Bill C-52 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2007

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007

Part 1 implements income tax measures proposed or referenced in Budget 2007 to
(a) introduce a tax on distributions from certain publicly traded income trusts and limited partnerships, effective beginning with the 2007 taxation year;
(b) reduce the general corporate income tax rate by one half of a percentage point, effective January 1, 2011;
(c) increase the age credit amount by $1,000 from $4,066 to $5,066, effective January 1, 2006;
(d) permit income splitting for pensioners, effective beginning in 2007;
(e) introduce a new child tax credit of $2,000 multiplied by the appropriate percentage for a taxation year, effective beginning in 2007;
(f) increase the spousal and other amounts to equal the basic personal amount, effective beginning in 2007;
(g) increase the age limit for maturing registered retirement savings plans, registered pension plans and deferred profit sharing plans to 71 years of age, effective beginning in 2007;
(h) expand the types of investments eligible for registered retirement savings plans and other deferred income plans, effective March 19, 2007; and
(i) increase the contribution limits for registered education savings plans and expand eligible payments for part-time studies, effective beginning in 2007.
Part 1 also amends the Canada Education Savings Act to increase the maximum annual grant payable on contributions made to a registered education savings plan after 2006.
Part 2 amends the Excise Tax Act to clarify the legislative authority that allows the Canada Revenue Agency to pay refunds of excise tax directly to end-users, where fuel subject to excise has been used in tax-exempt circumstances. It also amends that Act to repeal the excise tax on heavy vehicles and to implement the Green Levy on vehicles with fuel consumption of 13 litres or more per 100 kilometres. It also provides an authority for the Canada Revenue Agency to pay a refund of the Green Levy for vans equipped for wheelchair access.
Part 3 implements goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed or referenced in Budget 2007. It amends the Excise Tax Act to exempt midwifery services from the GST/HST and to zero-rate certain supplies of intangible personal property made to non-GST/HST registered non-residents. It also amends that Act to repeal the GST/HST Visitor Rebate Program and to implement a new Foreign Convention and Tour Incentive Program, which provides rebates of tax in respect of certain property and services used in the course of conventions held in Canada and the accommodation portion of tour packages for non-residents, and establishes new information requirements in the case where rebates are credited by the vendor.
Part 4 implements other measures relating to taxation. It amends the Customs Tariff to increase the duty-free exemption for returning Canadian residents, from $200 to $400, for absences from Canada of not less than 48 hours. It amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to clarify that when a federal corporation listed in Schedule I to that Act pays provincial taxes or fees, wholly-owned subsidiaries of that corporation also pay provincial taxes or fees. It also authorizes the Minister of Finance to make payments totaling $400 million out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Province of Ontario to assist the province in the transition to a single corporate tax administration. This last measure is consequential to the October 6, 2006 Canada-Ontario Memorandum of Agreement Concerning a Single Administration of Ontario Corporate Tax.
Part 5 enacts the Tax-back Guarantee Act, which legislates the Government’s commitment to dedicate all effective interest savings from federal debt reduction each year to ongoing personal income tax reductions. That Part also commits the Minister of Finance to report publicly at least once a year on personal income tax relief provided under the Guarantee to Canadians.
Part 6 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to set out the amounts of the fiscal equalization payments to the provinces and the territorial formula financing payments to the territories for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2007 and to provide for the method by which those amounts will be calculated for subsequent fiscal years. It also authorizes certain deductions from those amounts that would otherwise be payable under that Act. In addition, it makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 6 also amends that Act to provide increased funding for the Canada Social Transfer beginning on April 1, 2007, and to provide for the method by which the Canada Social Transfer and the Canada Health Transfer amounts will be calculated for subsequent fiscal years, including per capita cash allocations. It also provides for transition protection.
Part 7 amends the Financial Administration Act to modernize Crown borrowing authorities.
Part 8 amends the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act to permit the Minister of Finance to lend money to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Part 9 amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act and the Winding-up and Restructuring Act to allow the Governor in Council to prescribe the meaning of “eligible financial contract”. Those Acts are also amended to provide that, after an insolvency event occurs, a party to an eligible financial contract can deal with supporting collateral in accordance with the terms of the contract despite any stay of proceedings or court order to the contrary. This Part also includes amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Winding-up and Restructuring Act to provide that collateral transactions executed in accordance with the terms of an eligible financial contract are not void only because they occurred in the prescribed pre-insolvency or winding-up period.
Part 10 authorizes payments to provinces and territories.
Part 11 authorizes payments to certain entities.
Part 12 extends the sunset provisions of financial institutions statutes by six months from April 24, 2007 to October 24, 2007.
Part 13 amends the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to provide the Minister of Public Works and Government Services with the power to authorize another minister, to whom he or she has delegated powers under that Act, to subdelegate those powers to the chief executive of the relevant department. That Act is also amended with respect to the application of section 9 to certain departments.
Part 14 amends the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act to allow the Minister of Finance to provide funding to the Agency for activities related to financial education.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-52, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Budget Implementation Act, 2007

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

When we last discussed Bill C-52, there were five minutes left for questions and comments for the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. He is ready to respond to a question from the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

The hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just before we broke for today's question period, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance made reference to the fall update of the government when I correctly alleged that the budget of some weeks ago was not a budget with any vision. It was without an overarching plan for the country. Quite frankly, it would not be very difficult to take the fall update to find much of an echo of that in the budget of March 19.

In fact, will read a quote, which our leader used in his speech, from the Caledon Institute. It states:

—the worst part of the Budget is what [it lacks]....No measures to reduce child poverty, no early childhood education or meaningful national child care, no plans to address real infrastructure needs now, no commitment to tackle the abysmal reality of Aboriginal life in Canada, and no housing program.

Our leader goes on to say, “The budget is short-sighted and the government has the responsibility to ask where do we want Canada to be in 10 years and how do we get there?”

That is what budgets are about along with throne speeches. They are supposed to help Canadians understand how government will go from now to some time in the future. This budget fails to do that.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I look through the budget, the government claims to be reducing taxes. Acknowledging that the government appears to be cherry-picking through Canadian society and has in a few areas extended tax benefits through the tax system, those are apparent and appear to be tax benefits to people who already have some substance or wealth.

There is nothing wrong with benefiting taxpayers, but the government, although it is saying it is reducing taxes, does not appear to have reduced taxation for the most vulnerable in Canadian society. It has not reduced taxes, at least that I can see, in the budget for the poor, for the single, for the single senior, for the childless. It has missed all these very important categories in our social spectrum.

Therefore, I rather regard the government's attempt to extend tax cuts to the friendliest group as kind of a cynical approach to politics and tax policy.

Could the hon. member respond to my perception that the budget is quite unfair to the poorest and most vulnerable in our society?

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my colleague's question. In fact, the first thought that comes to mind is that I understand better, because of this budget, why the word “progressive” was dropped from the Conservative Party's name. When we look at the tax measures proposed, we can see that in fact they are absolutely non-progressive.

As for a progressive tax rate, generally we have consumption taxes, income taxes, capital taxes and so on. What we want our tax system to be is progressive, meaning that the greater the capacity of an income tax payer to pay, the greater the opportunity for governments to share the wealth of the nation.

My colleague is quite right. The poorest among us and middle income Canadians have failed to benefit from any real tax relief whatsoever in this budget.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, how can the member say that there is so little support in the budget for the working families of our country when it is clear that 75% of the tax breaks given in the 2006 and 2007 budgets are earmarked for those who are earning less than $75,000 a year?

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague across the way has to remember is that when we remove the billions of dollars for early childhood education and day care programs from the provinces and when we remove the supports for aboriginal communities through the Kelowna accord, the net result is a net loss for low income and middle income Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has decided to support this budget. It is easy to see that this is a minority government budget.

There never would have been a start toward correcting the fiscal imbalance if this Conservative government had had a majority. Without the work of the Bloc Québécois, Quebec never would have gotten the gains it recently obtained and will obtain in the future, if there had not been 50 Bloc Québécois MPs in this House.

Furthermore, I am not the only one to say so. We have often heard government ministers say this in the House. The Minister of Transport said he needed the Bloc Québécois' help. The Minister of Finance and other ministers also asked us to support this budget.

Since our decision to support it, the Prime Minister and a number of ministers have thanked the Bloc Québécois for its support. This shows, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the Bloc Québécois does constructive work in this House and that it allows Quebec to advance and make real progress.

In my opinion, this is a clear message to Quebeckers. If Quebeckers continue to support the Bloc Québécois and send as many Bloc members as possible to represent them in the House of Commons, they can be sure that Quebec will have a strong position and a voice to defend them that will not give in to blackmail and will always be loyal to Quebec.

We have made many gains. A number of them were the result of lengthy battles that are starting to pay off. I am talking about the fiscal imbalance or rather the start of the process of correcting the fiscal imbalance. I will come back to that later, but obviously that is what comes to mind first. Nonetheless, that is not all. Quebec received $328 million from the Canada ecotrust, which will allow Quebec to meet its Kyoto protocol obligations and reduce greenhouse gases. This is something else the Bloc Québécois has long been asking for. We pushed really hard for this. We questioned the government about it in the House.

I also know that my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development worked very hard on it. At meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance I often questioned the government. We showed that this amount of money was needed by the Government of Quebec to achieve the Kyoto protocol objectives. Even though the government was opposed outright to this protocol and did not hesitate to subject Canada to the ridicule of the international community by reneging on commitments made, the Bloc Québécois exerted enough pressure to have this government listen to reason and allocate this amount to Quebec for the environment.

It should be noted that the amount allocated in the budget was announced beforehand, when the Bloc Québécois, during one of its opposition days, was debating a motion calling on the government to take action. That proves that our work is effective.

In addition, the $200 million allocated for the reconstruction of Afghanistan was largely due to the efforts of the Bloc Québécois, who asked that the Afghanistan mission be rebalanced. You will recall that the Bloc Québécois voted against extending the mission in Afghanistan, among other things because the government was asking for a blank cheque. This government did not answer questions and did not know the criteria for the success of the mission. It still does not know them and has not answered the questions. It does not have a comprehensive plan and it does not know where it is going in this matter.

The government asked us, in just a few hours, to fast-track the debate and give it carte blanche to extend the mission in Afghanistan, which we, the members of the Bloc Québécois, all opposed. Nevertheless, with the support of many Liberals, the mission was extended. Parliament gave the Conservative government carte blanche.

This tells me that it would have taken only two or three more Bloc members to avoid giving this blank cheque to the government, this permission to do nearly anything in Afghanistan. Once again, this perfectly illustrates the importance of sending a maximum number of Bloc members to Ottawa.

As we all know, this is not the first time that Quebeckers have lost a vote in this House. That said, although we lost that vote in the House, we nevertheless retained our hard-hitting approach and we continue to work to ensure a balanced mission, at the very least, specifically, to see that perhaps a little less money is allocated for the military aspect and more is spent on humanitarian aid. In Afghanistan, the solution depends largely on the humanitarian aspect. Once people have acceptable living conditions, there is a good chance that matters of security will be more easily resolved and conflicts will diminish.

Work has been done on this aspect. We have fought and we have kept saying that this had to be a balanced mission. A great deal of work has been accomplished, the results of which can be seen in the budget. This idea, long advocated by the Bloc Québécois, comes out in the budget presented by the minister. Thus, Afghanistan will receive a little more humanitarian aid. We are very proud of that.

I would now like to talk about the GST visitor rebate. Once again, this accomplishment comes largely thanks to the Bloc Québécois, although the opposition parties were against this measure. In short, the Conservative government's original proposition consisted of doing away with all GST rebates to visitors, tourists who come to Canada and then return to the U.S. At present, and until the legislation is passed, tourists who spend money in Canada—on things such as accommodations or goods purchased and taken back to the U.S.—can be reimbursed for a portion of their expenses.

This is reasonable, because we must definitely regard tourism as an export industry. We export our image, our culture and our landscape outside our borders. We ask people from other countries to come to Canada, but in fact, it is really an export industry.

Of course, there is no other export industry anywhere— in almost all countries that have a consumer tax—for all practical purposes, nowhere are exports taxed. That is completely counter-productive. Even though the GST rebate for foreign visitors was originally implemented by the Conservatives when they brought in the GST, they wanted to change things later and abolish the measure. We know that that would have been disastrous for the tourism industry. The government argued that only 3% of travellers claimed the rebate. The problem—and this is often the problem with the Conservatives, unfortunately—is that they cannot count.

I took the time to delve a little deeper into the numbers. I admit to being somewhat conditioned by my profession. Before I was elected to this House a year and two months ago, I was an engineer and among other things, I did a lot of data analysis for my former employer.

Let us say that I was not taken in by the 3% figure. It is important to understand that people often travel in groups of two, three, four, five or more, and they travel as a family. A family of four that makes a lot of purchases during a trip does not submit four claims. When they get to the customs post, they submit one refund claim. That increases the figure significantly. If you multiply that figure by 2.5 or 3 people on average—we do not have an exact number—you get almost 10%.

The other thing to keep in mind is the money this represents. If you take visitors who come for the day and tourists who come for more than 24 hours, the ratio is about the same. For all practical purposes, it adds up to the same number of tourists: 17,470,000 versus 18,690,000. However, visitors who stay for several days—that is, more than one day—spend three times more than those who stay for just one day. In my opinion, for our listeners—I do not know how many there are—I do not think it is a huge revelation to point out that people who stay for more than a day spend more than those who stay for a day.

Obviously, those who stay less than a day usually do not have accommodation expenses, which are often the biggest expenses: a hotel room, renting an apartment or something like that. People who come for less than a day, who do not even spend $100 in Canada, are obviously not going to claim a rebate at the end of their stay. To say that the system is not working, that the program is useless because people are not claiming these refunds, if we include day visitors, then these figures go down.

We have to look at this in terms of money. For frequent travellers, people who come and spend a lot of money in our economy, how many of them are going to claim the rebate and what sort of commercial advantage does this represent? In committee I asked the government representative to tell us, relative to the total amount of money people are entitled to claim, how many people file a claim? I am not talking about the number of visitors. We do not even know if all the visitors are entitled to claim the rebate or if they all have an amount to claim. Of the total amount that can be claimed, how much money is claimed? No one was able to give me an answer. This shows that the government has no idea whether this program is effective or not. And yet it has come to the conclusion that the program should be eliminated. That is a shame and it worries the tourism industry greatly.

Another aspect that has been underestimated here is the commercial or marketing effect this will have. Just because people do not claim their refund does not mean that they did not take it into consideration when choosing their vacation destination. People who work in marketing, who work for example with mail-in rebates, would be able to explain this phenomenon. There are more and more products purchased that sell at full price, and that come with a sheet to fill out to receive a mail-in rebate in 6 to 8 weeks.

Anyone who works in marketing will tell you that a large proportion—it varies from one product to another—of people choose to purchase product X, Y or Z, because there was a mail-in rebate, but never send it in. But measuring the effectiveness of these mail-in rebates based on the number of people who send them in is not what counts. What counts is how many people made the purchase because there was a mail-in rebate. We can see that this is the ideal situation. Someone purchases the product because of the mail-in rebate, but never uses it. That is the ideal situation. It is the same thing in the case before us.

Say that people decide to travel here because they hope to claim a 6% GST refund, and that they never do so. Personally, I think this is a great thing for the government. We attract these people and they do not even use it. So we can see that the government did not know where it was going on this.

We have put a lot of pressure, and I think that the government realizes it was going to make a big mistake. It has backtracked a little. From now on, it will reimburse GST paid during conferences or tours. However, it will not reimburse individual travellers who are not part of a tour. This makes me think that the government realized it was going to make a big mistake. So it decided to make a small mistake rather than a big one. It is a mistake nonetheless. But, we succeeded in making them backtrack and limiting the impact.

The Bloc Québécois has made progress on one of its longstanding demands: GST refunds for school boards. The Liberals never pushed this issue. At the time, the Liberals never followed through, despite court decisions ordering them to refund GST to school boards. It is in the budget.

For its next challenge, I would like to see the government abolish the GST on books. Culture and education are important. In Quebec, books are now exempt from the provincial sales tax. The federal government must do the same regarding the GST.

A little earlier, I said I would talk about the fiscal imbalance again. I realize I must do so quickly. The Bloc Québécois has been fighting against the fiscal imbalance for quite some time. We are the members who raised this question in the House. This has been the work of the sovereignists for a very long time. We even had to explain to the Conservatives what the fiscal imbalance was, since they knew absolutely nothing about it. Apparently, they still do not fully understand the concept. The fact that the Minister of Finance said that the issue is resolved is proof that the Conservatives do not understand the fiscal imbalance. How can the fiscal imbalance issue be resolved when no fiscal action was taken?

When the Séguin commission met, its members introduced the concept of the fiscal imbalance. They chose to name the problem. They did not open a dictionary and choose words at random with their eyes closed. These words were not pulled out of a hat. There is a reason it is called “fiscal” and there is a reason it is called an “imbalance”: because it is a fiscal problem and it is an imbalance. The solution to the fiscal imbalance is to restore the balance by way of a fiscal solution. That seems obvious to me.

We will have to keep repeating this to the Conservative government because it does not seem to have understood. The Liberals, for their part, have always denied the existence of this problem. In its next budget, the government will have to transfer tax points or tax fields like the GST—which would be the simplest solution—to the governments of Quebec and the provinces so they can benefit from stable, predictable revenues that will not change from budget to budget or from government to government. For example, Quebec's recent gains could be completely erased in the next budget or if there is an election and the government becomes a majority government, or if the Liberals return to power. We will always be at the mercy of the central government's vagaries. To Quebeckers, that is the price of dependency, budgetary dependency, which is a logical result of political dependency.

I would like to end by talking about equalization. I have just a few seconds left, so I will be brief.

Unfortunately, the government decided to exclude half of non-renewable resource revenues from this budget. This measure unfairly penalizes Quebec. Why did they not exclude revenues from the aerospace industry or hydroelectricity? It just so happens that that would have benefited Quebec. The Bloc never asked for these exclusions because it has never asked for an arbitrary advantage. I do not see why other provinces should be given an arbitrary advantage.

This is unfortunate. We will continue to fight for this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Ottawa Centre.

It is with great pleasure that I rise on the budget debate this afternoon. I know that all governments have to make choices. Choices are made easier when there is access to finances that can be used. If we did not have access to finances, then we would have to make tough decisions in that regard.

This particular budget is severely lacking in what were considered as promises and indications made by the Conservatives when they were in opposition and now when they are in government.

We have seen various reversals of positions. Some people call them broken promises. Some call them deceptions, deliberately or indirectly, but the reality is that there have been major reversal decisions without much consultation with the public.

We can take the reversal on the income trusts as an example. Although we believe in the end that it had to happen, these trusts should never have been set up in the way that they were in the first place. Governments knew full well that these major tax concerns would be affecting the government in some way.

I personally believe that the government should not have made that promise before the campaign. People would then have been very careful with their tax dollars.

What I find most offensive about this particular budget is that the Conservatives have a $14.2 billion surplus, more than they anticipated. When they were in opposition, they repeatedly criticized the Liberal Party for excessive surplus budgets by saying it is coming from employers and employees in the country.

With that kind of money, $14.2 billion, regardless of how it was achieved, we would think the government would be able to help some of the most vulnerable people in our society, some of the most bravest in our society.

We moved in this House a veterans first motion. Elements of that motion were the veterans independence program for widows and widowers; raising the pension allowance from 50% to 66%; getting rid of what is called the gold digger clause, so regardless of when a person remarries there would not be any discrimination after age 60; and that a person's second spouse at the time of his or her death would be entitled to that person's pension benefit.

There was to be an end to the clawback at age 65 for those who have become disabled, the clawing back of the CPP pension and then the disability pension. There was also the SISIP program. Two DND ombudsmen said it was unfair and it needed to be rectified. The House of Commons moved a motion stating that.

Many people across the country had repeatedly asked the previous Liberal government to deal with this issue. It failed. Now the current Conservative government is failing on the issue of protecting our veterans and those who have become injured within our military service and their families.

For less than 2% of the total surplus of the budget, the government could have dealt with the SISIP issue once and for all. The $290 million estimated price tag would have once and for all fixed the financial situation, so that these thousands of injured soldiers and their families would have financial relief and be able to move on with their lives.

One would think that with a $14.2 billion surplus the Conservatives would somehow find $290 million to fix the problem once and for all. What was the answer? No. It was not even in the budget. What a shame.

On the VIP, the now Prime Minister gave assurances to a woman in Cape Breton named Joyce Carter that if his party formed the government the VIP would indeed be extended immediately to all widows and widowers, regardless of the time of death of the veteran. Sixteen months later what do we see in the budget? Nothing.

This House also moved a motion on autism which the Conservative Party supported. We have asked that the government immediately reconvene a meeting with the provinces and the stakeholders to discuss the best way to move this issue forward. We know it is going to take financial and human resources to assist the provinces and territories in the delivery of care and treatment for families with children dealing with autism.

We thought that after the motion passed in the House, even with the support from the Conservatives, that it would be mentioned in the budget. Not a word.

There were also aspects on the fishery concerns. When the Conservatives were in opposition, they wrote letters to Danny Williams saying they would immediately invoke custodial management on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. There is nothing.

We also had promises on equalization, promises that the offshore accords for Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia would not be touched. Again, there is a complete reversal of position.

Here is the reality with a surplus of $14.2 billion. People in our income bracket, those making well over $100,000, are doing quite well now. The reality is that I do not need a tax cut. Those people who need help with taxes are the low income earners and the pensioners, those in the lower middle class. MPs and senators do not need a tax cut.

The reality is that at the same time we need to reinvest to help those people who are disabled or widowed or who are struggling to get through their day to day lives with the excessive costs of health care, et cetera. They are being ignored by this budget.

What is most offensive is that these assurances were given by the Conservatives when they were in opposition. They said that if they ever formed a government, they would clean up 13 years of Liberal inaction and move forward on these issues.

We hear them time and time again saying to stand up and support the troops. I congratulate them for doing it. I am glad to see that everybody in this House does, but I question the Conservatives when it comes to supporting the troops when they have to take their uniforms off, when they become disabled and have to leave the military, or when they become old and aged veterans, or when they pass on and their families are left behind and their spouses are looking for help.

I have over 20 world war and Korean veterans in the area of the Halifax Regional Municipality, HRM. Every single one of them has one thing in common with the others: they were denied hearing aids.

They were denied hearing aids because of the fact that a lot of them did not have a hearing test when they left the war in 1946 or 1947. They were young and they got on with their lives, but now their hearing is really suffering. They have been told by audiologists that there is a connection between what happened in their wartime service and their loss of hearing now, but DVA says they did not have a test in the beginning so they do not qualify.

With a $14.2 billion surplus, one would think that DVA and the government would honour the words that the Minister of Veterans Affairs said in opposition and has said in government, which were that we should always give the benefit of the doubt to the veteran. He said that repeatedly.

I ask this government, the cabinet and the DVA to honour the commitment in those words of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and give the benefit of the doubt to these aged veterans so they can have some comfort in the remainder of their lives. With a $14.2 billion surplus, if they cannot do it now, when are they going to do it? These are not young men and women any more.

Our injured soldiers deserve better.

Children with autism deserve better.

These are just some of the elements, in a short 10 minute speech, that I am able to talk about a bit. There are so many more deficiencies with this budget.

Again, when we have the finances at our fingertips to really help people in this country from coast to coast to coast, why did the Conservatives ignore them? Why was the government so callously arrogant in its approach to this budget, thinking that these people would not notice?

These are people who served our country. They deserve better. We have the opportunity to do it. We should have done it, but they missed out. It is not good enough to stand in the House and say, “We are working on it and we will get around to it”. That is what was said when they were in opposition. That is what they are saying in government.

The government needs to move much, much faster on this issue, because if we do not, an awful lot of these brave men and women will pass on because of their ages, and they will not have received the help they required.

That is not how they should end the rest of their lives. They should know that the government and this House of Commons, regardless of political party, cares about what they have done. The reality is that it should have been in the budget and it was not.

It is not too late. The Conservatives can turn around right now, stand up in the House and say very clearly that they made a mistake, that it was an omission and they will put it back in.

For children with autism to be told by the government that there is no help for them because it is not in the budget is unacceptable. That is why, along with many other reasons, we in the NDP cannot and will not support the budget.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to give you greetings before the end of Lent. On this last day before our two-week break, I would like to wish you and the entire House a happy Easter.

My question is for the member who just spoke.

The hon. member is extremely passionate and he knows about some of the work that I have done in a previous time with respect to the program known as VIP. I received a lot of support in my riding from a number of legions as well as from Dominion Command and Ontario Command.

I want to ask the hon. member a question because we had a chance to talk about this very briefly. Does the hon. member have a comment with respect to the pension issue? As the hon. member knows, a wounded soldier receives a certain amount of money after three years, depending on the nature of the injury.

It is not by accident the defence minister is behind me. We were having a very good discussion on another matter, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you.

I want to ask the hon. member if he has any comments that might help the wounded soldier in the long term, and on what would happen under the previous programs. The new veterans charter began with my party when we were in power, but clearly the number of complaints and concerns that have been raised are significant.

While the budget was very silent on this, I think that for the future, in order to instruct, Parliament has to proceed with this issue on this the 90th anniversary of Canada's contribution in the Battle of Vimy Ridge, which created or gave impetus to this country. Could the hon. member tell us his thoughts? What are his thoughts with respect to ensuring that our wounded soldiers, long term, not only receive the care that they do, but also that they receive a pension?

Over a period of time, that pension could be as much as an average of about $1.2 million to $1.4 million in the life of a soldier, versus a lump sum payment of just $250,000. Although it might seem great up front, the reality is that in the long term we may be able to do more for our wounded soldiers. I would like the hon. member's comment.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question. Let us say that an individual signs up for the military and two and a half years later is severely injured and has to leave the military because he can no longer serve. What happens to that individual? That is a very good question.

That is why the new veterans charter has been described by all parties as a living document. When individual cases of this nature come into play, it is up to government and the departments of DND and DVA to work together to consolidate their resources to make sure that not only do the individual and that individual's family have the immediate treatment they require, but that they have the opportunity to move forward.

However, in the unlikely event that they can never work again, either through physical or mental challenges they may have suffered as a result of their injuries, we as a government should be as compassionate as possible to ensure that their needs and the needs of their families are met extremely well.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore for his thoughtful comments on the budget. The member has a reputation for bringing members from all parties together to discuss a range of issues from time to time. It is a very good initiative to bring people from all parties in the House together so we can share our common concerns and interests.

I have a question for the member. We know that budgets respond to the priorities of the government. One of the things that saddened me was the fact that there were so many people excluded from this budget, such as our aboriginal Canadians when the Kelowna accord was not funded. These people are in desperate need of housing and education. They have simple needs, like clean water.

Also not funded were the child care agreements that the Liberal government had negotiated with something like eight provinces to establish child care spaces in those provinces. These are the people who need our help, the women who work outside the home, and men in some cases, and who need to look after their children. They need to find child care spaces.

I wonder if the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore would comment on that.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore is asked to make a short comment because the clock has run out.

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

Mr. Speaker, the meetings the member talks about are our shipbuilding and marine conference meetings and we are hopeful they will go ahead.

The reality is that the member is correct. The Conservatives' $100 a day so-called day care plan is blowing up in their faces, because I am getting calls from people who are asking, “Since when did this become taxable?” Now they are having to claim that as income. The government did not create one day care space. Businesses were supposed to create all these day care spaces. It did not happen.

As for first nations people, the neglect of this budget--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.