills so they could be contributing members to society. We did not hear any of that, and I am not sure why.

We have the reduction in the current 12% small business tax rate from 11.5% for 2008 to 11% thereafter. I am not sure whether Canadians understand what a small business is compared to another type of business. However, we do know one thing. Historically, small businesses have contributed to employment growth at a much greater rate than non-small businesses. How will this translate? Are there benchmarks and targets and what does it do for small business either in reinvestment or in further expansion and job creation? Those are important issues to Canadians. Not one Conservative stood and talked about why this was important, how it translated in terms of the vision for Canadians for economic growth, sustainable development and other issues. No interest whatsoever was expressed by Conservative members, and I do not understand it.

We also have the increase to $400,000 from $300,000 of the amount that a small business can earn at a small business tax rate effective January 1, 2007. As a chartered accountant, I know the $300,000 was there a long time ago. We have the magnitude of dollars, the expansion of businesses and start-up costs for businesses. The ability to get a sustainable business going is important.

I am concerned about what is not in this budget bill nor the first one, and that is new dollars for the health care wait times guarantee. It was one of the five promises in the throne speech of the government. In today's media Canadians will be able to read how the minister said that we were operating in a vacuum, that they had no idea how it worked and how to get there, but they would study it and maybe figure it out. How can they make a promise during the election campaign to do something about which they have no idea?That is totally irresponsible.

It is about time some Conservative members stood in this place, spoke about the budget and stood the test of scrutiny of questioning by hon. members of other parties to ensure they know what they are talking about. There is no evidence of that right now.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for that eloquent presentation.

As my colleague has said—and as we can see—the budget does present problems. I would like my colleague to elaborate. There is a difference between bringing down a budget and making drastic cuts that affect the neediest members of our society a few months later. Could our colleague tell us whether, when the budget was brought down, Canadians had reason to expect cuts in the programs the most vulnerable Canadians needed most? Could he tell us whether or not the government concealed things from Canadians when it tabled its budget? Did we see the true face of the Conservative government when the budget was tabled?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no mention in the budgets of the cuts that were made. The government seems to be making cuts on the fly. We have seen massive cuts to literacy, women's programs and the courts challenges program. Twelve of sixteen regional offices of Status of Women are now scheduled to be closed.

All of a sudden hundreds of millions of dollars have been cut. Were they disclosed to Canadians in the budget? Were they disclosed to Canadians during the election campaign? Did the Conservatives disclose their vision, that this was where they would go, that they would dismantle all the things that helped people who were least likely to vote Conservative? That seems to be the only criteria here, to ensure that they help those who are most likely to vote Conservative.

The government is governing on the basis of ideology, not on a basis of a vision for Canada. I do not understand this, but Canadians understand it. They understand that the government is making promises that it does not keep, whether it be income trusts or anything like that. Shame on the government.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)