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.

Budget Implementation Act, 2007

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

moved that Bill C-52, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007, be read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to introduce Bill C-52 at third reading. Once passed, the proposed legislation will implement key measures from budget 2007 along with other tax initiatives that were announced prior to the budget.

Our goal is to help Canada and Canadians unleash an extraordinary potential. We are a successful, independent nation that believes in tolerance, justice and providing a helping hand to the less fortunate.

As the world changes, Canadians need to work together to make Canada even more prosperous and strong. We have a plan, “Advantage Canada”, that will take us there, and the measures in Bill C-52 are an integral part of that plan.

To that end, Bill C-52 proposes to invest an additional $39 billion over the next seven years to help the provinces and territories deliver the quality services that Canadians have come to expect from a country as great as ours.

It is difficult to visualize just how many dollars there are in $1 billion, so I will like to put it in a different perspective. A billion dollars is a thousand million and $39 billion would be 39 thousand million.

A billion hours ago, our ancestors were living in the stone age. A stack of one billion dollar bills will reach from the ground to 120 kilometres upward. If one sat down to count a billion dollar bills, and I would like that chore, and could count them at the rate of one per second, every second of every day, it would take more than 30 years to finish counting that one billion dollars.

If you earned $1,000 a day, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you are worth that, you would take 2,740 years to earn $1 billion. If you had $1 billion and you spent $3,000 of it every day, and I am sure some of us would be able to do that, it would take 1,000 years to spend the whole $1 billion.

When I say that our government is putting $39 billion additional new money into the hands of provinces and territories to provide good services for Canadians, that is a lot of money, 39 billion new dollars. That will provide Canadians with health care, post-secondary education, new child care spaces, a clean environment and infrastructure like roads, bridges and public transit.

In addition, Bill C-52 contains a number of tax reduction measures that will improve the standard of living for Canadians. I am talking about the working family tax plan that will make it easier for working families to get ahead and stay ahead.

This plan includes a new $2,000 child tax credit that will provide up to $310 of tax relief for each child under 18 to more than three million Canadian families. The plan also increases the spousal and other amounts to the same level as the basic personal amount. This will provide up to $209 of tax relief to two parent families with one parent who earns little income.

Single parents and family members caring for dependants will also benefit. The working family tax plan helps families saving for their children's education by eliminating the $4,000 limit on annual contributions for registered education savings plans and increasing the lifetime contribution limit to $50,000 from $42,000. It also increases the maximum annual Canada education savings grants amount to $500 from $400.

As for our pensioners and seniors, the plan increases the age limit to 71 from 69 for registered retirement savings plans and registered pensions.

Bill C-52 also proposes to enact the tax fairness plan. This plan will provide tax assistance to our seniors by increasing the amount eligible for the age credit by $1,000, putting it up to $5,066. The plan will also help our seniors by allowing couples, for the very first time, to split their pension income. This represents tax savings of over $1 billion annually for Canadian pensioners and seniors.

Going forward, the government is committed to providing additional tax relief for individuals to improve the rewards from working, saving and investing.

Canada's new government has built on its commitment to implement the 10 year plan to strengthen health care, a plan that provides $41.3 billion in new federal funding over 10 years to provinces and territories.

In budget 2007 we built on that commitment. For example, the budget proposes an investment of $400 million for Canada Health Infoway, an organization that is making significant progress in working with provinces and territories to implement electronic health records. This initiative will help reduce wait times, reduce the risk of medical errors and lead to better health outcomes.

Furthermore, Bill C-52 proposes funding of up to $612 million to support all provinces and territories as they move forward with their commitment to implement patient wait times guarantees.

As we know, in July 2006 Canada's new government approved the use of a vaccine that provides protection for young girls and women against two types of human papillomavirus, or HPV. These viruses are responsible for approximately 70% of cancers of the cervix in Canada. This is the second most common cancer in women aged 20 to 44 after breast cancer, and that is a very disturbing statistic. That is why a measure from budget 2007 contained in the bill proposes to provide $300 million in per capita funding for provinces and territories to fight HPV.

Canada's new government has a comprehensive and results oriented plan to clean our air, help address climate change and create a healthier environment for Canadians. With that goal in mind, budget 2007 proposes to invest $4.5 billion toward a cleaner, healthier environment. Bill C-52 takes an important first step in that direction by proposing to provide more than $1.5 billion to a trust fund for initiatives undertaken by provinces and territories in support of clean air and climate change projects.

In addition, building on the initiatives taken in budget 2006, our government will strengthen conservation of sensitive land and species and preservation of our cultural and natural heritage. One such measure in Bill C-52 proposes $225 million for the Nature Conservancy of Canada to conserve ecologically sensitive land in southern Canada.

The bill also proposes $30 million in funding to support an innovative model of sustainable land and resource management development in the Great Bear Rain Forest on the central coast of British Columbia.

As members know, Genome Canada is a not for profit corporation that supports Canadian research leadership in genomics, a powerful emerging field, with the potential for significant advances in health care, sustainable development and in the environment. Since its creation, Genome Canada has been very successful at strengthening the genomics research environment in Canada, not only by attracting leading scientists but putting in place the advanced technology needed for genomics work.

Bill C-52 proposes to provide Genome Canada with an additional $100 million in 2006-07 to sustain funding to support, among other things, Canada's participation in strategic international research collaborations.

Bill C-52 contains a number of other important measures, none more important perhaps as the proposal to provide additional funding to help in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

Canadians, as we all know, have played a significant role in supporting that country's efforts to build a free, democratic and peaceful country. That is why the bill proposes to provide $200 million in additional support for reconstruction and development of Afghanistan, with initiatives that create new opportunities for women, strengthen governments, enhance security and address the challenge of combatting illegal drugs.

We can see that Bill C-52 is a comprehensive bill, encompassing a broad range of initiatives to help Canadian succeed, to enhance important social services and to support our global contribution.

That is why timely passage of the bill is important. A number of measures in the bill will be lost if the bill does not receive royal assent by August 31, which for our purposes means by the time both the House and the other House rise in June. There are immediate and grave consequences which cannot be resolved in September. The money will be gone and the Liberals need to be aware of this, as well as all Canadians.

Let me explain this. Should the budget implementation act not receive royal assent before the government's financial statements are finalized in August, it will not be possible to account for these measures in 2006-07.

If the budget is not passed until the fall or later, the money for the measures, which I will mention, would have to be booked in 2007-08 from new money and to do so would have to compete with new demands.

The money from 2006-07 would by law have to go into the 2006-07 surplus and then be applied to the debt and not to program funding. Therefore, a number of measures would not go forward if the bill is not passed in a timely fashion.

Measures that would not go forward are: $1.5 billion for a Canada trust foundation for clean air and climate change; over half a billion dollars for patient wait time guarantees trust; $0.4 billion for the Canada Health Infoway; $0.1 billion for CANARIE; $0.2 billion for the Nature Conservancy of Canada; $0.3 billion for the Great Bear Rainforest; $0.6 billion for labour market agreements; $0.3 billion for the Rick Hansen Foundation; $0.1 billion in aid to Afghanistan; $100 million to Genome Canada; and $50 million to the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics.

I mention all of this because there have been some bumps in the road, and some possible future bumps in the road, in both Houses of Parliament in ensuring that this important bill, which has been before us for some time, is passed in a timely manner. I do not think Canadians want to see these important measures I have just listed lost because parliamentarians cannot work together constructively for good things for Canada and Canadians.

I end by urging all members of both this House and the other place to give Bill C-52 their support in a timely manner, so the benefits can start to flow to Canadians as they should.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question. I will preface my comments by indicating that I served on the finance committee most of last year and worked with the member as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. To my shock, I came to have some high regard for her personally and enjoyed her company. We travelled Canada and we spent some time working together. I came to know that she is a very engaging person and I have enjoyed that.

However, I disagree with her on some very fundamental points. I want to talk about the Atlantic accord. I have asked the member this question before. She has indicated that in her view the Atlantic accord was a “gerrymandered”, and she used that word, and ad hoc agreement. I disagree with her and I think I have made that clear.

I want to talk to her specifically about what the Atlantic accord is. There is a lot of confusion but it is very simple. At its essence, the Atlantic accord assured Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador that they would be the full beneficiaries of offshore, over and above whatever equalization program was in place at the time. Thus, if equalization changed, as it did under the previous administration, Nova Scotia would get the benefit of the new equalization plus the Atlantic accord.

The Minister of Finance mocks Atlantic Canada and insults Atlantic Canada when he stands in this chamber and says we have the choice of the new equalization or the old deal and the Atlantic accord. The Atlantic accord specifically said that whatever the new equalization is, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador would get the benefit of that, plus the offshore. It was not one or the other. It was both.

In Nova Scotia, as in Newfoundland and Labrador, everyone knows that this budget torched the Atlantic accord. Academics, economists, Conservative premiers and an all party resolution of the House of Assembly of Nova Scotia, including the minister married to the Conservative member for South Shore—St. Margaret's, all said that we have to honour the accord, that it has been broken. Mr. John Crosbie today was quoted in a secret memo from before now as saying that this breaks the Atlantic accord and that the choice they are forced to make “does not fulfill the 2005 agreement”.

There is no question that the Atlantic accord has been shunned and has been pushed aside. I want to ask my colleague, very seriously and simply, does she believe the Atlantic accord was honoured in this budget or does she agree with the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, who made the principled decision yesterday that it did not and he cannot live with that?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret, of course, that there are some differences of opinion surrounding this issue, but I would like to point out a few things to my hon. friend.

First of all, the only reason the province of Nova Scotia has any rights to its own resources offshore is because of a Conservative government. He knows that. The Liberals were going to give his province nothing.

In fact, it was Conservatives who started fighting for offshore rights for Nova Scotia while in opposition and then followed through when they were in government by actually giving those rights to Nova Scotia in 1986. It was Conservatives who fought to push the former Liberal prime minister, who was not going to keep his promise to enter into the accords, into doing so. He did that because of pressure from Conservatives. Otherwise, he was not going to do that.

We also had a situation where there was a fiscal imbalance, where there were not enough transfers to the provinces for them to provide services to their citizens. Again the Liberals denied that there were any problems and said there was no fiscal imbalance. The current leader of the Liberal Party says there is no such thing as a fiscal imbalance, but again it was Conservatives who transferred huge amounts of money to the provinces, including the province that the member comes from.

As I just mentioned, there is $39 billion in new money from this Conservative government to the provinces and territories of this country to fix the fiscal imbalance. Again, nothing like that would have come from the Liberals.

The province of Nova Scotia specifically is $97 million better off today because of Conservative initiatives. If there are differences of opinion, as the member alludes to, then they will be worked out in good faith by this government because we want fairness in this country. We want fairness for every province, including the province of Nova Scotia.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the gaps in the budget with regard to first nations.

We know that there has been a 2% funding cap in place since 1996. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's own documents have done an analysis on the impact of the 2% cap on education and housing and any number of programs.

The current budget actually does not address those funding gaps specifically. In fact, there has been some detailed analysis done. One in four first nations children living on reserve live in poverty. There is a 22% gap in funding for children in care on reserve. That has resulted in a human rights complaint being filed by the Assembly of First Nations because children on reserve have access to a far lower level of service than children off reserve. In fact, I have introduced a motion in the House called Jordan's principle, which talks about funding adequately and getting by jurisdictional disputes and putting children first.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would indicate how the government plans to address that vital 2% funding gap and ensuring that first nations in Canada have access to a standard of living that other Canadians expect.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my hon. friend that in this situation the conditions under which some of our first nations people live in this country are absolutely appalling. They are unacceptable and must be changed.

I would suggest to the hon. member that to some degree, and perhaps to a large degree, it is not just lack of money that is the problem. I would suggest that there are some systemic problems, including a lack of basic human rights on the first nations reserves, that are part of this problem, and she will know that our government has a number of initiatives to address this, including giving first nations people the human rights that other Canadians enjoy under the Human Rights Act.

I think we need to look at these issues as a package, but one thing that we cannot do is expect the status quo to work. I would urge the member to work with the government on some of the changes that need to be made in the systemic problems. Also, of course, as she knows, both our previous budget and this budget do put significant new money toward first nations initiatives and we will continue to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of the parliamentary secretary. I certainly applaud the initiatives of the budget and specifically of Bill C-52.

The tax cuts for families are very well received in my riding. The improved financial security from the measures for seniors, such as pension splitting and RRSP regulation changes, is also very important.

However, I want to refer specifically to a comment that she made in regard to the investment of $50 million for research and development to the Perimeter Institute.

I have had the privilege of visiting the Perimeter Institute and the Institute for Quantum Computing. I want to confirm that she said if Bill C-52 is not passed that $50 million could be in jeopardy, because if that is true, there are many residents of the KW area who will be very concerned. In fact, this would impact the future research capabilities of this great institution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments. It is certainly our hope that all members of Parliament will want initiatives such as the Perimeter Institute to get funding in a timely fashion as it has been promised. I am pretty confident that this will happen.

I simply mention these concerns so that Canadians will be aware that there have been, as I said, and I want to be careful with this, some bumps in the road and some suggestions from the other place that there may be attempts to hold up these measures. I do not think that is going to be helpful to Canadians.

I think if there are differences of opinion between parties they should be worked out between the parties. Canadians and Canadian initiatives like the Perimeter Institute should not be held hostage for that purpose.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not get a chance to ask my hon. colleague a question, but I will use up part of my time to do so.

When she talked about how important it was not to waste time in passing the budget, I would just point out that the government itself wasted three and a half weeks in the month of April when it withdrew its own budget from the legislative process. It is difficult to know, if she thinks it is so terribly important, why the government itself caused an unnecessary three and a half week delay. I want to put that on the record.

In terms of my own speech, I would like to focus on two themes regarding this budget: incompetence and dishonesty. It is an incompetent budget in the sense that the minister is out of his depth, and it is a dishonest budget in a number of senses, including not merely broken promises but the denial that those promises were in fact broken, and in some cases the denial of the undeniable, not to mention as well the repeated statements of things that clearly are not true, like saying that the government has cut income tax when everybody knows that it has raised income tax.

I would like to pursue these two themes. In doing so, I realize that there are other things one could say about the budget. One could say that it is a meanspirited budget in its treatment of aboriginal people or children or students or all of the above. I also realize that these themes of incompetence and dishonesty could be applied to other aspects of the behaviour of this government, like the environment or Afghanistan, but in the time allotted to me I would like to focus exclusively on the budget and exclusively on these two particular themes.

Before I go into detail, let me say something about language. I have been in the business of reading budgets and commenting on budgets for quite a few years, long before I went into politics, and I have noticed that those commenting on the budget, the economic analysts and specialists, generally use language that is respectful and even deferential. They use very moderate words.

When I went through the commentary applied to this budget over the last several weeks, I made a collection of some of the adjectives that these normally very sober analysts have used to describe the budget. Some of these words are the following: unbelievable, worst in 35 years, nut job, stupid, clueless, insane, and idiotic.

I have been at this kind of thing for more years than I would care to think about and never in my life have I heard words of that nature applied to the budget of a Government of Canada. I would suggest that this is indirect evidence that the extremity of the language of people unaccustomed to such language is matched by the extremity of the incompetence that would provoke such language from people unaccustomed to using such words, unless, that is, for some unexplained reason, there was a sudden contagious outburst of rudeness from economic analysts and economists.

I would like to give six examples of areas in which we see this combination of incompetence and dishonesty.

For the first of those, one has to go back in history a bit to when the Minister of Finance was a very senior member of the Ontario government. The Conservatives were running an election on a balanced budget. After they lost the election and the auditors came in, it turned out that there was a $5.8 billion deficit. Here we have that combination displayed nicely, because to run a $5.8 billion deficit is in itself incompetent, but it is dishonest to pretend that it is a balanced budget when in fact one knows it is a deficit. That is dishonesty. That was the first revelation, if members like, of that combination.

The second example I would use is the government's decision to raise income taxes in order to pay for a GST cut. That is incompetent in the sense that there is not an economist on the planet who would say that is a sensible thing to do. I think there are very few Canadians who would rather have a penny off the price of a cup of coffee than more money in their wallets through an income tax cut.

It also reflects the dishonesty theme. While everyone in the country knew that their income tax had been raised, the government persisted in saying that it had been cut even though all the tax return forms that Canadians fill out clearly stated the opposite.

Perhaps we could even say I am naive to be shocked by this but when the government of the day persists, not just once but time after time in making a statement that is self-evidently false, it is damaging to the political class, all of us in this Chamber. In some sense, Canadians will say that it is normal for politicians to say things that they know to be wrong. I do not think that is how politicians generally or ought to behave. Therefore, I do take offence when a government takes what is obviously a tax increase and repeatedly claims that it is a tax cut.

The third example I would mention is the federal-provincial relations and the whole situation of equalization which we heard about in some detail today. I would like to give a particularly interesting quote from the Minister of Finance in his budget. He said:

The long, tiring, unproductive era of bickering between the provincial and federal governments is over.

That is a very definitive statement. We would not have known that from question period today. People say that a successful budget is out of the news cycle in three days. I think we are on about day 80 and it was certainly in the question period cycle. It displays an extraordinary naïveté to think that any amount of money paid to the provinces would, in some magical sense, bring to a permanent end the long, tiring, unproductive era of bickering.

However, and perhaps more to the point, we have three clearly broken promises. We have three commitments made by the government to three provincial governments, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, and those commitments were clearly broken. What we see, and we have seen it for a number of weeks, is that the government persists in denying that it broke those agreements.

We would not have had an hon. member taking the huge step of voting against his own government and being kicked out of his own caucus if there were any doubt as to whether that agreement had been broken. We have a double set of dishonesty in breaking the promises and then in denying that those promises were broken.

There is another kind of dishonesty here. This is what we might call playing with numbers. We hear the finance minister quote these hundreds of millions of dollars that will go to this province or that province. However, we in the finance committee had the pleasure of listening to Premier Calvert of Saskatchewan last week or the week before. He went through in some detail how these numbers were just meaningless, a mish-mash. He said that the moneys would have gone to Saskatchewan anyway. He said that they were measured over five or ten years and that they were just concocted in whatever way was convenient for the government to come up with a number that sounds big.

There was a similar experience with the Canada-Ontario agreement where the government concocted numbers in a meaningless way to pretend that it was paying a lot of money to the Province of Ontario.

Perhaps it is because I am an economist, but I like to get numbers from the Department of Finance of the Government of Canada that I can trust. The way the government concocts its numbers just to serve whatever purpose it has in mind at any given moment, takes away that confidence in those numbers.

Related to that was the net debt gimmick. Some may remember that. Suddenly the government came out with the statement, “We are going to wipe out, abolish the net debt. Canada will be net debt free”, as if we were supposed to all jump up and applaud. It is some arcane thing that it dragged up from the OECD.

We have noticed that the government never talks about it anymore. It never talks about it anymore because it was so ridiculed that it had to put that back into the cupboard. All it was doing was manipulating statistics to pretend to Canadians that something was different when in fact nothing had changed.

The government is playing with numbers, whether it is manipulating Saskatchewan numbers, manipulating Canada-Ontario agreement numbers or taking the arcane concept of net debt and pretending it is doing something new and different. It is a gimmick. This is the kind of behaviour that I object to.

My fourth point involves interest deductibility, which is where we have a real disaster for the government. A statement that is in the budget could not be more crystal clear. It states that as of a certain date companies would no longer be allowed to deduct for tax purposes interest on money they borrowed to invest abroad.

Since the whole financial world came tumbling down on the minister, it became apparent to the minister that he had done something really stupid. He had neglected to point out that all other major countries allow their companies to deduct interest and, therefore, if Canada alone did not allow that to happen, our companies would be put at a huge competitive disadvantage and become more susceptible to takeover. He would then be creating disadvantaged Canada instead of advantage Canada, and the minister caved.

Do members know how the minister caved? I now come to honesty. He did not say that he was sorry that he had made a mistake. He said that everybody misinterpreted his budget. He said that everybody except himself had read the budget wrong. He said that none of us understood the budget except him. We know the effect of that. All of those thousands of tax experts who were down the minister's throat for doing something so stupid in the budget, as this interest deductibility measure, were all angry at him because he said that they had misread the budget. He could not admit that he was changing something. These analysts are all angry at the minister, which is not a very good position for a minister to put himself in and it is not very smart.

My main point is that this is another example of the sneaky dishonesty that we see again and again from the Conservative government.

My last point on interest deductibility is that having incompetently introduced a measure, which he had to withdraw but did not have the courage to say that he was withdrawing, the minister then withdrew it in an incompetent manner. There are two issues here: something called debt dumping and something called double-dipping.

I think the minister likes the sound of double-dipping because it sounds somehow evil and immoral so he wants to attack double-dipping. The problem is that every expert across the country says that the abuse does not come from double-dipping but from debt dumping. If the minister knew what he was doing, which he did not, he would have attacked debt dumping.

Debt dumping means that a foreign subsidiary can come into Canada, borrow huge amounts of money, deduct the interest from the debt so as to reduce its Canadian tax and then invest that money in some third country. This is a way to escape Canadian taxes inappropriately. There are some abuses there and we should crack down on them.

However, the way the minister is attacking double-dipping, the net effect will likely be an increase in the revenues of the Government of the United Kingdom or the Government of the United States. It is as if the minister's goal is to increase the revenues of foreign governments at the expense of Canadian companies, which makes no sense whatsoever.

Interest deductibility is a very good example. First, it shows that the minister is out of his depth in introducing the measure in the first place. Second, the manner in which he withdrew it, pretending that he was not withdrawing it and pretending that everyone else in the country misread the budget in the first place, shows a lack of straightforwardness in his behaviour. Third, when he attacks the wrong target, attacks double-dipping when he should be attacking debt dumping, that shows a second level of incompetence.

The fifth problem I would like to focus on is the extraordinarily incompetent design of the feebate program. It is rare that an industry, when given a tax break or a subsidy, would be up in arms against it, but that is exactly what happened. The auto industry did not complain so much about the extra costs imposed on gas guzzlers. It was up in arms at the rebate the government gave to the energy efficient cars because 75% of that money was focused on one model ,which was not very different, environmentally speaking, from the next model.

I want to quote one individual, a well-known expert on the auto sector, Dennis DesRosiers, who is normally one of those experts who uses very moderate language. He said:

(Honda) felt so slighted by this stupid ‘feebate’ that they have ... come out guns ablazing”.... “The feds now not only have a policy in place that does not work, they have also turned the company most willing to work ... to address the auto issues of the day into an advertising juggernaut criticizing the federal government's policies.”

The government has created enemies of all the tax analysts by telling them that they did not know how to read the budget, and now it is creating enemies in the auto industry in trying to give it rebates. Talk about incompetence.

Finally, last but not least, I come to the subject of income trusts. This is the mother of all broken promises but, as I said at the beginning, the government not only breaks promises but, once it breaks a promise, it denies it broke the promise. It denies the undeniable.

I had forgotten this but in the early days of the income trust debate, the government denied that it had broken a promise. That did not last very long because it was obvious that the Prime Minister had said it clearly in the election many times. In the early days, I have a quote from the Prime Minister responding on November 1, the day after Halloween when the policy was announced. The Prime Minister said:

The commitment of this party was not that we would have no taxes for Telus. It was a commitment to protect the income of seniors.

The Minister of Finance has brought in an age credit. He has brought in pension splitting. He is imposing fair taxes on the corporate community. I challenge the Liberal Party to support those things.

I had thought earlier today that was one promise that he could not deny but he tried. He tried for a day or two by saying that it was all about tax fairness. He then gave up because it was so impossible. He did acknowledge that he broken the promise on income trusts. However, my colleague has probably forgotten that in the early days he actually denied that he had broken the promise on income trusts.

I only have two minutes but I think I have spoken enough over the last several weeks on the subject of income trusts that I am able to summarize it fairly easily. This was not only a broken promise but it was a nuclear bomb dropped on the industry, when the Liberal plan, which was a more surgical plan, would have done the job correctly and which still will do the job correctly once the Liberals come to power.

It was a comedy of unintended consequences. Advantage Canada became disadvantage Canada. Tax fairness became tax unfairness. An attempt to get more revenue for the government, because of its incompetence, turned into less revenue for the government. The income trust issue was not only an example of broken promises and, in that sense, dishonesty, it is perhaps exhibit A in terms of a government that is out of its depth.

We have not abandoned our struggle for the appropriate policy on income trusts and, because of this combination of gross incompetence and gross dishonesty, the Liberals, one and all, will be very proud to vote against this budget.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Western Arctic, Taxation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I take the comments that the member makes on income trusts very lightly. He mentioned that his party had one plan.

The member for Markham—Unionville sits on the finance committee. He will have to do a little work in terms of addition. So far we have heard at least four so-called plans with respect to income trusts from his party. I do not think he can go too far and talk about right and wrong, BlackBerry emails and all that kind of thing when we have a party on the other side of the House that understands and is very unwilling to deal with the issue of income trusts.

I will focus a little more on the his comments with respect to the fiscal imbalance. It is nice to hear the member talk today about a fiscal imbalance, something his party was not interested in doing for the last 13 years. He perhaps has not acknowledged that there is a fiscal imbalance and that the government has worked at fixing that problem, but he has talked about a fiscal imbalance today.

I also find it odd that the Liberal member would vote against the budget based on the fiscal imbalance. It brings $12.8 billion in federal support just for Ontario. Maybe he should consult with his provincial Liberal colleagues before he votes against the budget.

I have done a little research. I will mention a few of those. He should consult with Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty who said, “This budget 2007 represents real progress for Ontarians”. Did he talk to the Liberal finance minister, Greg Sorbara, who said, “There are real positive changes in this Budget 2007?“ Did he speak to the Liberal energy minister, Dwight Duncan, who said, “Budget 2007 was a good step forward and the kind of thing we wanted to see”? Did he consult with the Liberal Mississauga West MPP, Bob Delaney, who praised budget 2007 saying, “There is nothing the federal government could have done more effectively than to address the fiscal gap?”

Was Dalton McGuinty wrong? Was Greg Sorbara wrong? Was Dwight Duncan wrong? Was Bob Delaney wrong?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises three points.

On the first point, and maybe he has not been listening, we only have one plan for income trusts. It consists of a 10% tax that is refundable to all Canadian residents, and a moratorium on the creation of new income trusts. It is very simple. He should be able to absorb that.

Second, on the question of the fiscal imbalance, when does one know that a fiscal imbalance is no longer there? Given the finance minister's referral to the long, tiring, unproductive era of bickering between the federal and provincial governments now being over, maybe a fiscal imbalance no longer exists when everybody is happy.

If that is the government's interpretation of fiscal imbalance, then we are in a greater imbalance today than we have ever been. We have a member of Parliament crossing the floor because of being kicked out of his caucus. We have three extremely angry provinces and five unhappy provinces. Is that the government's definition of balance? I would have said that is a highly unbalanced situation. Are we to say that the fiscal imbalance is solved merely because the finance minister declares it to be so?

None of this makes any sense unless the government members have some definition of fiscal imbalance and what it means, and whether this thing exists or does not exist.

On the subject of Ontario, the member is in no place to speak for Ontario, when the government ripped hundreds of millions from Ontario in the Canada-Ontario agreement and when the Ontario government had slammed the government for its environment policy and for its redistribution policy of creating new seats. Selective quotes will not do the job.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on something the member talked about in terms of concocted numbers. I argue that this budget goes far beyond concocted numbers and into concocted rhetoric.

In response to my question about a 2% cap on funding for first nations communities, the parliamentary secretary did not name the act, but said if we repealed section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and had human rights on reserve, everything would be fine. In fact, we know that with this 2% cap in place, first nations do not have the resources to remedy, for example, complaints on housing.

Earlier the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development denied the fact that an agreement called the Kelowna accord actually existed.

We all know that 18 months of consultation led up to a commitment by the then Liberal government and various ministers and premiers across the country to institute funding that would address some critical issues in first nations communities.

Would the member comment on the kind of notions that have come forward, which completely disregard the very real needs in first nations, Inuit and Métis communities across the country?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at least on this issue it seems the hon. member and I are in virtual total agreement. I agree the challenges of first nations are extremely important. It is a shameful situation for Canada. The government has ripped aside the Kelowna agreement and done virtually nothing for first nations. All I can say is we agree.

At the beginning, I also said that I believed this was a very meanspirited government with respect to its treatment of aboriginal people, poor people and students, but I would not dwell on that today. However, I certainly agree with the point she has made.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member made some excellent points. Interest deductibility is a very big issue.

One of the things the member for Yukon has circulated today is the fact that income tax has increased under the new government. Calling it a new government is kind of a joke. It has now been in power for a year and a half. I wonder how long it can call itself new and improved. It is quite comical.

The government ran in the last election and promised it would help Canadians, particularly lower and middle income Canadians. Now, for Heaven's sake, it has increased income tax. It is shocking that the government, which promised during its campaigned that it would not do such a thing, has done that. It is again another broken promise.

I want to draw attention also, as the hon. member did, to the fiscal imbalance. The Premier of Newfoundland is now running an ABC program, which is to vote anything but Conservative.

Could the member comment on those two points?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with what my colleague, the member for Guelph, has said. Let me put her point in context.

I do not know if she was here when the parliamentary secretary gave her speech about billions of dollars and how long it would take to count that. Let me ask her a question. How many nickels did the government take out of the pockets of Canadians when it raised the income tax rate? The answer is 28 billion nickels were taken out of the pockets of hard-working Canadians when the government imposed its income tax hike.

If the parliamentary secretary were here, I would ask her this question. How many hours would it take to count the 28 billion nickels that were taken out of the pockets of ordinary Canadians when the meanspirited government raised income taxes?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to talk today about Bill C-52. It is an important bill. Honesty was mentioned many times by the member, and I think he is treading on very dangerous ground.

I attended every one of the committee meetings dealing with income trusts, for example. Not once did the member bring forward the concept of the Liberal plan or discuss it with any of the witnesses during those sessions. I challenge him to check the blues on that. It was after they were all done.

It is completely dishonest to say that the Conservatives checked to see whether the experts we had in front of us believed in his plan. For someone who represents one area and lives in another, honesty is a really difficult thing I think.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not seem to understand that we on this side of the House, unlike the government, like to do our investigations first and then make our policy. It is our intention to hear the witnesses, absorb their wisdom and then come out with a policy.

I know the Minister of Finance likes to do it the other way. He dreams up some out of his depth crazy ideas and then consults the experts and finds out it is wrong.

We prefer to consult the experts before we announce our policy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak again about the budget tabled in this House earlier in the session.

Earlier today, during the previous two speeches, mention was made of the fiscal imbalance. That makes me laugh. I listened carefully to the speeches and did not get involved in the debate between the Liberals and the Conservatives on the fiscal imbalance, because the Liberals have always refused to admit that the fiscal imbalance exists and the Conservatives claim that it has been fixed.

Here is the Conservative technique for correcting the fiscal imbalance: the Minister of Finance gets up in the House and reads his budget. While reading, he simply says that the fiscal imbalance has now been corrected once and for all. That is all there is to it. The Conservatives believe that they just have to keep on repeating the same thing and it will come true.

This is not the case, however. Serving the public and doing the work we do in the House takes more than words: it takes action.

Let us review the basics of the fiscal imbalance. This concept was first defined and discussed in Quebec by the Séguin commission, which carefully examined the matter. This has always been a Bloc Québécois issue. At the time, only the Bloc talked about it; the other parties denied that it existed. We started explaining to the Conservatives what it was all about. We have made progress, but they still do not understand what it is all about because they claim to have solved it.

When the members of the Séguin commission defined the concept of fiscal imbalance, they did not pick a name for it out of a hat. They did not open the dictionary to a certain page and point to some words when they named it fiscal imbalance. It was not an arbitrary choice.

There were reasons. First, it is an imbalance. Second, the nature of this imbalance is fiscal. It was not a monetary or budgetary issue. Basically the central government, the federal government, had too much tax revenue, too great a fiscal capacity, in relation to the requirements and the jurisdictions established by the Constitution. On the other side, the governments of Quebec and of the other provinces do not have a large enough tax base to assume all the responsibilities provided for in said Constitution. This is so true that the federal government generates significant surpluses year after year and takes the liberty, with each budget—including the Conservative budgets, no matter what the Conservatives say—to meddle in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.

I would like to point out that if the federal government's fiscal capacity were not greater than its needs, it would not feel the need to interfere in provincial jurisdictions. In fact, it could not do so. Nonetheless, since it has too much fiscal capacity, too much money, it goes ahead and interferes in provincial jurisdictions. In the meantime, Quebec and the provinces do not have enough funding or a large enough tax base to meet all their needs. They are facing an increasingly precarious situation.

That is what is happening. The fiscal imbalance exists. The only solution to this fiscal imbalance is a tax transfer. This seems logical enough to me. I meet a lot of people in my riding. On the weekend I went to a sidewalk sale on Wellington Street in my riding to meet with people and talk to them. When I tell them we need to correct the fiscal imbalance with a tax transfer, almost everyone understands the principle quickly enough: fiscal imbalance and tax transfer seems logical enough to them.

The Conservatives are the only ones who do not understand, or at least not the Conservatives from Quebec. The Liberals and the New Democrats do not recognize the principle either, but the Conservatives have not really delivered the goods. They made a significant budgetary transfer; that is true. This will provide Quebec with supplementary sources of revenue. That is the reason we supported the budget. We have done our job.

The Bloc Québécois fought hard for this funding. The government has made progress and transferred funding to Quebec. We have decided to support the budget. This is a good illustration of the Bloc's importance. During the latest votes on the budget we noticed how quiet the Conservatives were when the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of their budget. They were well aware that they need us to make their Parliament work.

So there is no tax transfer in this budget. That is clear. In committee I asked the minister and his officials about this. Everyone admitted that there was no tax transfer. There were only budget transfers. What everyone also admitted was that nothing guarantees that this money will be there next year, or any other year. This is so true that the Conservative Party is even paying big bucks to advertise on television in Quebec, saying that if the Leader of the Opposition became prime minister, he could take back the money. By saying this, the Conservatives are admitting that this is not a permanent or definitive solution and that Quebec is still dependent on the federal government for this money. All Quebeckers, federalists and sovereignists alike, from all parties in the National Assembly, want to be free of this dependence. We want to be able to count on autonomous revenues and do not want to always be subject to the whims of the federal government.

The solution for Quebec is to get back either the tax fields—like the GST—or tax points, which will ensure stable, predictable revenues that will grow over time with the economy and will be fair and equitable.

In short, there are some benefits in this budget that are due to the fact that this is a minority government. It needed the support of the Bloc Québécois, because Quebeckers decided to send a strong contingent of members to Ottawa. The government had to give more resources to Quebec. We supported the budget, but the fiscal imbalance has not yet been corrected. There is still much work to be done, and we will continue to do what is necessary to defend the interests of Quebeckers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest some of the comments that the member opposite made. I am wondering if he would comment on how the people in his province are receiving the good news that there will be this $2,000 child tax credit, saving Quebec parents almost $300 million.

Also, there is an increase in the basic spousal amount providing another almost $60 million in tax relief. Certainly, there are many initiatives here that I would think that he would be glad to support in Bill C-52.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I meet the citizens of my riding, we often have the opportunity to discuss to what extent the federal tax system is ill-adapted to the choices made by Quebeckers. Children were mentioned, and this is a perfect example. On our federal tax returns, Canadians can claim child care as a tax credit when we send our children to day care.

Obviously, since Quebec society decided to collectively pay for child care and offer services for $7—low-cost child care—parents in Quebec receive fewer tax credits than parents everywhere else in Canada. Of course, parents in Quebec pay for these child care costs in other ways. They pay them through the taxes they pay to the Government of Quebec. However, they cannot claim a higher amount by saying that they pay $7 out of their pockets and the rest through their taxes.

This means that the federal government saves between $200 million and $250 million every year. I do not recall the exact figure at the moment, but the federal government saves a huge amount of money. The Canadian tax system is taking more money from the pockets of Quebec parents simply because we decided to create a system that is praised, incidentally, throughout Canada and around the world. This demonstrates just how costly federalism is for Quebeckers, and to what extent it is ill-adapted and does not take into account Quebeckers' choices and realities.

The medium- and long-term solution for Quebeckers is, of course, sovereignty. In the meantime, the Bloc Québécois is here to demand this correction, among others, to the Canadian tax system. I have often raised this issue at the Standing Committee on Finance. My colleague, who also sits on that committee, and I underscored the importance of correcting this. However, none of the federalist parties supported the simple principle of fairness, which is rather unfortunate.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of points in the budget that I would like to ask the member to clarify.

I want to touch on child care. New Democrats have been calling for a universal, quality, regulated, public child care system. Quebec has a good model, where parents in the province of Quebec can go to work or to school each day knowing that their children are placed in quality, regulated child care.

Yet, this budget failed to provide funding for that. People argue that what we call a family allowance is supposed to help create child care spaces when in effect we know it does not. It does not even substantially go toward covering the cost of child care. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

I also wonder if he could comment on the fact that there is virtually no money in this budget for either affordable housing or social housing. Many people from coast to coast to coast, as well as my own province of British Columbia, in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, just simply cannot find affordable housing. I wonder if the member could comment on that as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the first point my colleague raised, I explained earlier what concerns the Bloc Québécois and Quebec the most about child care. We have a quality child care system that works well and is appreciated. In fact, people like it so much that there is a shortage of spaces. That is the only problem at present in Quebec with the child care centres that cost $7 a day. The program is so popular that there are not enough spaces.

We asked that the $200 million the federal government saves annually on the backs of Quebec parents be turned over to the Government of Quebec, which could invest the money in its child care system and increase the number of spaces. We were not asking for special treatment for Quebeckers. We were simply asking that the federal government not line its pockets at the expense of Quebeckers who have made this choice. The government should not say too bad for Quebeckers who have made this choice, which does not jive with federal taxation, and then take $200 million a year.

I introduced this motion in committee, and I was disappointed that it was not supported by any other party. It would have been useful for the rest of Canada. It would have set a good example. Other opposition parties, or even the government, could have supported the motion, saying that people in Quebec had made a choice and would not be penalized tax-wise. That would have sent a clear message to other provinces, which might have wanted to follow Quebec's lead and recover the money the federal government saves because the provinces have affordable child care.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is just about the last time we will have a chance to speak about the 2007 budget. We are drawing near the end but without losing hope that we can try to persuade the government to make amends for the errors it has made along this journey.

We have just seen a living example of that today in this House with the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, who stood up in the House today as an independent to speak for his province and his region against a government, his own government and his own party, that has broken its word and has failed miserably to address the needs of Atlantic Canada.

That member stood in the House today to plead with the government to reconsider, to simply stand up and say “we made a mistake and our word is good”, to say that the agreement it signed will be kept and that Atlantic Canadians can count on the government to be there as it promised.

It is not too much to ask, is it, when we consider what is involved? It is a written commitment from the government to the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador and it is an agreement with the province of Saskatchewan. These are agreements to address the fact that these are provinces in the developing stages of accessing their raw resources and oil and gas revenues.

It was not an extraordinary request today. It was based on an agreement. It was based on an understanding for the good of the country and for the good of those regions that are developing their resources and which need and have asked for and received from the government the agreement to develop those resources without being hurt in an equalization formula, without seeing a clawback at a time when they most need the revenue.

They are not asking for a favour to go to regions forever and a day, but simply that the government's word be kept, that an agreement be maintained so that those provinces could reap the benefits of their resources and ensure that in fact the very difficult economic and social circumstances being faced in those provinces would finally be dealt with.

This is the story of this budget. It is hard to believe that it has only been since March 19 that we have been dealing with this, because there have been so many issues.

Each and every day some problem has emerged, some new development has occurred, some story has been developed and some line changed, whether we are talking about the Atlantic accords or the deal with Saskatchewan and the promises broken by the government, or whether we are dealing with the change of heart with respect to interest deductibility and the earlier commitment by the government to crack down on corporate tax avoidance, or whether we are talking about the failure of the government to meet its commitment to our original peoples and to respond in the face of a very explosive situation.

The government has failed to act and has only compounded the problems and made the situation worse.

We are here making our last plea for the government to come to its senses in a number of areas. We do not expect that we will agree on everything, but we are asking the government to deal with some very critical issues and to make some significant changes in this budget.

The fundamental problem with this Conservative budget is that it has failed to be honest with the Canadian people, just as the budgets of the previous Liberal government failed to be honest with the Canadian people. As a result, decisions have been made in the absence of full democratic participation. Decisions have been made that will set back the human development of this country many years.

Decisions have been made that will prevent the Conservative government from taking action when human crises emerge. Today we are hearing news of such looming crises, some actually happening before our very eyes. The news out of British Columbia about floods in Skeena--Bulkley Valley is mind-boggling.

Some of us can remember what it was like when we went through the flood of the century in Manitoba. We remember the way the Liberal government spurned us in our time of need. I remember how former prime minister Jean Chrétien came into my riding and threw one sandbag, un sac de sable, and continued on with his election despite the crying need of Manitobans.

The people overcame. The people persevered. The people of Winnipeg, with the help of volunteers from all parts of the country, with the help of members of the armed forces and with the commitment by the local and provincial governments, averted a situation of most dire consequences.

Will this be the case when it comes to British Columbia today? Does the government have the flexibility, the foresight and the compassion to actually intervene in this very difficult situation? As we speak, artifacts are being evacuated from the Ksan Historical Village. Hundreds of families are awaiting flood notice, from B.C.'s northwest to the Fraser Valley.

This situation demands swift federal action. Has it happened? Have we heard anything? Has the government moved to help people who are being evacuated or to help prevent the loss of precious artifacts that are part of our original peoples' history? Is this a priority for the government? That is the big question mark today.

At a time when we are looking at a budget and dealing with the needs of this country through the fiscal means of the state, surely we can expect the government to immediately announce a plan of attack to deal with this kind of situation. We have not heard a word yet.

I will raise another issue. Just this week we learned of tellers who work at the CIBC in this country being forced to begin a lawsuit to get money that is owed to them because they worked overtime and have never been compensated for that overtime. This is at a time when the profits of the big banks have never been so great, when the compensation packages, payouts and executive salaries of the CEOs of our five major banks have never been so exorbitant and enormous, and this is at a time when the vast majority of workers at these banks are being exploited, taken advantage of and not being paid their rightful salaries.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

We're talking about the budget.

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

I hear my friend from Burlington asking if this is in the budget.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

What's this got to do with the budget?

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

My goodness, of course this is in the budget.

A budget is about ensuring that everyone in this country is paid for his or her worth and is allowed the opportunity to work in jobs that are fulfilling and meaningful and that support families to ensure they can be productive members of our society. That is the purpose of a budget.

It is not about giving more leeway to the big banks so their profits can grow. It is not about loosening the ties of government so that the free market will reign in every aspect of our society without due regard for human condition. It is about ensuring a balance between the needs of the people of this land and the desirable position of preserving our environment and this earth for the future and for future generations.

That is what a budget is all about and, on this front and on every aspect relating to a budget, the government has failed. It has failed in terms of providing for a long term strategy to deal with the explosion of corporate takeovers in this country. It has failed to address the enormous loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector.

It has failed to respond in any way to the rising dollar, which is now almost on par with the American dollar, creating serious problems in many parts of this country. Yet the government and the Minister of Finance simply sit back and let the governor of the Bank of Canada suggest that all is well, that all they need to do is raise interest rates and keep our focus on inflation no matter the human consequences. He sits back and does nothing. There is not a peep from the government, the Minister of Finance or anyone on the government benches about the impact of the rising dollar on our economy.

I am not here to suggest that there are any easy answers. There are not, but there is one area where there are answers and it lies in a budget. A budget is supposed to provide the resources to compensate for those kinds of economic circumstances that might be beyond our control. It is about investing strategically in our economy so we are equipped in strategic sectors, in specialized ways, to create products, to provide jobs and to create trade.

This budget does not do that. This budget hardly touches this whole area of jobs, the economy, training, education, work and child care. It is basically a budget that has decided to take every available surplus dollar and do what the Liberals did for 13 years, which is to lowball the budget, not tell Canadians the kind of money they have and put it against the debt.

What have we just seen with this budget under the Conservatives? Between this budget and last year, $22 billion has gone against the debt, even though when all of that is factored in we will not be much closer to a reduced debt to GDP ratio than if we had taken that money and invested it in areas that deal with serious economic and social issues and also grow the economy.

This budget is absolute foolishness when it comes to fiscal prudence. It is absolutely wrong-headed. It is a lost opportunity. I again will remind members in this House that they would never in a million years pay off their mortgage if the roof was leaking, because they know that if they let the roof keep leaking the house would be destroyed, and so what if it is all paid off? There is no house left.

The same is true of a country. The same is true of families, neighbourhoods and communities. If we take away the very means by which people can survive and provide for themselves and their families, and can contribute to their communities by being involved in volunteer organizations and can use their skills to work in meaningful jobs that pay enough just to keep one's head above water, then there is no country left. Can the government understand what we are talking about?

The government should take some of that money and say that it owes it to the first nations of this country, the Métis and the Inuit to start to address the historic deficiencies caused by government after government. If it started in fact to invest in those programs that would allow aboriginal people to be full participating members of our society, we would be a heck of a lot further along.

Would we be standing here today hearing about a potentially explosive situation if this budget had done a single thing to meet the needs of aboriginal people? This budget does not do a thing to redress the historic imbalances and deficiencies caused by previous governments, particularly the last several Liberal governments.

Would we be here today if just a portion of that $22 billion had gone to deal with third world conditions on reserves? There is mould, fungus, and contaminants growing in people's houses. Communities have roads washed out and food prices going through the ceiling. We have people living in the most decrepit conditions.

Would we still be facing a potentially violent situation, a potentially explosive situation? Of course not. People react to the conditions around them. When the world ignores a whole community's condition and refuses to deal with historical injustice and takes no steps to give hope, then we create those conditions for eruption and upheaval in our society today.

We have dealt with this at the finance committee. Mr. Jock from the AFN was at our committee. When he was asked what do we do now that the federal government has put no money into aboriginal affairs and the communities are up in arms, what do we do to fulfill our responsibilities as a nation? He said, “just give us some hope”. He was not asking for the moon. He said, “give us some hope that we can convey to our communities, so we have the possibilities of building again”.

What if the government had taken a portion of that $22 billion and invested it in a few more child care spaces? Then a mother today who has to work would not be scrambling to try to figure out how to care for her child and earn a living that she must just to stay alive. Instead, the government is putting that family in jeopardy.

Does the government want to pay now or pay later? No one here is saying take all the money and spend it. We are saying put some money against the debt, put some money against programs that have been cutback by Liberals, and put some money into strategic areas that will grow the economy, such as the infrastructure deficit.

We have the silliness of this tax back guarantee which will mean a few dollars for Canadians and not mean very much in terms of their economic well-being and their ability to survive, but it would mean a lot if it is pooled and will grow the economy, and deal with the deficit at the infrastructure level. There is so much we can do. The government has failed miserably.

[James Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague at the tail end of her speech mentioned that the federal government should be having strategic investments into projects that will have strong economic benefit. I agree with her.

For example, in this budget we have put forward $1 billion over eight years as recommended by the province of British Columbia for the Asia-Pacific gateway and corridors initiative. We are going to build $400 million for the south Fraser perimeter road, north Fraser perimeter road, and the Roberts Bank rail corridor.

We are putting new interchanges in place in Regina. We are improving access to the airport in Winnipeg, an announcement that is just down the road from where the member is. We are helping build a new multi-modal facility in Edmonton at 41st Avenue.

We are putting $1 billion in the Asia-Pacific gateway. It has a partnership between the federal government, the province of British Columbia and all western provinces, NDP, Conservative and Liberal premiers in all of western Canada. It is $1 billion. It is an incredible opportunity for Canada.

In the first century of this country we were an Atlantic trading country recognizing our ties to Europe and our opportunity to link Europe with the United States and the trade opportunities there. The Asia-Pacific gateway is about recognizing the trade opportunities between all of the Pacific Rim and Canada and through to the United States. It is a $1 billion.

The NDP premier in the member's province supports it. All of western Canada supports it. Why is she voting against the Asia-Pacific gateway and against the best interests of western Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, we at no point have denied the fact that there are some elements of this budget that are supportable. We have never questioned certain investments that are part of this budget, but we decry the fact that so much has been left undone and the government has made choices that are not in the best interests of building a strong country.

Let me say to the member, if he believes in strategic investments, why was there not a meaningful plan to deal with a $60 billion infrastructure deficit? Why was there not anything in this budget to deal with an absolutely deplorable housing situation in this country? Why was there nothing in this budget to help first nations people? Why was there nothing in this budget of significance to create child care spaces? What happened to families, to neighbourhoods, to communities, to quality of life, to decency and humanity? What happened to civil society?

How is it that the minister and the government could not see the importance of balancing out the $22 billion that went against the debt to ensure that some of that money went to grow the economy, some went to deal with our debt, and some went to support Canadians?

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Guelph.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about what the hon. member is yelling about right now, quite frankly, because it is a real concern to me when she talks about aboriginal people and what has happened to them. There was a thing called the Kelowna accord in case she forgets and there is a reason that it is not being implemented. It is because the NDP decided to bring down the past government.

The NDP is critical of everything. It does not matter what anyone does or what government works. It is critical, but it does not have positive solutions. There is a reason the NDP has 28 members.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Twenty-nine.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Twenty-nine. I stand to be corrected.

Things like the Kyoto accord which the NDP voted down. The Liberal government wanted to implement it, but oh no, the NDP wanted to go to the polls. This was important to that party. What about addressing the fiscal imbalance? We could have done that. Oh, no, the NDP did not want to accept that.

The member brings up child care. How can she stand in this House and possibly bring up such a thing when the NDP voted that down by bringing a Liberal government down. We had an agreement with every single province that we worked for years to get and finally it went down because the NDP had the nerve and the gall to let this country down on child care.

I have so many constituents who wanted child care, wanted Kyoto, and wanted a better deal for cities rights across Canada. I think that is shameful.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I would ask for a little bit of order as we finish up this question and comment period. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

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

Mr. Speaker, the people I represent and the people I have come to know across this country have waited so long for the Liberals to fulfill their election promise to have a national child care program that their infants are now teenagers going into adulthood.

Whether we are talking about child care, aboriginal issues, the environment, housing, cities, education or health care, in each and every instance we in the New Democratic Party worked like we have never worked before to convince Liberals, when they were in government, to effect change in those areas and to keep their promises.

However, we kept hitting our heads against a brick wall. We could not get through to those Liberals. Nowhere was that more relevant and apparent than when it came to the child care program, which has been the longest running broken political promise in the history of this country.

I can remember the promise in 1993 and it has been repeated in every election since. I wish the Liberals had had the gumption, the courage, the foresight, and the leadership to keep their word and build a legacy for this country for our future generations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague about another area where there has been a real failure in the budget.

I do not think the budget, in a serious way, addresses the growing economic inequality in Canada. It is becoming a very serious matter, certainly around the whole question of income distribution. It is something about which New Democrats have always been very concerned.

We know, for instance, that the average earnings of the top decile are now 81 times that of the poorest decile in Canada. When we look back, in 1976, the difference was only 32 times, so there has been a huge growth in that gap.

In fact, the gap between the rich and poor in Canada is at a 30 year high in after tax terms. It has been growing quickly in the past 10 years that under economic conditions that traditionally leads to its falling. So none of the projections that we hear commonly from the Liberals or the Conservatives have proven true.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on the increasing polarization of income in Canada and what that really means for Canadian families.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member, my colleague, is absolutely right. We are in the middle of an all time high or a record in terms of the gap between the rich and the poor. Never in the last 30 years have we seen the gap so wide between the rich and the rest of us.

I want to refer to the excellent study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives called “The Rich and the Rest of Us”, which actually documents this in full colour.

The member for Burlington might be aware of the excellent presentation we had at our committee by Armine Yalnizyan, who actually pointed out the very serious mistake made by the government in taking all available surplus dollars and putting them against the debt. The government did that instead of helping families survive and ensure that their children were given the opportunity to be cared for in safe quality child care spaces, were given the opportunity to go to university, and were given the opportunity to embark on exciting careers in our economy today.

The government has absolutely missed and squandered an opportunity. Never has this nation had so much wealth and never has so little gone to the vast majority of Canadians.

It has actually become an embarrassment for this nation around the world. Not only are we the worst among the G-8 nations in terms of our greenhouse gas emissions, we are just about the worst among G-8 nations in terms of the human resource development index.

Our record in terms of equality between the sexes, between regions, between individuals is deplorable. In fact, a crisis is looming as we ignore this situation which is heading down the path of paying so much more in the future.

That again speaks to the fact that the government does not have a fiscally sound policy. It has embarked upon a penny wise, pound foolish approach, and it is denying people their right to live with some decency in a civil society.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the bells are going to ring in a couple of minutes, it would probably not be very helpful to start a speech for only two minutes and maybe not even be available when it was resumed.

I wonder if the House would give unanimous consent to allow one more question of the member.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to ask one question?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I think right now we are at 5:30 p.m. I would ask the hon. member for Mississauga South to raise his point of order after the deferred recorded division is taken.

The House resumed from June 6 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 third time and passed.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand in the House in order to support the bill before us today, Bill C-52.

As many members here know, I have for a long time been very interested in finances, particularly as they pertain to ordinary taxpayers, small businesses and families. This was one of the things that drew me into the parliamentary part of my life.

There are so many things in this bill that I could speak for probably several hours if the rules permitted, but I shall speak only for a short time. I would like to first of all mention my very enthusiastic support for the principle of income splitting for pensioners. This is long overdue.

Particularly in my generation, there were many families that had only a single income and that was our case as well. We made the choice that my wife, the mother of our children, would be a full time mom for our kids. I really value that. I think she probably contributed more to the well-being of our country by doing that than I did going to work every day, even though I may have gotten up at four o'clock in the morning.

I will also mention that we had perfect children. I do not know if other members did, but ours were. I know, for example, that right after they were born, I declared quite seriously that they never cried at night. They never once awakened me. My wife, on the other hand, I think may have some other stories to tell in that regard.

The bill, among other things, would allow income splitting for pensioners which would bring them into a lower tax rate. I think that is very important because most people who have made these choices also have half the income throughout their lifetime and half the pension when they retire. This is really part of the theme of tax fairness.

The other thing that is relevant here is the new tax credit of up to $2,000. Our government, this party and certainly I as an individual recognize not only the value of families raising children but also the tremendous expense that entails. Therefore, having a new tax credit of up to $2,000 is a tangible recognition of that. I applaud our finance minister and our government for introducing measures like that.

The other measure that I also support is making the equality of the spousal deduction equal to that of the single wage earner when there is but one wage earner in the home. It is another very pro-family measure that is being taken.

I do not want to sound in any way negative about this, but the money needed to support a person is really independent of whether or not the person works outside the home. In our experience, my wife actually spent as much money as I did and probably more because she managed our household expenses. As a matter of fact I used to say that we have specialization in our family. I earned the money and my wife spent it. The object of this was for me to be just a little better at my job than she was at hers. However, there definitely are expenses that are involved in the support of a spouse who is not working. To make that basic exemption equal is just a measure of fairness and I support that wholeheartedly and enthusiastically.

Because I believe so strongly and firmly in the merits of the bill, I therefore move:

That this question be now put.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing for me to hear that the member wants to stifle debate on the budget, probably the most important item. However, I would simply ask him to clarify his statement with regard to what he described as income splitting for pensioners. It is pension income splitting, not income splitting because pensioners do earn other income that is not from a registered plan.

I would also suggest to him that 70% of seniors do not have registered pension plans. In fact, the personal exemption at the lowest rate is $36,500 plus the $2,000 pension income deduction. It means that this will only benefit those who have a pension income of over about $40,000.

When we take that into account, as well as where the other spouse has some pension income, the calculations from the experts before the finance committee have indicated that only 14% of seniors will benefit at all from pension income deduction.

This was brought in as a measure to distract from the fact that the government broke its promise on income trusts and decided to tax income trusts when it said it would not. Somehow $25 billion of the value of pension assets of about two million Canadians were wiped out permanently by that broken promise.

How does the member rationalize that a benefit to some high income pension earning seniors, only 14% of all seniors, is somehow an appropriate offset to the extraordinary damage done to over two million Canadians when the government broke its promise and taxed income trusts?

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is on this theme all the time but he does not acknowledge that it is necessary to have tax fairness in our country, which is what our government's policies are all about. This includes the fact that big businesses need to pay their share of taxes so that the rest of us do not need to pay a whole bunch more. I think the member is sort of off track on this.

With respect to all of these wipeouts, I read recently that some of these income trusts are actually valued higher now than they were before October 31. Therefore, it is a myth when he says that this was all wiped out.

With respect to the income splitting, I think I used the words income splitting for pensioners. That was not 100% accurate and I acknowledge that he is right there. It is for pension income for pensioners. However, I would rather do something than nothing and the fact that our government is going forward in these measures is nothing but positive in my view.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. member's comments on his idyllic lifestyle of the past, he talks about something that my generation has not experienced in a large way, and that is the one wage-earner family. For my children and the next generation, we have and will have more and more highly educated young people who, when they get married and start a family, will both need work to make ends meet.

The hon. member's point of view is a thing of the past. The Cleavers are now a rerun. The parents in a two wage-earner family are working sometimes more than one part time job to make ends meet, working more and earning less, with all the expenses they have, the higher housing costs and those kinds of things. The government's budget is based on spend first and then get a rebate but these families cannot afford to do that so they are left out. They find themselves having to scramble to make ends meet.

I am just wondering why this budget did not include a national child care program that was affordable and that would be accessible to families, instead of this $100 a month that gets cut off when a child turns six; a national housing program that would help make housing more affordable for ordinary Canadians; and free prescription drugs for ordinary families.

In their election campaign the Conservatives talked about having a catastrophic drug plan and about home care for our seniors who would rather be in their own houses living in dignity, and yet we have seen nothing. I am wondering why the budget did not include those kinds of supports.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, again, I look at the bigger picture.

First, I thank the member for acknowledging my being in another generation. I am rather proud of the fact that I am an old guy. I remember when I turned 50, I said to my dad, “Remember when I was a kid and you used to say, 'When will you grow up?'” At my 50th birthday I said to my dad, “Do not give up, Dad, I think soon now it is going to happen”. I am glad to be in the generation above.

When I was a youngster, it is true, most families had only one wage earner. That was true for about 50% of the people in my generation. That is a reality and that is why it is so important for us in this budget to acknowledge that by offering an additional tax credit for children.

It is not dependent on how many wage earners there are. It is so important for us to lower taxes in general. One of the reasons both parents need to work is that they have such a huge tax bill. I am committed, and I have been since 1993, to working hard at reducing that total tax bill for families and for individuals. We should be working toward that. We need to do more and more on putting forward that part of our financial agenda.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a family friendly budget. It is a budget that is good for seniors with the pension income splitting. The seniors in my riding, those who have worked for General Electric, Quaker Oats or General Motors, and those who perhaps were nurses or teachers, this is a big win. It is a big savings and it will really help them.

It is always incredible to hear the Liberals stand in the House, the party of the sponsorship scandal, the party of the fiscal imbalance, the party of inequity for Ontario, the party of inequity for Quebec, the party of inequity right across this country and the party of regional division, say that they do not like this budget. What is that based on? It is based on nothing.

This is a budget the Liberals never could have delivered. They never would have delivered fairness to Canadians. They never delivered more money for health care. They never delivered more money for post-secondary education. They starved the services Canadians want.

I want to know from the member who gave the speech, and I really appreciated the speech, whether he acknowledges that this budget is in line with what the constituents in his riding were looking for.

I know it is well within the desires of my constituents. They wanted fairness. They wanted an end to the fiscal imbalance. They wanted clean government. They did not want a sponsorship scandal. Is this what the member's constituents were looking for?

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my colleague has ever been a teacher but I was for many years. One of the best skills one can use as a teacher is to promote the thinking of the students. What he has done, through his question, using the Socratic method, he has basically delivered for me the answer to it by giving all of those correct answers.

I am so proud and very pleased to be part of a party that has gained the trust of Canadians to the point where they asked us to form the government. I am very proud to be a part of group that is committed and dedicated to all of the things the member mentioned in sharp and abrupt contrast to the party opposite in the 13 years that it mismanaged the affairs of this country.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the recent hot air from those members. They talk about raising taxes or not raising taxes. In 2005 the tax rate was 15% when we were in government. In 2006, for anybody who wants to go back and look at their tax forms, it was 15.25% for the minimum taxation. This is the tax rate that affects the most vulnerable and all of the people that we on this side of the House care about very much.

Frankly, the reason the Conservatives came into office with an $11 billion surplus was because of the great work that our government did here. That is why they had all that money and a strong economy. That is from the 13 years of work that we did on this side of the House after the Conservatives left us with a $42 billion deficit. They do not need to tell me about what we did because I can give them a list of all the great things we did in the 13 years we were here.

Anyway, in spite of the efforts from my colleague on the other side of the House in trying to stifle and end the debate on this budget, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to it because it is very important, both for what is in it and what is not in it. I am going to talk a bit about what is not in it and the implications of that for all of us as Canadians.

Clearly we are faced with another divisive budget, which puts one Canadian against another; a speciality of that government. It puts provinces against provinces and one Canadian against another Canadian. It puts the wealthy against the poor. It puts those with children against those without children.

Governing is far more about governing on important issues for Canada than it is about writing cheques. It is about real leadership. It is about identification of what are the issues that matter to Canadians. Canadians do not want a country in which everyone is forced to fend for himself or herself. They want a strong and united Canada led by a government with a real commitment to meeting our country's challenges and making all our lives better.

Sadly, this minority Conservative government has proven time and time again that it does not understand the challenges of working families. It certainly does not understand the riding of York West and the need for many in my riding to improve their quality of life, just as many other areas across Canada do.

As well, the Conservatives' second budget does little for my province of Ontario. My constituents will have to wait until 2014 for fairness on federal health transfers. That is simply far too long for patients and others who are waiting for necessary surgery. I ask members to imagine telling people they are going to have to wait until 2011 for their surgery to happen. That is not the Canada that we all are proud of.

This breach of trust breaks a Conservative campaign promise to address wait times immediately. Whatever happened to that fifth priority of health care? We certainly do not hear anything about that ever since the Conservatives got elected. Did the Conservatives really think that Canadians would not notice when they carefully turned their backs on investing in health care? We are not hearing anything about it in any of these budgets.

There was absolutely no mention in this budget of homelessness or the need for affordable housing, an issue that clearly resonates across all of Ontario and in many parts of Canada.

The government also needs to invest in the infrastructure that we are going to need to be competitive for Canada's future. One example is the need for a Windsor-Detroit border crossing, which one of our colleagues has been working on for a very long time. It is one of the things that we have committed to in regard to improving that infrastructure.

Clearly there already is a private investor who is ready to swoop in and make a fortune by providing twinning. Is this an issue that we want to see go ahead without government support? Do we want to see it put into private hands? I do not think so. I am sure Mike Harris's buddy, the finance minister, would not want to be in a debacle such as the 407. He had a front row seat for that charade. Let us make sure that we look at that twinning issue for the Windsor-Detroit border as an important issue for all of us. It is time for the government to start taking some concrete action on some of these issues.

When it comes to investing in our cities, the government clearly will not put its money where its mouth is. The previous Liberal government committed over $800 million to public transit. but sadly, transit has fallen off the Conservative government's radar screen. The minister said last weekend, “This national transit strategy is not about new funding”. How, then, are we going to get buses and railway cars? Are his speeches going to supply them? I do not think so.

I asked a question of the minister this week on that issue of infrastructure and investing in transit. I am still waiting for an answer, but that is how typical of how things are dealt with here. As we go through question period and try to get answers, we get a lot of the same old same old kinds of answers from them about what we did and what we did not do. It is time the Conservatives recognized that they are the government. It is time they started producing instead of simply pointing fingers.

The budget also ignores the Conservative campaign promise to lower airport rents and address the issue of ground fees at Pearson International Airport in Toronto, one of the biggest airports in all of North America. Toronto's Pearson drives the greater Toronto area, Canada's economic engine. That is just a reminder in case the Conservatives have forgotten.

Airport ground rent makes up a considerable component of airport costs and factors prominently in the setting of annual airport fees and charges. Perhaps if the Conservatives had won a seat in the GTA, our airport would get the deal it deserves, but clearly they did not, and we are going to make sure that they do not.

The Conservative budget is a colossal disappointment for Canadians. The Liberal Party clearly cannot support such a narrow, ineffective budget, particularly at a time when Canada faces enormous challenges on competitiveness, the environment and social justice. When the finance minister was crafting his budget, he clearly was far more concerned with positioning the Conservatives for an election than with improving the lives of Canadians.

Instead of demonstrating a real commitment to meeting Canada's challenges, the Conservatives squandered this budget on short-sighted measures clearly aimed at an early election that Canadians did not want. Canadians told us through whatever polls were being done that they were not anxious to see another half a billion dollars spent on an election campaign. They wanted us to spend our time governing and leading Canada forward.

However, after seeing their plummeting poll numbers, the Conservatives readjusted the muzzles, crawled back into their bunkers and decided they had better hold tight and figure out what else they could possibly do to win the hearts of Canadians. They still have not managed to do that.

This budget fails to offer real tax relief. Taxes began to go up, as I indicated earlier, the day the government took power. The lowest income tax rate was 15% in 2005, and we have the forms to show that, but in 2006 it went up suddenly to 15.5%, which attacks those at the very lowest income tax rate who really need our help more than anyone else does.

The Conservatives also decreased the amount that could be earned tax free in 2006. On the whole issue of raising or lowering taxes, clearly the Conservatives are going after the lower income earners and giving the tax breaks to the higher income earners. If they really cared about the most vulnerable in our society, the least they could have done was reverse some of those tax hikes.

This budget maintains the Conservative tax hike on the first $35,000 of income. The cost of this tax hike was $1.4 billion and it clearly cancels out the benefit of their new child tax credit, which the Conservatives are so proud to talk about. Overall, the tax relief for hard-working Canadians is a measly $80 per taxpayer with the new child tax credit.

The budget fails to help Canadians safeguard our environment or fight climate change. The Conservatives have finally acknowledged that there is a problem when there is snow in Calgary and it is 32° Celsius in Toronto. That tells us there is something going wrong with our climate and we had better start paying attention to it.

The budget cuts back our energy commitments to renewable energy to 4,000 megawatts from 5,500 megawatts of support for clean and sustainable production. The budget keeps tax breaks for new oil sands expansion in place until 2015 to help with the plan for explosive growth. It slows our planned cleanup of lakes and waterways. It replaces rewards for those who make energy savings changes with gimmicks that cost thousands of dollars for every tonne reduced, but I guess they are easier to sell to the taxpayer.

This budget also fails to offer new support to the provinces and territories. The Conservatives cut nearly $10 billion from projected federal, provincial and territorial transfers through 2010-11 by killing the Liberal child care agreement, something that was extremely important. We were very proud to see it going ahead. It was a major social program of investing in our children and providing them with opportunities for the future.

The Conservatives also scrapped the labour market partnership agreements and reneged on much of the Canada-Ontario agreement that would have brought millions of dollars into Ontario for a variety of investments for everything from immigration to housing to meet some of the social needs we have in our province.

In place of these agreements, the government put back $11.1 billion in new funding, so the net benefit to provinces over the next five years is about $1.1 billion. Clearly they are getting short-changed.

The budget fails to position Canada for the 21st century global marketplace. In 2005 the Liberal government put forward the CAN-Trade strategy, which provided $485 million over five years to help Canadian businesses succeed in emerging markets, remembering that the success of our businesses is the success of our country. Investing in our businesses provides jobs and ensures that we will have a healthy Canada for our children and our grandchildren.

I note that we have a lot of children visiting us here today. I think it is important for them to know that we all care very much about ensuring that Canada stays strong and is able to provide a lot of opportunities for them.

The Conservatives scrapped that trade initiative and have now replaced it with $60 million over the next two years.

The Conservative budget also cuts $970 million from the indirect costs of research program, which provides support to Canadian universities, a very important program that we were working on. It was important for us to continue with that opportunity for our young people who wanted to focus on investment and research in everything from renewable energy to biomedical issues and other things that are important in the research community. Those kinds of cuts severely hurt those industries.

The Conservatives are failing to offer new support to students, which I am sure will be of interest to those who are in the House today. The budget does not put a penny in the pockets of Canada's undergraduate students. What a shame that is, because again, that is an important investment in our young people. There is money for Canada's top 4,000 graduate students but the vast majority of our students will get no help at all. How is that investing in our young people? Is it that only our special ones get investment, never mind all of the rest of them who are struggling to put themselves through university?

The budget fails to help working families. In 2006 the Conservatives promised 125,000 new child care spaces over five years. Eighteen months into this mandate, Canadian families are still waiting. When is the government going to realize this promise? It was not worth the paper it was printed on. There have been zero spaces created in the past year and many families are still waiting.

What is worse, the so-called universal child care benefit, which is neither universal nor child care, I would like to note, is fully taxable, and the government will rake in an average of $400 more per family. How is that supposed to be a child care program?

The Conservatives simply do not understand the pressures facing low income and middle income families and they clearly do not care either. Once again, the government is turning its back on the majority of hard-working Canadians.

The Conservatives implement tax policies that look helpful on the surface, but their benefit is cancelled out quickly by the tax hikes on low income and middle income Canadians hidden in last year's budget, which still have not been reversed.

The Leader of the Opposition has called on the Conservatives to demonstrate a real commitment to meeting Canada's challenges by using the upcoming budget to set a long term course for success instead of squandering the budget on short-sighted measures aimed at an early election that they so badly wanted.

Because of their desperation for a majority, the minority Conservative government wasted a year cutting spending and breaking promises instead of making progress on critical challenges and moving Canada forward.

The Conservatives' reversal on income trusts cost Canadians $25 billion of their savings. Let me repeat that line to make sure it is clear: the Conservatives' reversal on income trusts cost Canadians $25 billion of their savings. The majority of those Canadians were pensioners and seniors living on fixed incomes who had invested their money and were relying on the income from those income trusts.

The Conservatives' softwood lumber deal, which they boasted was a huge success, left $1 billion dollars of Canadian businesses' money in the hands of their U.S. competitors.

The Conservatives decided to cut $1 billion from crucial social programs, despite a $13 billion surplus. I do not know how they sleep at night, knowing they had an opportunity to do so much for our country and ended up doing so little.

Now the Conservatives are on a spending spree, repackaging many of the programs that they cut and misleading Canadians by re-announcing the programs as new, in a cynical strategy in an attempt to fool Canadians. We clearly know from the polls they are not fooling very many people.

Canadians are smarter than that and they will not be fooled. They see what damage the government is doing. Look at the students summer jobs program for example. Conservatives cut that, then they put some money back. When everybody started hollering about all the cuts to serious programs that would not happen in ridings across Canada, they quickly had to do an end run and try to find some money to put back into that program.

The Conservative government's repackaged and reduced summer jobs program has left community programs across the country in jeopardy. Programs that have existed for years will be unable to run this year and many students will be robbed of valuable employment opportunities.

We have to recognize Mr. McGuinty and the Ontario government for what they have done. They rescued a Toronto camp for autistic children, which is an important camp for many young people whose parents could rely on as a good solid program for their children. It was left on the chopping block by Conservative cutbacks.

What about all the other programs that were not so lucky? I am not talking about large corporations, I am talking about small community groups that depend on government support to hire students, support they have enjoyed every summer until the government took it away.

In my riding we had many summer camp programs that not only ensured our children had a safe summer and a learning opportunity, but they also employed many young people in the riding so they would not have idle hands over the summer and find themselves getting into trouble. They would have a structured program every day of which to be part. Maybe their first job for the summer was working at one of these camps operating out of one of our local schools. In many ways we were helping in giving our young kids an opportunity over the summer to be busy and having an enjoyable summer. We were also providing a young person with a career opportunity.

Many of these people, who worked on summer camp programs across the city, ended up going into teachers college. They found that was where they wanted to go ultimately. It was a great career opportunity. Unfortunately, many of them are going to be denied that this summer. The government must undo the damage it has done. I and many of my colleagues are still calling on the government to restore full funding to all federal summer jobs programs.

On the subject of Conservative incompetence, after being caught red-handed trying to engineer a patronage program with funds destined to support cultural events, the Conservative heritage minister's paralysis is endangering the future of some of Canada's great cultural events. In its budget, the Conservative government budget announced a new program to support cultural events, which we all supported. Then it said that it would be unable to deliver it until next fall. The government has failed again. It does not seem to understand, given Canada's climate, that most of these large events take place during the summer.

Never before has a government done so little with so much. Despite the tremendous resources the government has at its disposal, the budget does little for the average working family and it does nothing but pay lip service to issues of competitiveness, the environment and social justice. It does nothing to position Canada for the 21st century.

That is the Prime Minister's Canada. I want to live in a proper Canada. We all want to have a strong Canada that provides opportunities for all our young people to move forward, takes care of our seniors and ensures that they have a good health care system for all. Clearly, that is not the direction I see us going in right now.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused to when she talks about wait times guarantee and asks where we have been on that. The Wait Time Alliance provided us with a report card in the spring. It gave us a B, up from a C, with respect to joint replacements. It also gave us a B, up from a C, with respect to sight restoration.

She also has said that there is nothing in the budget with respect to wait times, which is absolutely not true. Budget 2007 tackles wait times with over $1 billion in funding, $612 million in patient wait times guarantee trust, $30 million in wait times pilot projects, $400 million in the Canada Health Info Highway, which is an independent, non-profit corporation that helps advance the use of health information technology across the country.

We are spending money on health care. We are working on the wait times guarantee. Obviously it is not an easy thing to do. I think the member across the way would say that it is not easy. If it were easy, maybe the Liberals would have done something over the 13 years they were in power. Our health care system deteriorated under their tutelage.

We are working on these issues. We have tackled these issues. We have budgeted for these issues. We are making a difference.

Is the member saying that the Wait Time Alliance does not know what it is talking about?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing about this 13 years. I remind the member that when we took power in 1993, we thought we were taking over from a reasonably fiscally responsible government. However, we found that we had a $42 billion deficit, that our country was at the point of bankruptcy. Imagine Canada being at a point of bankruptcy as a result of the previous Conservative government.

Canadians and our government had to make significant cutbacks to the provinces, to our social transfer, to try to get our house in order. It was in the last five or six years that we were starting to reap the benefits, as those members are now, with a $9 billion surplus.

We had already signed agreements with the provinces and had invested in a 10 year program on the whole issue of health care. We invested a lot of money. If wait times are going down now, they are going down as a result of the good work and planning that we with the provinces.

Those members should not try to take any kind of credit for any reduction in the numbers. They are not adding anything extra with the budget. They are continuing on the same Liberal plan. I am quite proud of what we have done.

The reason the Conservative government has money to invest in all of their programs is because of the work that we did and the good administration on this side of the House when we were government.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member does not like to hear about 13 years, but I am going to say it again. The Liberals had 13 years in power and they were just about to take off. They were suddenly going to right all the wrongs.

They talk about the deficit that they assumed. Study after study has proven that the deficit was merely the interest on the previous Trudeau debt. McGill University very specifically said that former Prime Minister Mulroney's government had the best financial record of any government in the last century in Canada. Those are the facts. That is what the studies demonstrate, but the Liberals do not like to hear that.

I will tell the House something else about which the Liberals do not like to hear. The member mentioned health care. Health care wait times doubled under the Liberal government. That is a fact. Health care wait times under this government are going down.

The Liberals do not like facts. They do not like to hear about increased spending for things like health care. I do not even think they like things like the ecotrust fund, which will help the provinces clean up their act. The Liberals did nothing on this. The Liberals do not like to hear about the fiscal imbalance. They do not like to hear that Dalton McGuinty is very happy with this budget, and he is a Liberal in Ontario.

They also do not like to hear about promises from people like John Tory, a man who will keep his promises on things like autism, and deliver real treatment for kids in Ontario with autism, something the Liberals have never done and never would do.

I am really quite offended that the Liberals would stand in the House and vote against the budget, a budget that is good for post-secondary education, a budget that is good for families, a budget that is good for health care and a budget that is good for Canada.

Why is the member voting against it?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that his side of the House voted against a national program on the issue of autism, something we all care about very much.

He seems to have a lot of energy to expel when he is in here, and I am being positive when I say that.

I am really proud of what we accomplished over 13 years. That is the reason why Canada is doing so well now. If we start going downhill, it will be because the Conservatives' priorities are not the priorities of Canadians.

I remind the member that over the last campaign his leader made all kinds of promises. He promised that he would not tax income trusts. He promised to honour the Atlantic accord. He would say anything and do anything to get elected. Now that he is in power, he has found out he cannot do that. A promise is being broken every week. The Conservative government and the Prime Minister cannot be trusted.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her presentation today. The energy coming off the other bench today is something else.

There are all these nuggets that come from the other side in the midst of debate. Yesterday the member for Wascana was in the midst of debate, talking about the cuts to students. We know the community groups have been devastated by the cuts to students. We know that cuts to the summer student job placement program have students hurting.

The member for Peterborough talked about all the good things the government is doing for students. The Conservatives have ripped about half the jobs away that students had last year.

The government House leader indicated that the government had put more money into students this year than it did last year. That is because the government botched the program so badly. It had to face the uproar across the country from coast to coast. Therefore, it had to go back to try to straighten it out and put the fire out. The Conservatives ripped the guts out of community groups and they tore the hearts out of students, and it is costing them money. Maybe they have put more money in the program, but that money has to come from somewhere.

There is an envelope of money in HRDC. I know she has communities within her riding that rely on HRDC programs. Is there a fear that they will be hurt because the government botched the student program so badly that it had to take money from other programs? Is that at risk?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing for the last several weeks, as many other members have, about the amount of programs that are not receiving funding under the summer career placement program.

When we talk about building a strong Canada, we have to start at the beginning, which means we have to start investing in everything from early learning at zero. We have to provide children with the chance to have great opportunities for learning. We need to invest in our children and our programs.

The summer career placement program, the youth internship program are small examples of the things that were cuts. Another example is $5 million were cut out of the Status of Women Canada. It was helping women through advocacy and giving women a voice.

Many of these programs continue to be cut. Clearly, Canadians will see the impacts. That is why the polls are reacting the way they are.

I am very proud, and I will repeat it again, of everything that we did as a government. Canada is in the shape it is in today because of the work that we did and our Liberal government did.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the bill. I think New Democrats have made it amply clear that we oppose the bill.

I will talk about Bill C-52 from a couple of different perspectives. I think some of my other colleagues have talked about health care, transportation and some of the needs of Vancouver Island north. I will focus on some other issues in British Columbia and talk about first nations, Métis and Inuit people in our country.

Many of us are well aware that a number of major issues are facing British Columbia, including housing, improving the provincial infrastructure and strengthening the B.C. economy. Although people will note that the B.C. unemployment rate is quite low, a number of communities are going through enormous transitions as a result of the softwood sellout.

In many of our forestry communities jobs have been lost. Last week there was an announcement in Port Alberni of another 185 jobs being lost. I know a number of the mills on Vancouver Island have faced curtailment because they could not get fibre supplied. Although some communities are doing quite well, a number of our communities are in a great deal of difficulty.

Under the new 10 province standard for equalization B.C., falls above the cutoff and will not receive equalization. Despite the increased needs, the budget does not address such things as affordable housing. I will talk briefly about Nanaimo in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan.

In a November 8, 2006, paper called “Advancing Social Development in Nanaimo: Directions for Moving Forward”, an organization in Nanaimo undertook to survey a number of groups that provide services. A couple of startling things came out of that which were tied to housing, employment and income.

One of the things that was noted was respondents cited the high levels of poverty, including child poverty in Nanaimo. They also stated that the community was becoming more polarized between rich and poor, with the latter having few options to improve their economic circumstances. This relates directly to housing.

One of the respondents to the questionnaire said, “Shelter is a basic need. It is the foundation upon which stable lives are built”. Respondents cited the increasing cost of housing, both owned and rental. They also cited the increasing incidence of homelessness and raised concerns about the kind of stock of market rental housing. They also noted that the market rental housing and the house vacancy rate had decreased from 3.4% in 2002 to 1.4% in 2005.

What that adds up to is an increasing number of people in Nanaimo—Cowichan cannot find a place to live.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the hon. member at this point. The hon. member will have 17 minutes left in a 20 minute speech whenever the House returns to this bill.

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 third time and passed, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

When Bill C-52 was last discussed in the House, there were 17 minutes left for the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, and she has the floor.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before question period I talked about the dire need in the country for affordable housing and for a range of housing. I talked about the fact that an organization in Nanaimo said that housing was a part of a stable community. In the south end of my riding in the Cowichan Valley we also know that affordable housing is a crisis.

Homeless shelters have opened up. We have had some tragedies where people were squatting in buildings and the building caught fire. We desperately need affordable housing and not only in Nanaimo—Cowichan or British Columbia.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report said:

Increasing income inequality has further aggravated housing affordability issues for many Canadians. The rental market has stagnated in terms of supply, with a net increase of only 2,000 units across all of Canada between 1996 and 2001

The CCPA recommends the development and implementation of a national housing strategy which should be drafted in consultation with first nations and aboriginal groups where appropriate.

The budget does not contain the kinds of long range fundamental solutions to our affordable housing crisis and money that has been earmarked for housing is often flowed through the province with no accountability measures put into that flow through of money.

The budget also does not do enough to address questions of improving infrastructure of Canada and B.C. in particular. The federal and provincial transfers have declined by 37% in the past decade. Not only does the Conservative government have responsibility for this, so does the previous Liberal government.

As a result, Canada's municipal infrastructure debt is estimated at $60 billion and growing by $2 billion each year. An additional $21 billion is needed to improve urban transit. When we talk about infrastructure, that infrastructure includes roads, sewers, water treatment plants and also important heritage items.

In my riding we have a very important heritage item called the Kinsol Trestle, which spans the Koksilah River in the southern Cowichan Valley. It is one of the largest and highest wooden trestle bridges in the world. It was built in 1921, though there was an unfortunate fire and a number of years of neglect of this important artifact. That kind of infrastructure money is part of a trail system and infrastructure money has not been earmarked. We can designate things like the Kinsol Trestle as a heritage site, but there is no money to maintain it.

The budget also does not provide money more broadly on other infrastructure items. I point specifically to the flooding that is going on right now in British Columbia. There is a long term need for dealing with the dike system in British Columbia. That has been neglected year after year. This year flooding is removing people from their homes and cutting communities off. I encourage the government to take a look at that longer term need.

I will talk about forestry for a moment. My riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan has been reliant on the forestry sector for its economy for a number of years, and has been in transition. Over the last several years, between softwood lumber and raw log exports, we continue to see jobs lost in many communities in Nanaimo—Cowichan and Nanaimo—Alberni. I mentioned earlier that 185 jobs were cut last week. We continue to see lack of adequate attention paid to the forestry sector in British Columbia.

When we talk about economic prosperity, we need to ensure that we foster economic prosperity and make the kind of strategic long term investment. I would argue that British Columbia's forestry sector deserves that strategic long term investment.

When we talk about the pine beetle in the House. We have had nothing but hollow promises to deal with the pine beetle epidemic, which is decimating forests in B.C. Although there have been promises, that money still has not flowed. I will to read from an article dated Friday, June 8, entitled “We say when will the feds give a damn about beetle?”. In this article it says, “This is a disaster that directly affects the finances and pocketbooks of individuals every bit as much as other natural disasters like floods and ice storms”.

It goes on to say, “This is the case no matter how we might quibble over the definition. People struggling with the pine beetle devastation aren't asking for a free ride. They would simply like an indication that the federal government gives a damn. They would be grateful to receive even a small percentage of the cost”.

The article talks about the fact that there are $62,000 from the federal government toward the continuation of the Kamloops beetle wood pickup program, and that is it. We know we need to have a long term view of what is happening in British Columbia. Forests are being cut because they need to be, but what is the long term economic survival of the community? What is the transition plan for workers in those communities? We must pay attention to that. Thousands and thousands of hectares have been impacted.

It is clear when we look at housing, the forestry sector, fishing, health care and seniors in British Columbia, many of these issues critical to the health, safety and well-being of our communities, that they have not been a priority in this budget. It is also clear that citizens in British Columbia have not been a priority for the government.

I will turn my attention for a moment to an issue that confronts us on a national scale, which is the aboriginal peoples of our country. As the aboriginal critic, I was particularly interested in what the government saw fit to put in the budget. When it comes to first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples,we see there is very little commitment in the budget.

Close to one million Canadians identify themselves as aboriginal peoples, including over 600,000 first nations, 300,000 Métis and 50,000 Inuit. The aboriginal population is young, incredibly diverse and growing much faster than the rest of Canada, yet the government continues to miss the opportunity to pursue programs that benefit both aboriginal peoples and ordinary Canadians.

A budget is, at its core, a set of numbers that demonstrate a government's priorities. Canadians expected fairness toward first nations, Inuit and Métis people to be a priority, but as this budget clearly shows, it was not.

When adjusted for inflation and population increases, the INAC budget has dropped in real terms by 3.5% since 1999-2000. As a result of the discriminatory 2% cap, core services, which include education, social development, capital facilities and support of self-government for first nations people, have declined by 13% in real terms during the same period.

There are more numbers. Aboriginals make, on average, only 60% of what ordinary Canadians make. They are two to three times more likely to be unemployed. They are three times as likely to live in poverty. Aboriginals are two to three times as likely to suffer chronic health conditions and live in inadequate, crowded housing. This is an embarrassment for Canada. It is time we refocus on the issues that are central to Canada's aboriginal communities, good housing, good jobs and a bright future for their children.

When we talk about this we often forget there is a natural face. In a speech that National Chief Phil Fontaine gave on Tuesday, May 15, he put a face to the conditions in Canada. I will quote from his speech. He said:

We must admit that First Nations People in Canada live in the most disgusting and shameful conditions imaginable in any developed country.

In...Northern Manitoba, Chief Shirley Castel tells us that some two-bedroom homes have as many as 28 people living in them. People are forced to sleep in shifts and many parents often go without sleep to ensure their children are able to learn and play.

The Conservative answer to that is to put $300 million into market housing, but no additional money into on reserve affordable housing and no additional money into off reserve affordable housing. The fact is that $300 million in market housing only addresses one small part of what is needed in first nations, Métis and Inuit communities.

Further in National Chief Fontaine's speech he says:

The UN Human Development Index ranks Canada at about sixth in the world. First Nations on reserves rank somewhere around 63rd, according to Indian and Northern Affairs...

The Department's own officials have warned the federal government that First Nations' socio-economic status will continue to worsen and the gap widen—yet these warnings have not been heeded.

Later in Chief Fontaine's speech, and I noticed that the Ottawa Citizen ran a story on this very sad tragedy that took place in Ottawa, he says:

And so where is the public outcry about the loss of Kelly Morriseau...especially now with the Robert Pickton trial underway in B.C.

It's estimated that more than 500 First Nations women have disappeared or died violently during the past 30 years.

That is a litany of the tragedies facing many first nations communities in our country.

When the Assembly of First Nations put out a report on the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, it gave an overall grade of meeting their recommendations in that report as F. In one section of the report called “First Nations Homes”, and I talked a little about homes, but I will read the statistics. It says:

In addition to a higher rate of overcrowding, First Nations homes are about four times more likely to require major repairs compared to Canadian homes and mold contaminates almost half of First Nations homes.

1 in 3 First Nations people consider their main drinking water unsafe to drink, and 12% of First Nations communities have to boil their drinking water.

Six percent (over 5,000 homes) are without sewage services, and 4% lack either hot water, cold water or flushing toilets

I remind the House that this is in Canada. We would not expect that many citizens in Canada are living in third world conditions. When I talk about the international stage, I want to turn to a report that the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination published in March, pointing out Canada's shameful record in a number of areas in dealing with first nations, Métis and Inuit people.

Under Item 21, it talks about the commitments made in 2005 by the federal, provincial and territorial governments under the Kelowna accord. It goes on to say:

—the Committee remains concerned at the extent of the dramatic inequality in living standards still experienced by Aboriginal peoples. In this regard, the Committee, recognising the importance of the right of indigenous peoples to own, develop, control and use their lands, territories and resources in relation to their enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, regrets that in its report, the State party did not address the question of limitations imposed on the use by Aboriginal people of their land, as previously requested by the Committee. The Committee also notes that the State party has yet to fully implement the 1996 recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

In the same report we have heard Conservative members talk about the fact that Bill C-44 will address human rights on reserve. What they fail to acknowledge is that Bill C-44 does not allocate any additional resources to the things that might arise in human rights complaints around water, housing, adequate education. There is no remedy and this report cites, in fact, that without those remedies, human rights cannot be addressed on reserve.

We have often heard talk about the 2% cap. Again, I want to turn to the government's document. In a cost drivers report it indicated:

The rationale is that after nine years of a 2 percent cap the time has come to fund First Nations basic services costs so that population and price growth are covered in the new and subsequent years. Over the period of the 2 percent cap departmental per capita constant dollar expenditures for basic services have declined by six percent.

This is the context of the fact that population both on and off reserve continues to grow. Aboriginal population in the country is the fastest growing of any population in the country, and yet we have seen a net decline of 6%. This is the government's document.

I would suggest that when this budget was developed, surely the government would have received advice from its own departments in developing a budget that would adequately address even a minimum standard of care in the country.

Later on in the same cost drivers report, it talks about socio-economic influences. It talks about the fact that:

The real costs associated with First Nation schools implementing programs that assist those students affected by adverse socio-economic conditions, in achieving school success, however that may be defined.

It says that is a problem.

It includes things like remedial programs relating to basic skills, nutrition programs, extracurricular programs associated with sports and recreation, after school programs and so on.

It talks about the fact that when we compare the services of on reserve schools with off reserve schools, there is a funding gap of $64 million in the band school system for the year 2004-05. We know that the gap has continued to grow.

I could continue to talk about the overcrowded housing, the lack of clean drinking water, the lack of mould remediation programs and the lack of education. The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in the spring completed a report on post-secondary education. The committee called upon the government to recognize the 2% funding cap, to address the serious shortfalls in post-secondary education. There was no new funding.

We know that one of the ways that economic disparity can be addressed in first nations communities, Métis communities and Inuit communities across this country is by making sure that education is accessible.

With our aging population, it is really important that we invest in the skills and labour shortage. Although there was some money in the budget for the skills and labour shortage, I would argue that it was not nearly sufficient to meet this country's needs. If we fail, as this proposed budget does, our economy and society will not only forego this great potential, but also continue to incur large social costs. I have called for more funding for skills and development training, but it has to be a much broader base than what is in the current budget.

Justice Thomas Berger's report on Nunavut's education system pointed out that indigenous language training is vital to developing a skilled workforce. There is no money for indigenous language training in this budget. In fact, the program was gutted by $160 million. Many of the indigenous languages across this country are in serious trouble, so it is important that we continue to support language training because it helps the health and well-being of communities.

Perhaps one of the most important elements of any community is the hope that it has for its children. Yet, this budget robs aboriginal children of this hope.

There is no funding to provide child welfare on reserves to meet provincial standards. It is $109 million short. In fact, there has been a human rights complaint filed because of that funding gap.

We continue to see a 2% gap on programs and services, a 3% gap on health care, and there are countless other ways that this budget nickels and dimes aboriginal people. There is no additional funding for friendship centres. There is not the kind of support for infrastructure that is required for water or housing.

We have seen many broken promises over the years. This budget is just a continuation of the broken promises to first nations, Métis and Inuit people in this country.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I have heard so many times before from members from the NDP, they just seem to think that unless everything is 110% perfect, we should vote for zero.

The people of British Columbia will benefit from this budget in a great many ways. In this budget there are $3.1 billion in Canadian health care transfers, $1.3 billion in Canadian social transfers, almost $250 million for infrastructure, and almost $40 million to help fight cervical cancer in women. Yet, that member wants to vote against that. In this budget there are $410 million for the Asia-Pacific gateway corridor, tax savings for farmers and fishermen, and money to clean up the environment.

Every day in this House we hear members of the NDP crying about a crisis. I will admit that there are some areas where we do need more money, but we have to look at the entire country and divide the money that is available in a very responsible and effective way. We have done that with this budget. This is a great budget for Canada. It is a great budget for Canadians. It is an incredibly good budget for Atlantic Canada and B.C.

I want to know what the member has against hazmat training for firefighters? What does the member have against cancer therapy for women and all the things in this budget? Is the member actually going to vote against these things because the budget is not perfect? Is the member going to use some common sense and get what is good in this budget for Canadians, and move forward for Canada and work with us in these areas that she feels are deficient?

Is that member really going to stand here and play political games and vote no because her party considers everything a crisis? Let us have some common sense from the member.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, I do not have enough time to touch on every point that the member for Cambridge raised. However, he did talk about firefighters.

When we are talking about firefighters, I wonder where is the commitment for the police and fire games that will be taking place in British Columbia. That is a very important sport and recreational activity that contributes to the health and well-being of our firefighters and police officers. It also provides economic spin-off in our communities.

We talk about health care. I had a very interesting call from an emergency physician the other day. What the emergency physician talked about was the very serious overcrowding in emergency rooms. Part of that was a lack of access to trained nurses.

We have been calling over a number of years for a national human resource strategy for health care professionals. We have been asking for accountability for the federal dollars that flow into provinces around health care and that just simply has not happened.

When we talk about crisis, the CCPA talks about the fact that the gap between the rich and poor is at a 30 year high in after tax terms. It is the fastest growth in 10 years under economic conditions that traditionally should lead to it falling and there is a greater polarization of incomes.

We are talking about a huge percentage of Canadians who are actually seeing their quality of life being reduced. The government is not taking these issues seriously.

We have seen the auto manufacturing sector in Ontario being decimated. I know the member from Windsor has called on the government to develop an auto sector strategy that deals with some of the very serious concerns and the loss of manufacturing jobs. Surely the government needs to pay attention to those kinds of problems.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan for actually laying out the reality of where the budget has failed so many people on very basic issues, whether it is on housing, the cost of prescription drugs, the environment or aboriginal people. The list goes on and on.

We heard the member for Cambridge chattering and saying, “The budget is almost perfect and why would you vote against it?” Come on, I think the member for Nanaimo--Cowichan has laid out the significant gaps and omissions in the budget that are failing people on very basic issues.

I would like to ask the member this, because I know she is our aboriginal affairs critic and this is an area that is very near and dear to her heart and her community. In the budget one of the massive failures is that it does not meet the commitments that have been made to aboriginal people in terms of very basic issues like housing, health care, clean water, education and quality of life. Is that reason alone enough to vote against the budget?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver East for her very important question, but I also want to raise another issue.

Another matter regarding firefighters of course is the fact that we fail to provide adequate compensation to firefighters who die on duty and fail to support the families when something has happened to officers on duty.

In terms of first nations, Métis and Inuit people, we have been embarrassed on the international stage. We have international non-governmental organizations who have come into communities in northern Ontario and issued reports about the desperate conditions around housing, water and education.

There are over 600 reserves in this country and many of those reserves are living in third world conditions. In a country as rich as Canada and as resourceful as Canada, surely we should be able to invest some of the billions of dollars in surplus into first nations communities.

I do not disagree that there is always a challenge in terms of spreading the money around, but we have some of the poorest of the poor who are doubly disadvantaged in terms of their ability to lobby and advocate on their own behalf the government, and their ability to get a fair and equitable part of the resources in Canada.

Therefore, I will be voting against the budget. It does not address some of the serious income inequalities in this country.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will quickly ask a question of my hon. colleague from Nanaimo--Cowichan who does tremendous work on the aboriginal committee of the House. She talked about the living conditions of first nations and how there is no new funding to address these terrible conditions. I have seen that firsthand in my community of Vancouver Island North. Many reserves are in those conditions.

I met with the chiefs in my riding to talk about the budget because I wanted to know what they thought about it. They were so frustrated and angry at the lack of any significant funding. No new funding for them means cuts to programs that are already in place.

They also told me that there was no money in the budget for treaty settlements. That is something that they have been working long and hard for. There is no incentive by the government to settle treaties.

What impacts does my hon. colleague see that this will have on first nations who are living in crisis today?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, coming from British Columbia, we know that, first of all, very few treaties have been settled. There has been a treaty process in place for a number of years. There has been some minimal progress made, but the reality is that we will be looking at decades before those treaties are signed.

There is an enormous backlog of specific land claims and we know the cost that is having on communities across this country. There has been virtually no additional funding put into place to deal with this very important issue.

There is also the issue around self-government agreements. In speaking to first nations from Yukon, it is one thing to get a treaty signed, but to actually have it implemented and have the terms and conditions of the treaty respected and honoured has been an enormous challenge. I would argue that there needs to be additional money put into the self-government agreement because there are shortfalls throughout the treaty and self-government process.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a tremendous honour to speak today to this budget, which is a tremendous budget for Canadians. I have been on the record several times in this House complimenting the Minister of Finance for the incredible job he did making the very difficult choices that, I believe, do put Canada on the road toward becoming a stronger, safer, better Canada.

The opposition parties are working very hard to cloud the issues around the budget. They do not really want to talk about the positive effects of the budget because they are trying to come up with a reason as to why they would not vote in favour of it. Quite frankly, there are not very many reasons that one could legitimately stand in this House and say that they would not want to vote in favour of the budget. Instead, they come up with things that perhaps are not in the budget.

However, we know that budgets are about choices. We know that there is a finite amount of resources with which the government has to work and we know there is an infinite demand for those resources.

Often one of the things that we do not talk about is how these resources come into the government. We do not spend a lot of time talking about how tax dollars are raised, the tax dollars that then provide the services to Canadians and provide the capacity for the federal government to provide the services. It is important that we keep both of those in mind and that is exactly what this budget does.

In continuing with the trend established in budget 2006, the finance minister and this government were very clear. We said that Canadians pay too much tax and we have continued to reduce the tax burden. With over $20 billion in tax reductions last year, 655,000 low income Canadians were completely removed from the tax rolls in budget 2006. In this budget year, we further increased that number to 885,000 low income Canadians. The people who many MPs in this House claim to stand for have been completely removed from the federal tax roll, and that is notwithstanding the GST reduction that was a tax break for all Canadians.

The finance minister has said time and time again that he believes Canadians pay too much tax and he has delivered on tax reductions for all Canadians.

However, that is not all. We have also made significant commitments to health care. Canadians are constantly asking us to please support the health care system. They say that it is something they believe in and that it is what sets us apart as Canadians.

The budget has done that. Record funding for health care has been set aside in this year's budget and it is set to increase exponentially each and every year. However, we went a step further. We also brought in money for the new wait times guarantee of $650 million. We have also provided $400 million for the establishment of the new Canada Health Infoway. This will help us to improve the efficiency of the health care system because now we will have the capacity to put everybody's health care records on an electronic system. This means that when people visit a hospital and their health care cards are swiped, all their health care information will be readily available. This is a great thing for Canadians. I know a lot of the members in this House, who will be voting against this budget, are very much in favour of that.

Just a few moments ago the hon. member for Cambridge said that members should not vote against the budget because there may be a few things they do not see in it. I know members from the NDP support this expenditure on health care. I cannot believe that they will stand and vote against these things that are so incredibly important.

There is also incredible support for the municipalities in this budget. Last year we set in stone the full exemption of the GST for municipalities. That meant over $700,000 just in my area, in Peterborough county. That is a lot of money for Peterborough county. The support for municipalities continues because we have extended the gas tax, which grows exponentially each and every year, up to 2014.

The extension in the gas tax rebate to my municipality meant some $26 million just for Peterborough. My goodness, that is a fortune for Peterborough. The municipality will be able to do a lot of good things with that money.

Canada has a robust economy and is enjoying great success. Often when the finance minister speaks--

[Carolyn Bennett]

Thirteen years.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

--he speaks about the economy, the environment and energy.

One of the opposition members just mentioned 13 years. That seems to be a continuing trend in here. I remember 13 years of inaction, 13 dark years. There is no longer 13 dark years in this House. We are aspiring for a better Canada on this side of the House.

[Carolyn Bennett]

Unemployment.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I know that member, in good conscience, probably wants to support this budget but is being prevented from doing so.

However, I just want to get back to speaking about the economy, the environment and energy and how these three are intrinsically linked. We cannot talk about one without talking about the other. We cannot deal with them in isolation.

We know that the opposition parties want to deal with the environment, for example, in isolation. They want to ram through Bill C-288. We know what the effects of Bill C-288 would be and how devastating that would be to the Canadian economy and to Canadians in general. However, they do not care about that. They want to replace 10 years of inaction on the environment with 10 years of a bad economy and 10 years of hardship for Canadians.

This government does not want to do that. We want to act but we understand that the environment, the economy and energy are intrinsically linked in Canada.

When we talk about the economy, perhaps the biggest challenge that we face is productivity. We hear a lot about how productivity is affecting Canada's economy. Why? A number of things have been indicated as to why productivity in Canada is lacking. The Certified General Accountants of Canada point the finger at the former federal government and say that the Liberal sponsorship scandal really damaged Canada's overall productivity because there was no focus on productivity.

There is focus now. In this budget we talk about support for manufacturing. In fact a unanimous report submitted by the industry council made recommendations to the finance minister as to how we could support manufacturing in Canada. Virtually all of those recommendations are contained in this budget. We respected them. We moved forward on them because we believe in manufacturing and in the success of manufacturing.

In my home province of Ontario, manufacturing is incredibly important. The number one private employer in Peterborough is General Motors in Oshawa and I am committed to its success. I am also committed to the success of General Electric, Quaker Oats, Fisher Gauge and to the success of all manufacturing in my riding. I support this budget because it is good for manufacturing.

The budget also makes record commitments to infrastructure because we know that if we want to improve Canada's overall productivity we need to invest more in our roads and in our transit. We need to invest in border crossings.

One of the members from the Liberal Party mentioned earlier that a new crossing at Windsor would be a great thing. My goodness, we have been talking about that for more than a decade. The Liberals did not get it done. We will get it done because we understand how incredibly important that is, certainly to the auto industry in Canada, but to every industry in Canada. It is absolutely paramount that we deal with the infrastructure deficit in Canada if we are going to move forward on productivity.

Another important factor to productivity is education. We know that in 1993 the Liberal red book committed to making post-secondary education more affordable. The Liberals committed to making it easier for people to get into. I know the NDP Party, for example, has long argued for investment into post-secondary education. It has long pointed out the failures of the former government in owning up to what it committed to do. The Liberals committed to investing into post-secondary education but they cut the heart out of post-secondary education.

In this budget, we commit an additional 40% immediately in additional money to post-secondary education. The president of Trent University, Bonnie Patterson, said that they could not have asked for more in this budget than what has been delivered. In addition to the 40% increase this year, there is a 3% annual inflationary increase to the post-secondary transfer.

We also have specifically indicated how much money we are putting into the post-secondary transfer. When we spoke to post-secondary educational officials across the country, they talked about the need for a dedicated transfer. They needed to know how much money was there so that they could then go to their provincial governments and ask about the shares and the buy-ins.

Those officials now know exactly how much money is available, which helps them to deal with the provincial governments and ensure that post-secondary education is the priority in Canada that it deserves to be, and it will improve our productivity.

On the environment, as I said earlier, the former government did not have a plan. Now it wants to ram through a plan that would just absolutely derail our economy. This government has a plan. We have made significant commitments, such as the $1.5 billion for the ecotrust program that we will be sharing with the provinces. This will have significant short and long term benefits.

Ontario will be able to use that money to bring in clean hydroelectric power instead of the coal-fired power that we have had to rely on because the former government provided no support whatsoever to the province of Ontario to replace that power. This government will do that and all the provinces will be able to direct the money as they see fit to help clean up the environment in their backyards.

We need to face the fact that cleaning up the environment is always local. We tend to think about things on a global basis but we need to clean up things in our own backyards if we want to clean up the nation. This money will specifically assist the provinces to clean up our own backyards.

The budget contains money to clean up invasive species and to clean up the Lake Simcoe watershed which is something the hon. government House leader has been arguing for over the years.

The government has committed a total of $4.5 billion to the environment so that it can turn the corner on the environment. The previous government did not get it done. Those are not my words. Those are the words of the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. This government will get it done. As we hear coming out of the G-8 summit, this government, this Prime Minister, is a world leader on the environment.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

You sold out.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I know it is difficult for the Liberal Party to hear these words coming from respected environmentalists from around the world that Canada is now a leader on the environment. It is difficult to hear these things but, quite frankly, sometimes the truth hurts. However, the truth always is the truth and sometimes it needs to be said. Today is one of the days when the truth must be said.

In addition, I want to get to the last of the three Es which, of course, is energy. Canada is an emerging energy superpower, and there is no question about that. Canada has been blessed with natural resource wealth, the likes of which no other nation has been blessed.

We need to be responsible in how we deal with Canada's energy and resource wealth but we also need to take a serious look at the types of energy that we are consuming, which is why the government committed $2 billion toward a new renewable fuel strategy. Organizations have run commercials thanking Prime Minister Harper for keeping his promise. This is not us saying that we keep our promises. We know we keep our promises.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Peterborough will remember that I often chastise members of other parties when they mention members of the House of Commons by their surname, and it applies to him also.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

He is a rookie.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

My sincere apologies, Mr. Speaker. I get so excited when I talk about the record of the government on keeping its promises, cutting taxes, cleaning up the environment and improving the health care situation. Sometimes I get so excited I want to refer to the Prime Minister by name, because he is not just my friend, he is a friend of this country and he is a tremendous world leader. Sometimes I just get too excited.

I want to talk about energy and the investments we are making into renewable fuels. This will not just help us clean up to reduce our carbon footprint, but it will also breathe new life into areas like Peterborough where agriculture now has an additional market. We are talking about taking things that can be grown in the field and converting them into energy, clean energy, energy that will have long lasting benefits for all Canadians. The farmers in my riding are really excited about this.

Last year and in years past it was certainly very difficult for agriculture in Canada. I have often said that agriculture in Canada suffered for more than a decade of failed leadership and planning on behalf of the former government. That may be difficult for the Liberals to hear. They will not be happy that I said that, but it is a fact. When they brought in the CAIS program, it cut the heart out of agriculture in Canada and they did not support our farmers.

This government clearly does support our farmers. The new renewable fuel strategy has created almost a bidding war for dirt in Peterborough. People want to plant crops because they see that they can make money at it again. That is all our farmers want. They do not want handouts. They want a market. This government is creating a market.

I also want to talk a little about tax fairness. We know, among other things, that the Liberals do not stand for a democratically elected and accountable Senate. They stand for the influence of big money in politics. They do not believe that they should ever have to tell Canadians where the sponsorship money went. We know that this is a fact.

We also know that based on the testimony they have made in the House time and time again, they do not support tax fairness. They do not believe that all Canadians, in fact, all corporations, should pay their fair share of taxes. We know that from the words of the Leader of the Opposition himself and many members of the Liberal Party. They stand alone on that.

I would like to recognize that the Bloc Québécois and the NDP both support the government's decision. It was a difficult decision, but when we made the promise in the last election to stand up for Canada, that meant we had to protect the tax base. It meant that we had to provide tax fairness for all Canadians.

Indeed, if we want to continue to assist seniors, families and low income individuals in this country, we simply cannot allow people to escape paying their fair share of taxes, because the burden gets placed on people who cannot afford to pay it.

Sometimes difficult decisions have to be made in government. We understand that. The former government did not. The Liberals did not understand that difficult decisions had to be made. In fact, they often avoided difficult decisions.

The member for Scarborough—Guildwood the very day that the former finance minister made his announcement not to tax income trusts was on CBC saying, “Yes, we must move to tax income trusts”, and the former finance minister did not do that.

Everyone knows the government certainly has access to the departmental information that clearly demonstrated tax leakage. All provinces came forward and said there was tax leakage. The Governor of the Bank of Canada said the way that things were going would lead to lower levels of investment, lower levels of productivity, less employment. It was bad for Canada. We have moved to fix that.

Budget 2007 has the title “Aspire”. It is about aspiring to a stronger, safer, better Canada. I will say that again because it makes me feel good: a stronger, safer, better Canada. I would love it if people stopped and considered that. I would like them to absorb it.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

It is a George Bush slogan.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

This government has long said that we are getting things done for all of us.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

No, you're not. You're getting everything done for George Bush.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

The slogan of the Liberal Party could have been “getting things done for some of us”.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

What about prorogue?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our party does not believe in getting things done for some of us. We believe in getting things done for all of us. We do not pick favourites in the budget. We do not pick winners and losers.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

They're all losers.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

We believe that fairness--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please. The hon. member for Peterborough has the floor for another minute and a half. If we can all be patient, there will be 10 minutes of questions and comments afterward and I will recognize as many members as are interested in asking questions. For the moment, he has the floor and I would like to hear him.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate that you want to hear what I have to say because it is important. Canadians at home want to hear about how good this budget is for them.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

No they don't. They want you out.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Yes, they do. Even Dalton has said that this budget provides capacity to the province of Ontario so that we can address child poverty, so we can address homelessness, so we can address the mess that was created in health care, so we can address the fiscal imbalance.

We know the former government did not believe that fiscal imbalance existed. However, our government has moved to solve the fiscal imbalance. Quite honestly, the province of Ontario, in fact all provinces are better off after this budget. More is more. More money means more money. It is more money for every region, even Saskatchewan. In fact, it is a lot more money for Saskatchewan.

We know that the Liberal government tried to make a lot of ground by saying we are giving less, but it is really more. Our government is giving more so that the provinces can do more. We are giving them more so they can provide more services, better health care, better post-secondary education.

We are standing up for Canadians. We are standing up for the provinces. We are standing up for Canada. We are--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please. The member's time is really up now.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Saint Boniface.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very anxious to ask the member a few questions.

First, the only things that those members seem to be able to brag about are surpluses, low unemployment and a strong economy. Does the member actually think that the Conservatives had anything to do with that? The Conservatives have been riding on the Liberals' coattails on that for the last couple of years.

Second, the Conservatives campaigned on a promise that they would not have a budget that would be higher than inflation. The budget actually was over 6% and the baseline budget had an increase of 11.5%. I would like the member to explain that to Canadians.

The last time the Conservatives had an actual budget that was not attributed to somebody else was in 1923, not during Diefenbaker's time, not during Mulroney's time, but in 1923. When they get up and talk about the prowess of the Conservative government when it comes to budgets, I find it very laughable.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what is laughable is that the Liberals constantly take credit for it being their money. It is not their money. Actually, I think it is Canadians' money.

What is really laughable is when a government decides it is not going to pay its bills and it creates a huge fiscal imbalance and significant problems in all of the provinces with their capacity to pay for things that Canadians depend on, like education and health care, and to deal with homelessness. When a government takes credit for that and calls it sound fiscal management because it is not paying its bills, I guess that is the Liberal thing to do.

We do not believe in that. We believe in fixing the fiscal imbalance.

The Liberals talk about $42 billion. I want to tell them what the $42 billion is. That $42 billion is only the interest on former prime minister Trudeau's debt. He was the prime minister who created the national debt. This is not up for debate. This is a fact, but the Liberals do not like facts.

Sometimes I find it really hard to listen to some of the Liberals' criticism. They often campaign like the NDP, but we know that is not what they stand for. I acknowledge that I have some philosophical differences with the NDP, but I will also acknowledge that the NDP members legitimately believe in what they speak about. The party opposite clearly does not. The Liberals say one thing and do another.

We have a clean government now. The Liberals should celebrate that. There are no brown envelopes with cash in them being passed around.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can only say that the member's intervention shows what kind of dysfunctional, delusional and incestuous discussions they have within the Conservative caucus.

What he said is simply not true. Eighty per cent of Canadian families are actually earning less now than they were in 1989. The delusion that somehow Canadians are prospering when it is only the banks, the oil companies and the very wealthy that have any money just shows to what extent the Conservatives are out of touch.

I was interested in what he said about financial management. The Department of Finance did a study of governments and actually found that the NDP manages money best, the Liberals are the worst and the Conservatives are just as bad as the Liberals in many cases. It did a long term study and it turns out that the NDP manages money better.

The budget has a number of elements. First, we know P3s are much more costly to the taxpayer than simply investing in good public infrastructure. Second, there is the billion dollar subsidy to the oil and gas industry. It is the most profitable industrial sector and the Conservatives keep shovelling money off the back of a truck to that sector. There is $9 billion in corporate tax cuts. What a ridiculous situation it is when there are record corporate profits and the Conservatives are shovelling more money at that sector. Finally, there is the $400 million that Hollinger was supposed to pay and the Conservative government said, “We forgive. You don't have to pay taxes if you're wealthy”. That is $400 million on their watch. The Conservatives forgave that money.

How does the member think the Conservatives have any financial management credibility whatsoever when all we see from them is the same boondoggles we saw under the Liberals?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess this is where the philosophical division that I spoke of a moment ago begins.

The member mentioned families. This government has specifically reached out and assisted families. We provided to all families a $2,000 tax credit for children under the age of 18. We provided the universal child care benefit to families. My brother and my sister-in-law have two young daughters, two and four, and that $200 a month comes in very handy. We are helping families.

I would also say that it is very easy to be a sound financial planner or a sound fiscal manager of funds when one does not generate any. We know the NDP policies would be catastrophic for the Canadian economy. They would not generate any money. It is very easy to manage nothing because that is what the NDP would create: less manufacturing, less wealth, less employment. That is what it would lead to. We cannot follow that strategy.

When we talk about reducing corporate taxes we talk about that because we are competing in a global economy. We have to be competitive. At the same time by reducing taxes it has been proven that we are not reducing the overall tax revenue because tax fairness leads to more people working with the tax system, indeed avoiding the tax system to a much lesser extent and paying their taxes.

With high taxes we find tax avoidance. Corporations will invest a lot of money into figuring out ways to avoid taxes. When we bring in tax fairness, when we ensure that the tax rates are as low as they possibly can be for all Canadians, there is less tax avoidance. Indeed it is a hotter economy that generates more revenue overall.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the presentation by my colleague from Ontario about what the budget does for Ontario.

I have a few things that I would like to point out for the province of Ontario. We are restoring the fiscal balance with federal support of $12.8 billion in 2007-08. This includes: $8.1 billion under the Canada health transfer; $3.8 billion under the Canada social transfer, including additional funding for post-secondary education; $664 million for infrastructure; $205 million available to the Ontario government for the patient wait times guarantee; $117 million available to the Ontario government to implement the human papilloma virus immunization program; the $574 million that will be paid to the Ontario government for outstanding commitments under the Canada-Ontario agreement; $298 million for gas tax funding for municipalities in Ontario; $400 million for a new road access for the Windsor-Detroit border crossing; and $963 million to fund transit projects in greater Toronto. That is only about half of what I have here.

I ask my colleague, is this budget good for Ontarians in 2007?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we could read the same list for every province and territory in the country. Budget 2007 is about that. It is about sharing the wealth of resources of the federal government with all Canadians, sharing it equitably among the provinces, coming up with a principled formula to share federal revenues.

I know the House has been talking a lot about equalization of late, but the much larger portion of funds that the federal government distributes comes under the Canada social transfer. That has been dealt with in a very equitable, fair manner. In fact, I have not heard a single province indicate it has any complaint whatsoever on the Canada social transfer. It has been dealt with in a equitable manner. It is good to Ontario, but it is also good to every province. It is good to everybody within Confederation.

Budget 2007 makes significant investments in all sorts of things. In my riding it means that Highway 407 will be completed back into Highway 115. I cannot tell the House how much that will mean to the economy in Peterborough. This budget is getting that done for the citizens of my riding. It is getting a lot done for the citizens of every riding.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the member is new to the House, but when he talked about debts and deficits, what he failed to mention was this. The total national debt left by the Liberal government when the Conservatives came to power 1984, was $200 billion. In nine short years, after a record deficit, that $200 billion debt ended up being a $500 billion debt, a $300 billion increase.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals often forget that the national debt actually increased in their time in government. I hate pointing that out, but it is a fact.

The member is voting against the GST refund on school buses in his own riding, something his school board has been fighting for, for I believe seven or eight years. That is what he will vote against, money returned to his own school board.

Honestly, I find it incomprehensible that the members opposite—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Before we resume debate, I would ask the cooperation of all members to check their cell phones and BlackBerries and turn them off. We are just about to hear a speech from the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso who has the floor.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this has been a great Friday debate. There has certainly been an interesting exchange of views.

I want to go on record and say that the budget put forward by the government is not completely horrible. It is horrible, yes, but not completely. Some aspects of the budget, such as the tax incentive and capital gains provisions for fishermen, who are moving licences, make sense. However, it misses the mark so much and hurts so many of the most vulnerable Canadians that in no way can the official opposition support the budget.

The previous speaker, the member for Peterborough, indicated that governing is about making difficult choices, something that the official opposition did not know about when it was in government. That is just not right.

We talked about the $42 billion deficit. The previous government made the difficult decisions on behalf of all Canadians. It sent home 45,000 federal employees in order to balance the books. It made cuts in every department. Every Canadian felt those cuts. They were tough choices, but in doing so, we balanced the budget and righted the fiscal ship of the country. From 1995 on, we began to experience some real fiscal growth.

The bar has been set by the previous government for what it takes to provide financial leadership for the country. We can look at eight surplus budgets, tax relief in all those budgets going forward for every Canadian, reinvestment in important programs such as infrastructure, health care, education. We saw an attack on the accrued debt . Each year that debt was paid down to loosen up additional operational funds for the federal government.

The template and opportunity was there for the government to fall in line and continue to provide good fiscal management for the people of Canada, but it missed the mark. If the government's budget was a road map to prosperity for Canadians, it would be comparable to the people at Rand McNally doing a road map from Ottawa to Toronto and ending up in Boise, Idaho.

The government has missed the mark completely, especially when we factor in the fact that it inherited was the single best set of books ever been transferred to an incoming government. There was a $13 billion surplus. How does anybody mess that up? How could anybody possibly mess that up? However, it did and it hurt a great number of people. That is why I feel obliged to go on record today and identify the some of shortcomings in the budget.

I will speak about a group that I really do not believe has had a voice, certainly off the government bench. It is not talked about much. It is a community that means so much to us as Canadians, and that is the sporting community. If anybody was shortchanged in this budget, it is the sporting community.

The government loves to beat its chest. It made two promises. One promise was a personal tax deduction of $500 to anybody who registered their son or daughter in a sporting activity. What that really equates to, once the deduction is made, is probably between $80 and $90 a year.

I know, Mr. Speaker, you are the father of elite athletes. If you sit down at the kitchen table, I think the conversation goes a bit deeper than saying, “the Tories are offering me $80 and I cannot miss that opportunity”. We know it is good to involve our children in sports and that is what will motivate us. The $80 is a joke. It has no impact at all.

I have three boys myself who play competitive sport. Am I going to use it? Yes, I am, but they are going to play anyway.

The tax deduction has no impact to motivate parents to enrol their kids in sport. We know that if we can keep our youth active, if we can keep them involved, it is positive in so many aspects, physically, mentally, emotionally and socially. It reaches into all aspects of those young lives and it is a positive thing, but the tax deduction does not do it.

The other promise that the Conservatives made was that 1% of their health care budget should go toward sport and physical activity. Where is that? Nowhere. There is no sign of it whatsoever. The sporting groups were let down. The sporting groups thought that they might have an opportunity with this promise.

This is what I got from the group called Sport Matters Group. It is from Ian Bird, senior leader for the Sport Matters Group. The Sport Matters Group is a collective of provincial and federal sport leaders that work toward improving the future of sport in the country. Ian Bird said:

Budget making is the central opportunity for governments to fulfill their commitments to Canadians....There had been clear indications from successive Ministers for Sport that today’s budget papers would how the government would invest in its own promise. We’re still waiting.

And they still will be waiting.

What we have seen is a shell game going on within the government in how it approaches sport. Had the government invested that 1%, it would equate to about $540 million annually that would go toward sport.

The template is there. The sports community knows what has to be done. We need a long term athletic development model, taking an active approach to investing in youth from the playground to the podium, working with the provinces and giving the provinces the resources they need, human and financial resources, so they can help deliver on these very important programs. They cannot do that if they do not have the money.

We understand fully as Canadians how important it is that we have heroes. Before there was a Sidney Crosby, there was a Mario Lemieux and a Wayne Gretzky, who was Sidney Crosby's hero. Before there was a Katrina Lemay-Doan or a Marc Gagnon, we knew that Gaétan Boucher was the greatest speed skater to come from Canada. It was his efforts and his gold medal performances in the Olympics that motivated these young skaters. We need the ability to create those heroes to further motivate our younger people to engage in sport.

The Conservatives took that away. Money was accelerated for the own the podium program. Was there any new money? Absolutely not a dollar. The Conservatives pulled the rug out from under the road to excellence program, which would provide funds to our summer athletes going to Beijing in 2008. The Conservatives turned their backs on our summer athletes by taking away those funds.

The Liberal Party talked about in our platform a specific envelope of money that we could invest in very specific sport facilities. I spoke on Wednesday night in Moncton at the Maritime Recreation Facility Conference. These are good people who work their tail off day in and day out to try to provide opportunities for our youth and for our populous to engage in sport. They work trying to keep costs down, keeping registration fees at a reasonable amount. However, the costs continue to rise and accumulate.

Infrastructure, refits and retrofits are expensive. We talked about an envelope of money that we could work with through the provinces so that investment could be made and the costs could come down. The buildings would operate in a more efficient manner, helping the environment and the operators on an annual basis.

The sporting community put this forward. It advocated very much for this type of opportunity to work with the federal government. There is no sign of this initiative whatsoever in this budget from the government.

It is not that the Conservatives just turned their backs on the initiatives that were being put forward by the sporting community, but they also did not deliver on the promises they made to the sporting community. It is shameful.

I would be remiss if I did not address a number of other things in my speech. Literacy, of course, is something that I think has impacts right across this country. Almost 45% of adult Canadians still have a challenge in reading, writing and communicating. If we give an adult the opportunity to engage in the economy, and to engage in the community and in education, we know that every increase of 1.5% in literacy increases the productivity of this country by 2.5%. That is a pretty significant return on our investment.

However, here is what we saw from this government with regard to the $13 billion surplus fund. The government said that of course what it had to do was cut literacy and make it tougher for the people who find it hardest to engage in our economy and our society. Let us make it a little bit tougher on them, said the government. The government carved money out of the literacy fund.

This should not have surprised anybody when the current Minister of the Environment is on record as saying that it is a waste of time teaching adults to read and write. If that is where the essence of it comes from, we are in a sad state here. Certainly this party on this side is concerned about the most vulnerable in our society and where they are going to arrive if we continue to see the reign of that government.

As well, we know that this has been discussed on a number of occasions over the last while. The previous speaker stood up and beat his chest about what they are doing for students. One of the single greatest things we can for our young people is offer them an opportunity to hold a summer job. It contributes to that student's life in so many ways. Many times, a summer job is the first work opportunity they have. They have the opportunity to put together a few dollars to go back and re-engage in the fall in their education.

We witnessed a debacle here over the last number of weeks with this government in regard to the money that was carved out of the summer student employment grants. Not only did that devastate community groups, but it as well just ripped the soul out of job opportunities for students across this country.

There is a question that has to be asked on the issue of the budget because there is a finite envelope of money in the HRSDC and Service Canada funding. The Conservatives have had to go back to try to clean up the mess because the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development has been inundated. I know that the opposition certainly has been pounding him on a regular basis to fix the mess he has made.

I think it was his predecessor that set the template, and the trap was sprung on the current minister, but he is wearing it and it is his job to fix it. He has to go back and fix it. The company line over there is that the government always goes with this second round of funding. Yeah, right, tell me that one now, I say. The Conservatives are going back to try to fix the mess. Any community groups that had a grant last year and have a current valid application on file are going to receive funding. They should receive funding. They should have received funding in the first place.

The government is going back to fix the mess, but it is going to cost this government a great deal of money. Where is that money going to come from?

I remember the Minister of Fisheries when he was in opposition. He was a pretty noble member. He would talk about all the fish plant employees when they would lose their jobs. He would beat the government, asking what it was going to do for those out of work fish plant employees and what it was going to do for the communities most affected. We have not heard a word from him since then.

Is HRSDC going to have to steal the money out of the money that should be going toward helping people like those in Canso, like those in the outports of Newfoundland who have seen their fish plants closed, those people who need that help and those retraining moneys now? There is only one envelope of money and these are the people who are going to suffer as a result of this budget and the actions in this budget.

We have talked about rural communities. It is unbelievable to see how the rural communities got dealt out of this budget. Let us talk about CAP sites. I am sure that all members in this House have received interventions from their constituents about CAP site closures. Now the Conservatives have come back to say that they will keep the sites open one for more year, one more time, but then, we know, there is a drop-dead date. These communities get a one year reprieve on the CAP Sites. CAP sites are essential in rural communities and this opposition will fight to continue to have CAP site funding provided for those essential services.

Regarding access to broadband, through Industry Canada we had an excellent program, the BRAND program, that allowed Canadians no matter where they lived in this country the opportunity for communities to partner with various agencies and stakeholders to bring broadband to these communities. It was a tremendously successful program.

Infrastructure is not just about water, sewer and roads. Access to high speed broadband is essential. If we want to grow those rural communities, the government should be investing in it, but we have seen no movement at all and no investment at all, and it is the rural communities that are going to suffer.

If I could have another 10 minutes on the accord, I would love to wrap up a Friday on that one, but my time is getting close to expiring. As I have said, this budget brings a great deal of pain to the people I represent, and certainly I come here each week to Ottawa to represent the views of my riding and its situation. In no good conscience could I stand and support this budget.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business.

When Bill C-52 returns to the House, there will be three minutes left for the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso, plus 10 minutes of questions and comments.

The House resumed from June 8 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 third time and passed, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-52, the Conservative government's budget. I am unfortunately the first person to rise after the tawdry, cheap events of last Friday in the House, the unparalleled, unprecedented, tawdry events of a government that is so desperate now to get its budget through it had to go down into the bowels of the House of Commons to look through dusty books, looking back to the 1960s and the 1970s, to find some sort of procedural trick that would allow it to pass the budget when it knew that most Canadians are opposing it. In the last few days we have seen the budget self-destruct, as many of the Atlantic provinces, Saskatchewan and many Canadians from coast to coast to coast have said very clearly that the budget is manifestly not in the interests of Canada.

Last Friday, with two minutes to go in private members' business, the House leader stood to try to conjure a trick out of his pocket and try to force through, what he called “a national emergency”, the budget, without a vote, not complete the debate only to force it through.

As members well know, the House refused that. However, the fact that the Conservatives would use such a cheap and tawdry trick to try to get their budget through I think belies the reality. The Conservatives acknowledge now that their budget does not have the popular support of Canadians. As a result of that, they had to resort to this trick.

What they used was a procedural trick to try to declare this a national emergency. The only emergency is the rapid and constant fall of the Conservatives in public opinion polls. We have seen in places like British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia that the Conservative vote continues to erode. Why does it continue to erode? Not only because of tricks like that, the trick of last Friday, a trick that manifestly failed, but also because their budget simply does not have credibility.

I will talk a bit about the situation that Canadians are really living through while the Conservatives are playing their little political games here in Ottawa. From there, I will talk about how the budget does not address what are very clear concerns, crises that are occurring in main streets across the country.

Instead, very clearly what we have is a Conservative budget, a Bay Street budget, the same as the Liberal budgets were, oriented toward corporate tax cuts and huge handouts, shovelling money off the back of a truck through the oil and gas sector. That seems to be the Conservative priorities. Canadians are living a much different reality.

Let us talk about the reality of most Canadians. Let us talk about average family incomes. Since 1989, Statistics Canada tells us, since the signing of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, most Canadian families have seen their income fall. They are earning less money now than they were then.

What we have seen under now more than 15 years of Conservative and Liberal economic policies is the wealthy are fabulously so. They are able to buy their 15th or 16th Lamborghini without any problem. However, most Canadian families are earning less. It is not just that they are working harder and longer weeks, and I will come back to those statistics, the bottom line is Conservative and Liberal economic policies have manifestly failed.

Let us look at the figures. The poorest of Canadians, the family with an income of less than $20,000 a year, those below the poverty line, have seen over this 15 year period the loss of about a month's income. What they used to earn in 12 months, they are living on 11 months' worth of income. We have seen a 10% fall in real income for the poorest of Canadian families.

The Conservative budget does absolutely nothing to address that catastrophic fall in Canadian income levels for the poorest of Canadian families. It is no secret, 300,000 Canadians will be sleeping in the parks and main streets of our country tonight, 300,000 Canadians who no longer even have the resources to have a roof over their heads. The Conservative budget does absolutely nothing to address the crisis in homelessness and the catastrophic fall in the incomes of the poorest of Canadians.

Let us go to the next group. Another 20% of Canadians, and let us call them the working class, are families earning less than $36,000 a year. They are now earning two weeks' less income than they were in 1989.

In other words, after 15 years of Liberal and Conservative economic policies, they have seen their incomes fall so that they are now living on 50 weeks of income, whereas they used to live on 52 weeks of income. They have actually lost two weeks of income and are trying to make ends meet with far fewer financial resources.

Let us continue on to the middle class. It is the same thing for families earning less than $56,000 year. They are now earning two weeks' less income than they were in 1989.

We now are talking about 60% of Canadian families who are struggling to get by on fewer and fewer financial resources. The Liberals did absolutely nothing to address this. They simply shovelled money at the wealthiest of Canadians. The Conservatives now are doing exactly the same thing.

Even higher income earners, the upper middle class, have actually seen no income improvement since 1989.

That is 80% of Canadian families who see stagnation or who have seen increasing impoverishment under the watch of those parties over the last more than 15 years.

Who has profited from the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement and NAFTA and from the Conservative and Liberal economic policies shovelling money at the corporate sector? There are unbelievable amounts of resources to give to the oil and gas industry and the banks, and to give in corporate tax cuts, but who has profited? Only one sector has: the wealthiest of Canadians. In fact, Statistics Canada tells us that it is the wealthiest 5% of Canadians who have seen their incomes skyrocket over this period.

What the people who are listening to us today or who read these remarks in Hansard say, what the people say certainly as we knock on doors in my neighbourhoods, is that they cannot understand why Ottawa does not get it. Why it is harder and harder to make ends meet, they say, and yet the government seems to want to favour the wealthiest of Canadians with corporate tax cuts? They say that the government does not seem concerned about ordinary, hard-working Canadian families. They ask that question.

We have seen the Conservative response. The Conservatives' response was a cheap conjuring trick to try to get their budget through before Canadians wake up to what an appallingly negative impact it will have on them.

The Conservative government erodes resources in health care. It does not do anything to open up doors to post-secondary education and training. It throws a few dollars here and there but does not address the underlying systemic problems in this Confederation, which has led to the fact that most Canadian families are falling further behind and most Conservative and Liberal economic policies are favouring that small proportion of Canadians who have everything they could possibly want.

What is wrong with this picture when the top 5% of Canadian income earners receive most of the attention of Conservative and Liberal governments? Those governments simply shovel money at them. What is wrong with this picture when ordinary working families are forgotten?

I have talked about the fact that income levels are actually falling while the Conservatives have this delusion that everything is just peachy-keen. They say that because they look at the job figures. The job figures from Statistics Canada actually prove the point: the jobs that are created today are not sustainable manufacturing jobs or family-sustaining jobs. They are part time and temporary jobs. They are jobs paying the minimum wage.

Every time the finance minister stands up and says that we have full employment, what he is actually saying is that we have full employment like most third world countries have full employment. Canadians are scraping to get by on minimum wage, part time jobs and whatever temporary contracts they can get. They are struggling to keep a roof over their heads. The finance minister does not recognize that the economic policy of the past 15 years has actually led to a steady impoverishment.

It is not because Canadians are not working harder and harder. The Community Social Planning Council of Toronto produced a study just a few weeks ago which indicates that for the average family raising children the annual number of hours worked went up by 200 hours, that is, the average family worked 200 hours more in 2004 than in 1996.

What this means is that the average Canadian working family is working five weeks more. Those families are trying to jam another five weeks of work into a working year. They are struggling. They are putting in an unprecedented number of overtime hours, yet their revenue levels are lower than they were in 1989. What a destruction of our quality of life. What a failure on the bottom line.

Canadian families have seen their incomes tank, yet they are putting in five weeks more of labour in a 52 week year. It is an annual average of 200 hours more worked in 2004 than in 1996. It would be even higher today. Overtime hours have gone up by over 30% and yet most Canadian families are earning less now than in 1989.

That is what is fundamentally wrong with how the Liberals and Conservatives have addressed economic policy for the past more than 15 and nearly 20 years. They simply do not understand the impact of their policies. They are economic illiterates. They cannot check the bottom line to see if the economic policies have actually made sense. They are shovelling money at the corporate sector with more and more corporate tax cuts when we already subsidize the corporate sector to an unparalleled extent through the subsidies we provide to medicare.

Our medical system now in place offers a competitive advantage that no American corporation can match, yet the corporate sector is continuing to request lower and lower tax rates when our subsidies already give them a very clear competitive advantage. What is wrong with this picture when the corporate sector fails to acknowledge that the hard work of Canadians from coast to coast to coast gives the sector a competitive advantage but that corporations have to pay their fair share of taxes in order for that competitive advantage to be sustained?

They cannot have their cake and eat it too. Corporate leaders need to be told that. They need to be told that they have to be responsible, and that since we are already subsidizing them to an unparalleled extent, with study after study showing that medicare is a huge competitive advantage when Canadian companies compete with American ones, they cannot at the same time have lower corporate tax levels than they have in the United States. They cannot have both. They have to make clear and responsible choices.

We have not seen those responsible choices from the Liberals. We certainly have not seen them from the Conservatives, and last Friday in particular attests to that, but things have to change and that is certainly why more and more Canadians are looking to park their votes with another political entity. We certainly are seeing a greater interest in new ideas. The NDP, of course, since its inception, has always been the birthplace of new and responsible ideas, whether they are economic or financial in nature or in terms of social policies.

Before I move on to the next portion of my presentation, I do want to say one thing. The ministry of finance actually charted NDP, Liberal, Conservative and even the Parti Québécois governments over a 20 year period. It charted and compared the actual year-end fiscal returns to the budgetary promises of each of those governments.

This was done by the federal ministry of finance, which we certainly could not say is an NDP ally in any way, but that long term study, the only long term study that has ever been undertaken on this phenomenon of what the actual fiscal period returns show, clearly proved that the NDP as a party and NDP elected officials as individuals are the best fiscal managers. The worst were the Liberals. No matter what their promises are, 86% of the time the Liberals actually run a deficit. The Conservatives were a little better, actually running deficits 66% of the time over that 20 year period.

The NDP projected surplus or balanced budgets most of the time, and most of the time we actually achieved that. There is no difference between the spin and the results, between the rhetoric and the reality. We actually perform better in terms of fiscal management than Conservatives or Liberals. No wonder Canadians are looking around now and taking a hard look at what political parties promise and what they actually deliver.

The NDP is the only party that actually addresses the economic reality of most Canadian working families and we are the best financial managers. Those are two reasons why we are seeing increasing interest in our party.

Before I move on to B.C. issues, I want to mention the catastrophic collapse of our manufacturing sector. We have trade policies from the government, like we did from the previous government, which do not address the fact that value added and manufacturing production is collapsing across this country. A quarter of a million family-sustaining jobs have been lost in the last few years under the Liberal watch and under the Conservative watch.

Let us look at some of the impacts of that manufacturing loss. In Nova Scotia, 20% of manufacturing jobs have been lost. In Quebec, 18% of manufacturing jobs have been lost. In Windsor, and we have had very eloquent testimony to this effect from the member for Windsor—Tecumseh and the member for Windsor West, we have actually seen 35% of manufacturing jobs lost.

Windsor is in crisis. Southern Ontario is in crisis. The minimum wage, part time jobs that the finance minister is offering do not in any way compensate for this hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs.

In Toronto, over 100,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost. That is 21% of manufacturing jobs in Toronto. In Oshawa, it is 21%. In Thunder Bay, it is over 20%. We are seeing a hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs across this country and there is nothing in the budget that addresses this crisis.

We have a variety of crises that have developed over the past 15 years under the Liberal watch. The Conservatives said they would take a completely new approach. Instead, they have taken exactly the same do nothing approach, a shovel money at the corporate sector approach, which has not addressed the catastrophic fall in manufacturing jobs. It has not addressed the very real erosion of family income since 1989 and the signing of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement.

This approach does not address the homelessness crisis. It does not address the inability of most families to have their kids or adults move on to post-secondary education, apprenticeship and training. It does not address that crisis. It does not address the health care crisis. Instead of dealing with the underfunding of our public health care system, we have seen the Conservatives take exactly the same road as the Liberals and look to more privatization.

We know that in the United States more privatization means more costs and fewer benefits. The United States health care system costs twice the amount per capita that the Canadian system does and yet 60 million Americans at any point in one year will have absolutely no health care coverage whatsoever. It is a failed American model that the Conservatives are pushing, as the Liberals did before them.

As I come from British Columbia, I would like to move on now to the budget and what it does not do for British Columbia. The finance minister rose in this House and said that his Canada went from the Alberta Rockies to Newfoundland and Labrador. He completely excluded British Columbia.

I admire his honesty, because there is nothing in the budget that addresses clear Conservative promises to B.C. The Conservatives said they would deal with the leaky condo crisis. The Conservatives promised they would take action on that. Instead, they have left 60,000 British Columbia families with absolutely no support in the leaky condo crisis.

With softwood lumber, we have seen the complete disregard for softwood communities in British Columbia and elsewhere.

Regarding the pine beetle issue, the Conservatives promised and spun but they did not provide the funding. The Kamloops Daily News said the following just last Friday on the pine beetle, “When will [the government] come to the table and be a part of the solution?” For whatever reason, the feds just do not get it on the pine beetle. We have seen devastation throughout the interior of British Columbia. The government has done absolutely nothing to address that.

I could go on, with the World Police & Fire Games and a whole host of other issues such as the flooding in the Fraser River and the Skeena district of British Columbia. We have seen only $16 million offered up for the flooding even though we know that $22 million is required just to protect the city of Chilliwack alone.

I could go on and on but the reality is that the Conservative government just does not get it, which is why it tried to force this budget through by a conjuring trick last Friday.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It is with regret that I must interrupt the hon. member but he cannot go on and on because his time is up.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to finish his last thought.

Does the member know why the government conjured up that trick last Friday? Why would it do those types of tricks? There are two weeks left in the session. Speakers like my colleague and others had not had a chance to speak to the budget. Does the government not want honesty and transparency? Does the government not want people to speak and provide their opinions on the budget? Why would the government do that on a Friday when most MPs are working with their constituents in their ridings except those on House duty? Does the government not want members working with their constituents?

Did the government do that because the budget is falling apart with respect to income trusts and interest deductibility? Was it because the budget is falling apart as far as the provinces are concerned with respect to the Atlantic accord? In fact, the Canadian Press reported this morning that the Prime Minister told Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia to sue him.

Did the Conservative government not say that it was elected on accountability? Does doing something like this not fly in the face of that philosophy?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the government is now facing a perfect storm on its budget. A member of its caucus has already been kicked out. Other members of the Conservative government are under pressure from their constituents to leave the party.

With the collapse of the Atlantic accord, the government is facing a storm because the premiers across Atlantic Canada are now coming out against the budget. The premier of Saskatchewan, who has a tremendous reputation and a great deal of credibility, has also been speaking against this appalling budget. We have not heard a peep from any of the Conservative members from Saskatchewan in support of their province. Not a single member of the Conservative Party from Saskatchewan is actually willing to stand up for the province of Saskatchewan.

In British Columbia we have a proud tradition of standing up for our constituents. There used to be Saskatchewan members in this House who would stand up proudly for Saskatchewan. Now we have a troop of sheep, none of whom, not a single Conservative member, will stand up for their province or their constituents. It is unbelievable. Not a single Conservative member from Saskatchewan has dared say anything about the farm crisis or the destruction of the Canadian Wheat Board. Not a single Conservative member from Saskatchewan has dared say anything against the talking points they are getting from the Prime Minister's Office.

With that crisis in confidence from Saskatchewan and Atlantic Canada, the Conservative government is clearly in trouble. It knows its budget is in trouble. However, rather than consenting to honest debate so each of the issues, which it has failed to address, would be out in the public domain, which is our responsibility as parliamentarians, it tried to get the budget adopted by using a cheap and tawdry trick. However, it did not work because members of the New Democratic Party and other parties were here and we simply stopped the government in its tracks from what was a conjuring trick to try to get a budget passed that no longer has any legitimacy whatsoever.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was really impressed by the breadth of my colleague's knowledge about the impact of this budget on his home province of British Columbia and on his own riding.

My home riding is Hamilton Mountain in Ontario. Our province has been absolutely decimated by the loss of manufacturing sector jobs. In my home town alone, 11,000 of those jobs have been lost.

When people look to this budget and to the government, they want real help. What they had hoped for, at a minimum, was some real investment in employment insurance and some real access to retraining so they could get jobs in new fields because the manufacturing sector is being decimated in part because of the trade policies that were started under former Conservative prime minister, Brian Mulroney, but the same environment exists now for trade and for the economy in this country today.

I know the member does not have the same manufacturing base that I have in my riding but I would think that issues like EI and retraining would be equally important to the forestry sector. He has been an eloquent spokesperson against the softwood sellout that was so readily supported by other parties in the House but which has devastated many workers and their families in my colleague's province.

I just wonder whether my colleague could comment on whether he is getting the same groundswell of outcry because the government failed to do anything for working families in this country.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton Mountain has been a passionate advocate of advancing through Parliament the quality of life of ordinary working families and, as has all the NDP caucus, has been pushing forward an end to this economic disillusion that somehow just continuing to give to the wealthiest in the country will somehow, through some magical, mystical trickle down theory, bring prosperity for all Canadians. Clearly, that has not worked.

We also have the failure of the budget to deal with employment insurance, retraining, access to apprenticeship programs and post-secondary education programs. What we have seen instead is an incredibly short-sighted, misguided trade policy that continues down the same road that the Liberals took. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

We see the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA, because we capitulated on all points, are leading to an actual fall in the income of most Canadian working families. They certainly understand it. When we ask families whether they are doing better now than they were 15 years ago, most say that they are not. Most families say that they are struggling to make ends meet. They said that they are working harder and longer hours and yet they have fewer and fewer financial resources.

After the government capitulated on NAFTA, it moved forward with the softwood lumber capitulation. Now we are seeing the trade minister, as a renegade because the Prime Minister has no understanding of trade policy whatsoever, moving forward to sign free trade agreements that will lead to more catastrophic job losses. The FTA will gut our shipbuilding industry. The trade minister, who has betrayed his constituents and who is now betraying the whole country, which makes him consistent, is now trying to sign a trade agreement with South Korea which will devastate our auto sector. What is next?

Time and time again we have seen the government capitulate and give away everything. The results for most working families from coast to coast to coast are lower incomes and part time, temporary minimum wage jobs, such as burger flipping because that is all that is left when the auto sector is gutted, the shipbuilding sector is gutted, the textile industry is gutted and the softwood lumber industry is gutted. When, in every sector, our value added manufacturing is simply tossed away so that some banker in Toronto can make another million dollars then we can understand why we are seeing greater and greater frustration arising across the country.

The government is off the rails. It said that it would be different than the previous Liberal government and yet we now see the exact same inability to grasp economic fundamentals. It does not understand that when most working families are earning less it must change the policies in order to address the fundamental income crisis. It is same old, same old.

The NDP will continue to push and say that the emperor has no clothes and that the government needs to start taking action on these issues. We will continue to press because we are the only voice for ordinary working families who have seen their incomes erode, their manufacturing jobs taken away, the doors to post-secondary education and apprenticeship training closed and access to health care when they need it no longer there. Alberta and Saskatchewan are experiencing an agricultural crisis but the Alberta and Saskatchewan Conservative MPs will not say a whit about that. We are here to stand up for Canadians and we will continue to do so. We know there will be a lot more of us in the House after the next election.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-52, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007.

As vice-chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, the committee and I had the opportunity to study the bill in detail and we heard from numerous witnesses on some of the bill's more contentious issues.

For the past 16 months, one of my major grievances with the government has been its lack of vision. Since my time on Parliament Hill, I have never seen a government anger and disappoint all sides of the political spectrum the way this Conservative government has. It has not only managed to alienate its former supporters but it has also failed to endear itself to its adversaries.

At several points during its mandate, the Conservative government enacted piecemeal legislation that had not been well researched, developed or consulted upon. It has botched several files, most recently the Canada summer jobs program where hundreds of community organizations were left without funding. Even worse was the fact that these groups had no contacts and could not receive straight answers from the ministry because of government mismanagement.

First the Conservatives cut the program and then they reintroduced it but with less money. They received thousands of complaints and put more money into the program. At this point we still do not know which group is getting funding and how much. This is just another example of how far removed Conservative values are from the values of most Canadians. It took intense pressure from this side of the House, as well as protests from groups across the country, to get the government to backtrack on its ill-conceived plan and to reinstate funding to non-profit community groups across Canada.

I have spoken to the budget on several occasions and have highlighted all my preoccupations with the Conservatives, mainly that they lack any vision whatsoever and look only to immediate, political gain instead of long term goals for Canada. A perfect example of this are the green levy and the auto eco-rebate. Those are the only green initiatives contained in the budget and they were developed without any consultation with the automotive industry.

Encouraging Canadians to purchase fuel efficient vehicles is a step in the right direction, but an additional tax on certain vehicles is not the answer. In fact, it is a simplistic solution to a complex situation that instead requires a multi-pronged and careful approach.

According to testimony the committee heard from both industry and environmental groups, the proposed green levy and auto eco-rebate will fail to produce any meaningful change in reducing carbon emissions. These programs damage domestic automakers by placing $67 million worth of levies on domestic vehicles, which is about 80% of all the levies that will be collected. The transfer of $47 million in benefits to one company, which is 75%, for one vehicle that is produced offshore.

We should remember that when Canada imports foreign cars, greenhouse gases are produced by ships that cross the ocean to get them here. The more cars Canada imports, the more emissions the ships produce. Therefore, when the government offers a feebate benefit to only one foreign produced car, not only is it discouraging people from buying cars made in Canada, it is also encouraging increased emissions from a greater volume of imports which essentially cancels out the emissions difference the rebated cars produce.

Only three of the twenty-one eligible cars under the feebate program are made in Canada. While I do not want to give cars that are not fuel efficient an easy pass, I do think the government should not be punishing Canadian automakers at a time when our industry has suffered so many job losses in the last decade.

2006 marked the first time in 18 years that Canada had an automotive trade deficit. This was down from a $15 billion trade surplus only seven years earlier. In those seven years, Canada has gone from being ranked number four in auto assembly worldwide to being ranked number nine in 2006.

Companies such as Ford, Chrysler and GM account for eight out of every ten auto workers in Canada. However, with these measures in the budget, Canadian workers are being punished. These measures also damage the Canadian economy segment in vehicles. The $1,000 rebate for one vehicle, which makes up half of all rebates, undermines the ability of other dealers and manufacturers to sell equally beneficial subcompacts competitively on the same basis. Perhaps the biggest failure of these measures is that they fail to help get older cars off the road.

The majority of greenhouse gas emissions produced by Canada's on road fleet of cars are produced by older vehicles. There are significant differences between the amounts of emissions a 1990 model creates as compared to its 2007 counterpart. The Conservatives were better off putting more money and more energy into getting older cars off the road than they were by punishing new cars.

Recently, the finance minister has been quoted on committing another flip-flop by announcing that he would reconsider the way that the green levy and the auto ecorebate would function. This is a good sign, but it is too vague to have much meaning.

During the clause by clause of this bill in committee I put forward a motion to remove the clause dealing with these measures in order that the government would be able to rethink its policy on this issue, but without success. I only hope that the minister will stay true to his word and look at alternative measures to deal with the auto industry. These measures should not punish Canadian automakers which is currently the case, and should emphasize getting older cars off the road.

As I mentioned earlier, these vehicle feebates were some of the only green initiatives contained in the budget. The Conservative government is failing to protect the environment and Canadians are getting fed up.

The environment minister has attempted to douse the fires by putting together more piecemeal legislation but, guess what? That has also failed. By not consulting environmental groups the government demonstrated its arrogance and its ignorance on the issues of climate change and the environment.

One specific example that was raised during the finance committee study of this bill was in the crucial area of ocean conservation. The government has reduced the budget of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans by $105 million and has only allocated $18 million over two years to the conservation of oceans in our economic zones.

It is a sad statement when experts agree that it will take over $100 million per year to get Canada on track to meeting its international commitments in ocean conservation.

In 2005 the Liberal government announced the Canada's oceans action plan and had begun allocating money when a premature election was called. Since coming into power the Conservatives have mismanaged all environmental files, but perhaps they have done the most horrendous job of protecting Canada's oceans.

Canada has only protected less than 1% of our economic zone and with the Conservatives in power that figure will surely not improve. I cannot understand how the Conservatives can spend millions of dollars buying military equipment to protect Canada's Arctic region, but allocate practically nothing to protect the Arctic Ocean.

They can spend millions on patrol boats, but refuse to allocate money into protecting our oceans, which directly employ approximately 98,000 Canadians. Seafood exports account for about $5.5 billion of our economy, yet the government does not deem the oceans important enough to properly fund their conservation.

These measures contained in the budget have not endeared the government to environmentalists and we can forgive climate change experts for doubting the Prime Minister's new found devotion to the environment. We can also forgive these same experts for going one step further and calling the government's environmental plan a fraud and sellout.

As I was saying, the Conservatives have not only raised the ire of the left, but they have turned their backs on their allies on the right. I am talking of course about the energy sector in Alberta and its dissatisfaction with the government's decision to tax income trusts. I suppose that when he came into power in 2006, the Prime Minister never imagined that the Liberal Party would come to the defence of so many energy corporations in Alberta and the way in which they want to structure themselves.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance delivered a low blow to investors and corporations when they blindsided them on Hallowe'en with a 31.5% tax rate on income trusts.

Several months ago, the Standing Committee on Finance tried to understand how the government calculated the so-called tax leakage in the income trust sector. After the committee was repeatedly denied access to these documents, it came to the conclusion that the government's decision to tax income trusts was based on imprecise data and was another case of mismanagement. Unfortunately, the Conservatives' mismanagement of the income trust matter cost Canadian workers $25 billion. These working people had found a high performance investment mechanism for their retirement. From one day to the next, the Minister of Finance destroyed years of savings. And the government has the audacity to claim that this measure is part of its tax fairness plan. I do not see what is so fair about liquidating Canadians' savings or the consequences of this decision to the energy sector in Alberta.

Small oil companies are having trouble because of reduced access to capital. These companies are using all of their resources just to stay afloat. That means that they have less to invest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and making their production systems more environmentally friendly. Moreover, the income trust decision is threatening our energy corporations. They are at risk of being taken over by foreign interests. Recently, we have seen a number of takeovers and takeover attempts by foreign companies, which will weaken the Canadian economy and reduce the government's tax revenues. Rather than help Canadian companies, the government has hurt our industry and has made an unprecedented number of foreign takeovers possible.

The Liberal Party proposed a fair solution to income trust taxation. It was a solution that experts, businesses and investors agreed on. Unfortunately, the government ignored our proposal, which was rejected by the Standing Committee on Finance. Then the Liberal members proposed adopting the Bloc Québécois' income trust amendment. The amendment would have extended the grace period from four years to 10. Thanks to Liberal support, that amendment would have been passed had the Bloc members not changed their minds and voted against their own proposal. This proves that the Bloc Québécois has no useful solutions to offer to Quebeckers and that it is not protecting Quebec's interests.

During a meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, a Bloc member said:

Let's not forget that when we examined the report, the bill had not been submitted to us. We wanted to find the best possible solution. However, in the present context, what we really hope for is speedy passage of the bill so that the budget can be implemented as soon as possible.

In other words, the Bloc members are here for the sole purpose of protecting their own interests. An amendment could easily have been adopted to allow Quebeckers and all Canadians to benefit from a four- to 10-year grace period. After speaking out so vigorously against taxing income trusts, the Bloc members changed their minds. Moreover, they lack courage when real changes have to be made.

I doubt that the many people who have invested in income trusts in Quebec and Canada are pleased with the Bloc's about-face.

Another area where Canadians will be feeling the crunch from Conservative mismanagement is set to begin as the summer gets underway. With Canada's tourist season in full swing, a thriving section of our economy must deal with the elimination of one of its greatest selling tools, the visitor rebate program.

The program gave Canada's tourism industry a valuable tool to help it compete for global tourists. Once again, without any consultation with the tourism industry, the government eliminated the program. Only a small handful of developed nations do not have a federal sales tax rebate program for tourists. Thanks to the Conservatives Canada can count itself among these few. It is difficult to understand why the government wants to weaken Canada's tourism industry since so many Canadians are dependent on this industry.

After the special finance committee's hearing requested by Liberal MPs to study the visitors rebate program, and along with the help of industry stakeholders, the continued pounding of the government on its ill-developed decision finally convinced the finance minister to announce a federal foreign convention and tourist incentive program in Bill C-52. That measure in the budget partially corrects the mistake made by the government when it first eliminated the GST rebate program, but it does not go far enough.

Why was the government determined to destroy a program that worked as it did with the Canada summers job program? The argument surrounding the GST rebate could not be timelier as summer is now upon us. I am glad to see some reversal by the government on this matter, but there is another set of seasonal problems for which the government must account.

As we know, summertime is also a season of festivals in Canada. My hometown of Montreal is host to an endless number of world renowned festivals which draw millions of visitors each year. Anyone who has seen the international jazz festival and the just for laughs festival understands how important festivals are to Montreal's economy. I wonder if the current Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women has been to Montreal during festival season because her actions have led us to believe otherwise.

Just a few weeks ago, the presidents of Montreal's two largest festivals spoke out against the minister's lack of action to secure funding in time for the summer. Festivals are a huge economic boost to local economies across the country and the minister's inability to assure funding for these festivals is a complete failure on her part and on the part of the government. I cannot understand how the Conservatives can mismanage such an obvious and crucial file such as this one.

Art groups across the country have been criticizing the government for months about the disastrous underfunding of the arts. Cultural groups in the country have felt insulted and ignored by the government and it has caused well-known authors and artists to speak out. We cannot allow Canada's vibrant arts community to suffer under the Conservatives' ideological program cuts and mismanagement.

We have already seen them mismanage countless files by closing Liberal programs and then reopening them only a few months later under a new or different name, whether they wanted to take credit for these supposedly new programs or whether they just thought that no one would notice that they were gone remains unclear.

This began in September 2006 when the Conservatives cut a number of effective Liberal programs. The Liberal Party protested these ideological cuts, as did the public. Since then we have seen the government re-announce these programs under new names and pretend as if the Liberal initiated programs never existed.

Canadians deserve better than what the government has given them, ill-conceived, piecemeal programs that will not help Canada advance into the 21st century. The government is much better at photo ops and slander than it is at governing and our country is not any better for it.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's very thoughtful speech reflected a depth of knowledge and understanding of financial issues that I know he certainly possesses.

Members of the Conservative government were arguably the last group of Canadians to understand the issue of climate change and to understand the necessity for the federal government to actually do something about climate change or global warming.

It was not, for instance, one of its much vaunted five priorities. There was nary a mention made by anybody on the Conservative benches in 2006 about climate change or global warming, but it is funny that a couple of public opinion polls published in December 2006 sort of coached, cajoled or finally led the government into doing something about climate change.

A couple of years ago a budget was introduced by the then Liberal government. It talked about project green. I would ask my hon. colleague how the measures contained in project green in 2005, and the half measures contained in the most recent budget from the Conservative government, stack up?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not get a chance to talk much about environmental issues, nor am I an expert on those matters. There are hon. members in my party who are much better at it than I am, but I could provide a couple of numbers and some information on what the Liberals did in 2005.

Some of the facts have changed because we have lost two years in advancing on project green which the Liberal government announced in 2005. The federal government's action to implement the Kyoto protocol peaked with the release in 2005 of a climate change plan which set up a series of funds and initiatives designed to assist with the costs of achieving them. It also set sector by sector targets and a mix of voluntary and regulatory measures.

In budget 2005 the Liberal government had committed $10 billion by 2012 to meet all those targets. That spending included a climate change fund of $1 billion over five years which was booked to create a permanent institution for the purchase of emissions reduction and removal credits on behalf of the Government of Canada. The focus of this program was by and large to encourage and fund domestic projects that would qualify under the Kyoto protocol.

We also introduced a partnership fund that was created to work with provincial governments on the reduction of greenhouse gases and a role in combating global warming. Budget 2005 also booked $250 million for large projects to be undertaken in conjunction with the provincial governments toward national objectives. Funding was scheduled to increase to $1 billion and would have provided $538 million to support closing coal fired electricity production in Ontario and a further $328 million to support Quebec's Kyoto plan.

We also introduced a one tonne challenge and the EnerGuide retrofit program, which I mentioned in passing in my speech. The Conservative government decided to cancel that and reintroduce it with less money. This program had been assigned $120 million to reduce emissions. The EnerGuide retrofit program included EnerGuide for low income housing. It was designed to help Canadians save energy and money by making their homes and buildings more energy efficient.

There was also a wind power production incentive and renewable power production incentive. The Liberal government set aside $1.8 billion in funding over 15 years for that initiative. There were some other initiatives for sustainable energy and science and technology strategies in budget 2005. Some $200 million was dedicated for that.

When we hear that there was no plan and no moneys put aside, I am not sure what members of the Conservative government are thinking about when they make those statements.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I note the member said that money was set aside for this and that. In fact, when the Conservatives came to government there was no money set aside for any of those things.

I want to bring the issue back to my home province of Manitoba. The Liberal government had promised money for the floodway. Manitoba is deluged from time to time by the flood waters of the Red River, the Assiniboine and other bodies of water. The Liberals were good at promising money. Indeed, they made the promise publicly over and over again.

When the Conservatives came to government, the promise the Liberals had made of cost sharing the floodway, which was a $650 million project, the outstanding money was simply not there despite public assurances by former Treasury Board president, Reg Alcock, that the government was onside.

It took the Conservative government nine months of trying to ensure it had money and not take it out of local infrastructure money. In trying to find the amount of money that I was looking for in terms of the $171 million that was outstanding from the federal government, we could not take it out of local infrastructure money. We had to go to a national infrastructure program. Despite the assurances that the money had been set aside, that money had not been set aside. It simply was not there. We had to identify it.

With regard to the numbers that the member has pointed out, where were the moneys set aside specifically in terms of money that had been appropriated by any budget, a budget that had in fact been passed?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it odd that a Conservative member, a cabinet minister, would ask me a question that is specific to his own riding and how moneys are spent.

In the budget book there are some comparative numbers. I hope, especially since the member is the President of the Treasury Board, he understands where money is being spent. In this budget book there are comparative numbers where the government has said it spent between $130 billion to $140 billion on programs. I am hoping some of that money is accounted for reasonably and there are some controls in place.

I stated that most of the money was committed for programs. I do not think I have to tell the hon. member how that works, but the programs are developed. These are some of the arguments that we hear from the heritage minister when she says that the details for allocating the money for festivals have not been finalized yet and that is why the money cannot be allocated.

I am not sure where the hon. member is going with this, but in answer to his question, the money had been allocated for project green. The criteria on how the money was going to be spent were to be developed with the industry, environmental groups and stakeholders across Canada.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief because I am so surprised that I am actually in agreement with something that one of the government cabinet ministers would say that I really do not quite know what to do. I am in agreement that the Liberal record is not actually anything to crow about.

In particular, I want to take the member back to Bill C-55. I have spoken in the House about how the manufacturing sector in my community is being decimated and I will talk about that again later when I get my own turn to speak. Members will recall that we hoped that at a minimum the Liberal government would address wage and pension protections in cases where companies went bankrupt.

The member will want to speak about the Liberal government's record some more, but the Liberals introduced Bill C-55. The bill did not do enough on pensions but at least the Liberals started to move forward on wage protection. That bill passed through the House. It passed through the Senate. It received royal assent, but when push came to shove, that bill was never proclaimed. Once again the Liberal government let down workers right across the country.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I am going to have to end the question there to allow the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel about 30 seconds or so to respond.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it curious that the NDP is now worried about workers' retirement money when that party was not in favour of the Liberal amendment to no longer tax income trusts. We know that a high percentage of retirement funds and retirees who invest in income trust funds were hit with a $25 billion shot overnight on Halloween. Therefore, the NDP should not be asking questions about the retirement money of Canadians.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to raise a matter that remains extremely contentious about the budget that has yet to be voted on and which presumably will be voted on within a short period of time.

It would not surprise anybody that I am rising on my feet to take this opportunity yet again to express the strongest possible feelings about the betrayal so far, and I underline so far, of the government in the current budget. This is about the promise made in the Atlantic accord which is most important and most advantageous to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and of Nova Scotia. However, it is not missed on all Atlantic Canadians that the impact would affect the whole Atlantic region. The impact of this broken promise, of even the threat of the government cancelling the deal that was sealed in the Atlantic accord, is one that would be felt negatively if the government persists in cancelling the deal, or positively if the Atlantic accord is respected and upheld by the federal government. It is something that would impact on the whole of the Atlantic region.

One might ask why I would raise this yet again today. I have raised it again and again. The other New Democratic Party members from Atlantic Canada have raised it again and again. My leader has done so. A great many people who are in the public domain but not necessarily as partisan as we are have spoken out on the subject and have been of one view, which is that a very definite commitment was made in that accord in 2005. No matter how many different constructions the Prime Minister, the finance minister and the ACOA minister, the so-called political minister for Nova Scotia, put on it, it is actually, by the provisions in this budget, a deal that is broken, period, full stop.

The reason I rise on it again today is, as I have said every other time, it is never too late to fix something that every indication simply reinforces is something that has to be fixed. It has to be fixed because it is immensely important to the people of Atlantic Canada. I think there is some indication that Conservatives are beginning to understand that it needs to be fixed as well. It is seen as an astounding breach of faith, an obscene breaking of a promise that was in black and white, that was sealed in a deal, for which the government can offer no excuse or no acceptable explanation.

One dramatic moment in this saga was the decision of the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley to actually incur the wrath of his party to kick him out for indicating that he would be voting against the budget in its final form unless it fully honoured the Atlantic accord.

I see this as a moment of opportunity, another dramatic moment in this saga. I want to stand in my place and unreservedly thank the Premier of Nova Scotia for coming off the fence. I do not want to say that in a pejorative sense but rather to acknowledge that he made a decision. Holding his nose, he made it clear that he was very unhappy with what this budget did to Nova Scotia and to Atlantic Canada. I do not think any of us could totally fault him for saying that he was going to continue to try from the inside, in the back rooms, in the wheeling and dealing and negotiating back and forth between the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the premier, as well as their senior officials, to see that it is fixed. The premier also signalled, and I noted it here in the House, that he would be making a very different decision if he reached the point that he felt that there was no good faith, that there was no real attempt taking place to move toward a satisfactory resolution of this broken deal. That moment has clearly arrived.

We have made repeated attempts to say to the premier that we want to work across party lines to fix this broken promise. We have pleaded with Nova Scotia politicians of all political stripes to work across jurisdictions to fix this. I respect the fact that Premier MacDonald has now reached the point where he has felt compelled, and I am sure he did not arrive at this lightly, to publicly announce there is no movement or no resolution in sight. The moment has arrived where he recognizes that giving leadership to the people of Nova Scotia, in the tradition of his predecessor, former premier John Hamm, requires and demands he stand up, be counted and make it clear that he is pressing for every Conservative member in the House, representing a constituency in Nova Scotia, to vote against the budget unless it can be fixed.

My plea, once again, to the government and my words to the members on all sides are these. By working together, we can fix this, and it is in everybody's interests to fix this. This is one of those episodes. Some people may say that it is only Atlantic Canada, that they are four provinces, but they do not make up a huge population. They may say that they do not have as many people in all Atlantic Canada, despite the four provinces, as there are in the province of Quebec, or Ontario, or Alberta, or British Columbia. That is true, but we live in a federation. We have four provinces on the Atlantic side of the country that are very upset about this broken promise.

Some of us have hurled some harsh words to say that we understand what is going on. First, we understand that the Prime Minister made a very definite commitment, and he is breaking it with this budget. We understand that the Minister of Finance is aware of that. He is from Ontario. We also understand that there has been a cynical, crass decision made that there are more votes to be courted, as we say in Atlantic Canada, more fish to be fried, by going after the more prosperous and populous provinces where there are more votes. Therefore, the decision was made to throw the Atlantic provinces overboard.

However, that is not good for the federation and it is not good for what plagues this land today, and that is a lot of disillusionment and cynicism about politicians and governments breaking their promises. This is one reason so much appreciation and respect has been expressed, within my own province but across the country, for the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley. He knew he would incur the wrath of his party by standing tall, standing firm, and if necessary, putting himself in that position. Even though he was told he would not be thrown out, within moments of standing up and being counted in the House last week, he was informed by his whip that he was out on his ear. I watched it happen behind the curtain.

The issue is, what needs to happen to fix this? As the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley has said so many times, it is quite simple. Just honour the deal. What is the problem? It is a legal deal. It is a negotiated agreement that has the effect of law, unless the government brings in this final budget measure, which tears it up and throws it away.

As Darrell Dexter, the official opposition leader in Nova Scotia, has again and again proposed that all of us need to pull together, all parties, all elected members, provincially and federally, to say that we stand in unison and in solidarity for the future of Atlantic Canada. To do that, we need to stand together and insist this deal be honoured.

The premier today indicated that he read the statement of the finance minister, which made it perfectly clear that the government was not working to fix it, despite a lot of talk by Conservative members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada, especially by the Nova Scotia Conservatives, who could not bring themselves to stand together with the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley.

Everyone was working hard to fix it, but what kept coming back from the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the officials was there was nothing wrong with what was happening. They have said that the deal is fully honoured by the budget, even though it is perfectly obvious that is not the case. On that side, it really seemed to be a case of one hand clapping.

Now the jig is up and the truth is out. I suppose I should applaud the fact the Minister of Finance saw fit to tell the truth and acknowledge that, as far as he was concerned, for the sake of a few votes, he would not honour this deal. If we turn that around and look at the other side of that coin, what he is really saying is there are more votes to be had in other parts of Canada by throwing this deal overboard.

He wrote an op ed article, and applaud the fact that he actually told the truth. There is no interest and no indication that the government is serious about fixing the deal. In fact, the it does not even consider it a broken deal.

In part, here is what he said in his op ed article, which is a direct quote:

Our government is not in the process of making any side deals for a few extra votes. You cannot run a country on side deals. Equalization has been restored to a principles-based program for the first time in many years. That’s what all premiers asked us to do and that’s what all Canadians expect us to do.

The problem with that is a new equalization formula was brought in and in defiance of the Atlantic accord, the decision was made to bring that after the fact equalization deal down hard on the Atlantic accord, tear it apart and toss it aside.

It is true that the equalization formula is immensely complex and it hard for Canadians to fully understand. Let us be honest, it is hard for every member of Parliament to have a full grasp of all the complexities of that formula. However, what is absolutely clear is the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Nova Scotia Conservative members and all Conservative members in Atlantic Canada, except the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, hope the complexities of the equalization formula are such that Atlantic Canadians, and all Canadians, can be bamboozled into thinking that there is not a problem with the Atlantic accord being tossed overboard. The real problem is that we do not understand the equalization deal.

I think people understand the fundamental principles of the equalization deal. I think they also, with no difficulty whatsoever, can understand what is wrong with this picture. In the process of bringing in an equalization formula in the budget, on which we are about to vote, the government has decided to violate clause 4, which says that notwithstanding any new equalization formulas, the Atlantic accord shall be honoured.

One thing is for sure, no Canadian anywhere, with any sense of fairness, cannot understand what it means to decide to scrap the whole deal, in defiance of clause 4, and clawback funds that it was promised would not happen. Some will say, “There go the four Atlantic premiers, what's their problem”. Let me remind the House that it is not only Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador that have a problem with the budget and with the broken deals.

I will quote directly from an article that appeared this morning in CanWest News Service, which leads me to believe it probably landed in a lot of places across the country. The Premier of Saskatchewan has equally and eloquently argued the case for his province and his constituents province-wide. The premier said that he received a letter from the Prime Minister saying “there will be no more side deals”. Referring to the Minister of Finance's weekend letter saying there would be no deal with Nova Scotia, he said “It's becoming like Alice in Wonderland. It gets curiouser and curiouser”.

The reality is a similar deal was made, a promise was made, on the eve of an election. At the time, a lot of us thought, perhaps a bit cynically, that there was probably not much of a guarantee that the government would honour the deal. However, the government made the commitment in the light of day and in black and white. It is absolutely understandable that the people of Saskatchewan and the premier and the government of Saskatchewan are equally outraged that the Conservative government has ignored the commitment made with respect to the treatment of the revenues from Saskatchewan's resources as well.

What is not understandable is the fact that Conservative members in the House, knowing what the negative impact both economically and politically would be, could entertain the possibility of supporting the budget. This is causing a lot of anguish on the part of a lot of people not just from Atlantic Canada or Saskatchewan, but in all parts of the country. Further than entertaining the possibility of supporting this budget, Conservative members have made it quite clear they have no intentions of standing against the budget. At the end of the day, this causes a serious problem. This feeds into the sense of disillusionment that people feel. It is hard to perhaps imagine the degree of fury, the sense of wrath, being expressed in Atlantic Canada.

I do not think polling is a good basis for making public policy. However, I do think that when a dramatic number of people say they are outraged at what the federal government has done in the budget with respect to the Atlantic accord and promises made to the people of Saskatchewan, that it behooves the government of the day to consider this. All those people cannot be imagining that this is a grievance.

People are surprisingly forgiving, and I say that as a member of a party, which at the federal level, has never made huge breakthroughs. Sometimes it is disappointing that people are so forgiving of governments that break their promises. Again and again this has come up for mention in this debate over the last many months. It is amazing how people are sometimes prepared to be fairly forgiving and how that is sometimes detrimental to other political parties or politicians trying to earn people's confidence and their support and hopefully retain it.

This is very pertinent to the debate today. The last time the Liberal government, in a major shift of policies and with an absolutely devastating budget affecting Atlantic Canada, turned its back on Nova Scotia, the 11 Liberals representing Nova Scotia's interests in the House of Commons were defeated in the 1997 election. None of the members were prepared to stand up against a very harsh, punitive budget. I would have hoped people would have a bit longer memory and not opened the door for some of those very same members to come back in, but that is the democratic process and I accept this.

In wrapping up let me again appeal, through the premier of Nova Scotia, to all politicians of all stripes, provincial and federal, to stand together to get this job done.

What is the job? It is to fix the budget by honouring this simple, straightforward agreement, the Atlantic accord, and honouring the commitment made to the people of Saskatchewan, though not identical but along the same lines. Let us be able at the end of the day to say that Atlantic Canadians and the people of Saskatchewan are not second class citizens, and that this is a government that honours its commitments.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member might want to get her pencil because I have four quick questions and she can write them down. I know that in her speech she outlined how this budget has devastated Atlantic Canada and indeed Saskatchewan, and that is in chaos now for the government. I want to ask questions in regard to other areas.

First, search and rescue planes were high on the agenda of the government. It should have put a contract out. If Canadians are now going to be at risk because of the old planes or if our soldiers die, Canadians will hold all Conservative members accountable. Would the member comment on why that has not gone ahead and what other spending has taken place?

Second, what do the Conservatives have against the north? Why did the government break its only promise to the north which included icebreakers and a northern port? The government got people all excited about a northern port, but that has now disappeared.

Museums across the country are in an uproar today because of insufficient funding. Does this affect the member's riding? Does she have a comment on that?

Finally, does it hurt her riding as much as it does mine that the government cancelled the GST rebate for individual tourists? That has not been reinstated. It is certainly hurting my riding as are other cuts to tourism.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the one thing I would have to do is not so much write down the questions, although I want to say I did and I thank the member for his suggestion, but appeal to the Speaker for more time to answer all the questions.

Let me give the member the short answer; yes, yes, yes and yes. These are all problems. That is the most consistent and shortest answer I have ever given to a question in this House and please let the record show that.

Very specifically and very briefly, before I am cut off by the Speaker, with respect to search and rescue planes, it is an absolute disgrace that the contracts have not been let. Let me say I feel proud when I can stand in my place and mention that the very first press conference that I held, together with my three other New Democrat colleagues in Nova Scotia after we were elected to represent our people in the House of Commons in 1997, was around demanding that the Sea Kings be addressed. This was a very serious issue. I have no hesitation at all about reaffirming the position of our party on the question that has been raised.

Second, with respect to the north and the icebreakers. There could be a whole day's debate on why this is so important. Let me say not everybody makes the connection between the icebreakers and what is happening in the north and climate change, and what is going to happen with respect to Canadian sovereignty in the north. We need to be hearing a lot more about that.

Third, the museums are absolutely a problem. Wendy Lill, the former member from the Dartmouth riding was a huge champion of this. She actually spoke on my behalf when I was required to be here for a budget vote on this issue at a large meeting. We all stand together.

Finally, yes, the GST rebate for individual tourists absolutely should have been retained. It is more serious for some of the smaller areas and the less affluent areas, such as Yukon, the northern territories and the have-not provinces.

But then, what this whole debate is about is whether the government understands that have-not provinces are either going to stay in that status forever or have-not provinces are going to be given the kind of support, the kind of stimulus that will actually allow them to get out of that seemingly permanent entrapment of a have-not province, largely as a result of ill-conceived Tory and Liberal government policies over a very long time.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member of the NDP for her salient comments on the issue of the budget. I would like to know what she thinks about a Nova Scotia MP who represents Central Nova who also happens to be the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the minister responsible for the region of Nova Scotia who said on May 15:

We won't throw a member out of caucus for voting his conscience. There will be no whipping, flipping, hiring or firing on budget votes, as we saw with the Liberal government.

As we know, the member of Parliament for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley did in fact vote against the budget. He did in fact vote his conscience and he was in fact thrown out of the Conservative caucus.

What does she think of the member for Central Nova who said that would not happen and who had the audacity to actually vote in favour of the budget which harms Nova Scotia and the other Atlantic provinces so badly?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is really hard, in response to such a straightforward, sensible question, for me to restrain myself from just letting rip at the member for Central Nova, but I will not take the opportunity to do that this morning, although I have to say there is a problem with the statement made because it clearly was not a spontaneous statement.

It was not one made without consideration. No one can tell me that whipping, flipping, hiring and firing was not a kind of a cute term that was worked into an answer all ready to throw out there in response to the question that would be asked.

I think that in itself was really pretty reprehensible. We are sort of left wondering, actually what does it mean? Does it mean that he actually thought that this expulsion would not take place? In which case he was pretty out of touch with his leader, but it would not be the first time. Did he actually know otherwise and was quite prepared to see a member with that kind of principles, guts and integrity, stand up and vote on the wrong side and then get punished for it? I am not sure how he would think that would be a positive thing.

I want to appeal to the member for Central Nova today and the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's to say that they can yet play a role in fixing this. Their minds have very likely been cleared over the weekend by seeing what is going on in their ridings.

The same is true, not only in Newfoundland and Labrador but Atlantic province-wide. People are furious at this because it is an injury to all of Atlantic Canada.

I want to appeal to the member for Central Nova by saying that he is in the position as the political minister for Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, as the ACOA minister, who understands better than probably anybody else in his riding what the Atlantic regional impact is of this broken promise. I say to him, show some leadership, show some backbone, show some integrity, and if none of those are good enough reasons, show that he is willing to respond to his own constituents and the people of his region in his riding. He should reverse his position and put the pressure on to have this fixed.

At the very least, the hon. member should show that he is prepared to work with--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments? Resuming debate, the hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the member for Scarborough—Rouge River is seeking to rise on a question of privilege at about 1:55, so I am going to cut my comments off so that he will have the opportunity to do that before question period.

First of all, I am absolutely astounded that last week the government put a motion forward that “the question be now put”. In other words, let us close down debate on the budget. It must be understood that Canadians want to know what their parliamentarians have to say about important elements of the budget. We must consider the last round of controversy in this place having to do with the Atlantic accord and indeed not just Atlantic Canada but Saskatchewan as well.

Promises made, promises broken. This is a very disturbing pattern on behalf of the government wanting to shut down debate so that we do not have an opportunity to confirm to Canadians what the facts are. The Auditor General once said Parliamentarians have to have fact-based information on matters related to the taxation of Canadians. There are a number of examples touching on the budget which show frankly that the government has done absolutely everything to frustrate the tabling of factual information it continues to deny. There is no credibility here. There is no trust. The government is trying to shut down debate because it does not want Canadians to know.

When the finance minister did a poll about the budget and asked the question “Are you receiving a benefit from the current budget?” The last time I spoke at an earlier legislative stage of the budget the poll showed that 93% of the respondents said that the budget did not benefit them. What happened the very next day? The finance minister yanked the poll off his website. He did not want Canadians to see exactly what other Canadians were thinking. There has to be something about it when 93% of respondents to the finance minister's website said they would receive no benefit from the budget.

There are some Canadians who not only did not receive a benefit, but they received cuts, serious cuts. I do not have to go into the Atlantic accord or the Saskatchewan agreement. I know what it means to those provinces.

Some hon. members have stood up and laid it on the table and what does the government do? It says that is not the case, they have their choice, they can do this, or this, trying somehow to explain away what the premiers of those provinces have clearly said to the Government of Canada, that it broke its promise, a written agreement. Remember the line “broke your promise”. The Prime Minister, during the last election, put out a piece of literature which said, “There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept”.

I assume that the Prime Minister now is beginning to accept that he has committed a fraud because he has broken a promise. He said he would not raise taxes, but in the first budget he raised taxes. He denies that he raised taxes, but we all know that the taxes on the first tax bracket went from 15% to 15.5%. It is on the tax returns. Conservatives are arguing that the budget implementation did not pass, but every Canadian who filed a tax return for that year knows exactly what the tax rate was on the tax return.

I assume that the tax return provided by the finance minister himself is correct in terms of what the real rate is. So why would the Conservatives come in the House and deny that they raised taxes? It is a fact. They should say they did, but they had to do it to pay for the GST cut that they also promised.

Apparently, the value of the increased taxes that a taxpayer would pay through the increase in the tax rate from 15% to 15.5% on the first bracket works out to $400. Do we know how much we would have to spend to save on or to offset the $400 increase? For that 1% in GST, it would be $40,000. We actually have to spend $40,000 on GST taxable goods and services to save the $400 tax increase.

Who in Canada spends $40,000 on GST taxable goods and services? They are people who buy very expensive cars and houses, the major things. What does this do for someone who is living from paycheque to paycheque? What does it do for someone like that?

Obviously this is a very regressive move that the government has made. I would love to reduce the income taxes of Canadians rather than reduce the GST. It is a fairer way to do it. People who have a lot of money have more disposable income. They have greater latitude and control over what they have to spend it on, but not with regard to GST.

Deny, deny, deny: the credibility is not there. I do not trust the government. I do not believe that Canadians trust the government. Its word is not good. Credibility is the issue. The Atlantic accord shows it.

There is another thing. The Conservatives said they were going to have a good, responsible government that is open and transparent. Let us look at income trusts. My goodness, here is another broken promise.

Let me stop here and simply indicate that the Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors and their president, Mr. Brent Fullard, have been very active in representing the interests of those who are income trust investors. I have to say that I do not agree with absolutely everything that they have said and written. They have been getting very involved in the communications process with members of Parliament.

However, I can tell members that with regard to the broken promise of the government on income trusts they are 100% correct. They have given parliamentarians every opportunity to see that the decision taken to break that promise, to impose a punitive 31.5% tax increase on income trusts, which led to a $25 billion meltdown of the marketplace, means that people who owned income trusts lost $25 billion of their investment value. These are people who were saving for their retirement or who are in retirement. They were depending on the cashflow.

I have to say that this was so enormous that we could not believe it actually happened. I went to the finance committee and participated in the hearings in which the finance minister came before committee to explain the tax leakage. The government was saying that the corporation that pays dividends pays a certain amount of tax and an income trust does not pay any tax so it is awful.

The previous speaker, during private members' business, said that corporations pay taxes and income trusts do not pay taxes. We have to look at the tax burden of everyone involved in that transaction. When the corporation makes money, it pays corporate income tax, yes, and corporations also pay dividends, and those dividends are taxable in the hands of the investor. As well, there is a dividend tax credit to lower the burden of the double taxation. Thus, a corporation and the individual investors pay a certain amount of tax.

Income trusts as an instrument do not. An income trust organization does not pay tax at the so-called corporate level. The earnings are distributed to the investors. It is the investors who pay tax on the full amount at their own personal rate. Someone who already makes an awful lot of money is paying 47% on every distribution from an income trust. There is no corporation that is paying 47% tax to compare it to, so I do not know how the government ever figured this out. In fact, I would bet that the finance minister does not even know how it was figured out, because he could not even explain to the finance committee how he did it.

With regard to the finance minister's presentation, he showed a nice little chart that looked like a kindergarten chart and concluded that there was $500 million of tax leakage in 2006. Over six years, that would be $3 billion; if we multiply that one year by six, we get $3 billion. This is a terrible amount of money that we are losing on tax leakage.

The finance minister was the first to speak. All the people who spoke with him, the people the Conservatives brought in to pat him on the back, were all going on the basis of the information provided by the finance minister himself. However, on the second day, there were witnesses who wanted to bring another perspective to this.

The Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors, CAITI, was there, but there was one I really liked because it raised a very important challenge for all members of Parliament. That was HDR/HLB Decision. Its representatives came before us and said they had worked with the finance department step by step on all of the factors that one would take into account to determine what the leakage was or was not, but they found that there were three or four areas in which the government did something a little different.

Number one was that Parliament passed some legislative changes for tax law effective in 2007 and related to corporate taxation. The finance minister did not include those tax changes in his computations. The calculation is therefore wrong. The finance minister simply should have said that he made a mistake and that he should have incorporated the legislative tax changes in the determination of the tax leakage. Did he do that? No. He is still saying the same stuff. He is denying it. He will not admit it. He is not believable and he is not truthful on these matters.

The Auditor General says we need to have true, full and plain disclosure. We need to have openness so that we can debate these things honestly and make decisions based on information. The finance minister is playing some game with the House. Those are facts. They are not even debatable. This is objectively determinable. Legislative tax changes were not included in his calculation. He made an error. He should admit it and he should change it, but he did not and he will not and the Conservatives are trying to shut down debate because they do not want us to talk about it any more.

The last time I raised this in the House the finance minister was in his place and started to yell at me. He started to shout me down. He wanted me to shut up. That is not the way this place operates. If the finance minister is agitated by the truth, I am sorry, but he should also say that he is sorry for making calculations based on incorrect information.

What else did HDR/HLB bring out? It said the finance department does not include any tax revenue from income trust distributions where the holder of the income trust is a pension plan, an RRSP or a RRIF, a registered retirement income fund. The reason is that when an income trust makes a distribution to a person in a registered retirement savings plan or a pension plan, there are no taxes paid immediately. They are payable only when the money ultimately comes out and passes on to the investor. Thus, the government excluded any revenue component whatsoever with regard to distributions of income trusts to pension plans.

If we take that to its logical extreme, we would say that if every income trust was owned by a pension plan, the Government of Canada, according to the finance minister, receives zero revenue. He never receives a penny from day one to infinity. That is ludicrous. Obviously the money eventually comes. That has to be taken into account and the government did not.

At the finance committee meeting, members would have seen another chart by the minister in which he actually stated that the effective taxation rate of corporate energy companies was 6.2%. In the calculations, the government assumed that it was at the full corporate rate. It did not take into account all of the other machinations by which corporations that are capital spenders, et cetera, can defer taxes on all these other things. There is one other point, which I have forgotten. I think it had to do with exempt investors.

Those are three or four very good examples of where the finance minister's calculation of the tax leakage was erroneous or absolutely had false assumptions. As a consequence, I would say, because I want to finish now to make sure that the member for Scarborough—Rouge River gets his opportunity, that in regard to the income trust thing, I believe the government has made a very serious mistake. Two and a half million Canadians, most of them seniors, have lost $25 billion of their hard-earned savings for retirement.

There is another way to do it. The Liberals have proposed a 10% tax refundable to Canadians so that ultimately the tax is only paid by foreign investors, which is where the major leakage actually occurs and which the finance minister also denies.

I cannot believe this. We need the Auditor General to do a full enquiry into the lack of information and what the truth is with regard to income trusts so that parliamentarians can make the best decision possible.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

As always, Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague.

Speaking of erroneous, he talked about the tax revenue that comes to the government through income trusts. It is just another example of the way he continuously misleads the House. He talks about distributions being 47% taxable at the highest rate. That is just simply not true. Distributions can be in the form of capital gains, dividend interest or return of capital, all of which are taxed differently, and I think the hon. member knows that.

If he does not know that, then his lack of understanding is simply regrettable and leads to misinformation in the House. If he does understand it, and I think he does, then it is a case of deliberately misleading the House, and that is inexcusable. That is a—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry, but I am going to stop the member. There have been a few comments made about members and truthfulness and being deliberately misleading. I did not hear “deliberately misleading” until now and that is definitely an unparliamentary term, so I would ask the hon. member for Edmonton Centre not to use that phrase when describing a colleague.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the unparliamentary language if that is your ruling. I seem to have heard those words in the House otherwise, but I will refrain from using them.

Let us just say, if it is acceptable, that the member lacks some credibility in what he is saying to the House. I wish that he would just simply acknowledge, which I know he will not, that the figure of a $25 billion loss is simply also lacking credibility and was generated by the fearmongering and the inflammatory language from that side of the House and in large part from that member.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member referred to the 47%. I think if he checks the transcripts he will see that I specifically said that if a taxpayer is already at the highest marginal rate and receives an additional distribution from an income trust as income then it is automatically at the highest marginal rate.

The member also mentioned capital gains, so I suppose I could throw this one in as well. The finance minister failed to take into account that if $25 billion of appreciation of investments is wiped off the books, the Government of Canada just lost the capital gains tax on $25 billion or increased the loss for people. One way or another, $25 billion at the capital gains rate also has been lost, which should have been included in the tax leakage calculation and was not.

This is incompetence on behalf of the Government of Canada, particularly the finance department for misleading Canadians and misleading parliamentarians.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask my learned colleague how he would qualify a government led by the Prime Minister, the leader of the Conservative Party-- I cannot call them Tories because they are definitely not Tories--

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Neo-cons.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

--neo-cons--makes a promise with regard to income trusts and clearly breaks it, makes a promise in a signed deal with regard to the Atlantic accord and breaks it, and misleads the House continually on the issues of the Afghan detainees. In fact, the Minister of National Defence had to stand in the House and apologize for misleading the House. I believe he is the only member of cabinet I have actually heard admit to misleading and apologize for it.

I have yet to hear the Prime Minister apologize for breaking a promise to Canadians on income trusts. I have yet to hear the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is also the political minister for Nova Scotia and who represents Central Nova in Nova Scotia, apologize for misleading the House on the budget and the Atlantic accord and voting in favour of breaking the Atlantic accord through that budget, and literally harming thousands of Nova Scotians.

How can the member qualify such a party and such a government? It appears to me that being members of the Conservative government means getting their facts wrong, never admitting that they are wrong and never saying they are sorry when they are wrong about something.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has given the answer in her question.

The thing that keeps coming back to me is that piece of literature from the Prime Minister during the last election in which he said that the greatest fraud was a promise not kept. We cannot take these things lightly. Canadians now are more attentive, more alert and more unforgiving for those who do not apologize when they make mistakes or do not correct errors.

A very strange occurrence happened concurrently with the announcement of the taxation of income trusts which was the announcement that there would be pension income splitting. When we look at the calculations, which I would be happy to table or provide to any member would who like them, only about 12% to 14% of seniors actually have pension plans. Income trusts are an instrument that are meant to emulate pension plans so that people get a reasonable stream of income to pay bills. Therefore, offering pension income splitting to 12% to 14% of seniors who are not income trust holders does not offset the damage that was done to these seniors.

That is why the Liberal Party has promised to include in its platform in the next election, whenever that is, that we will remediate the situation with a 10% tax, ultimately only payable by foreign investors in income trusts. It is estimated that two-thirds of the losses of those seniors will be recouped. I believe that is responsible governing.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has become one of the foremost authorities on parliamentary procedure, history and tradition in this House, he would understand, as I do, that traditionally a budget vote or a vote on the Speech from the Throne are matters of confidence.

However, in this instance we had a senior member of the government, no less than the Minister of Foreign Affairs, somebody who the entire world must trust, must understand and take at his word, stand in this House and say that the budget in this instance would not be a matter of confidence, that members could stand and vote their conscience, that Atlantic ministers, to protect the Atlantic accord, could vote against the budget and that there would be no retribution, no whipping, no flipping, no firing, no expulsion from caucus, that they could remain in the caucus.

However, a few days later, the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, when he had the courage to defend Nova Scotians, did not have time, after he voted against the budget, to make it to the curtains before the member for Central Nova's word was completely broken.

Does he know that as anything else but hypocrisy?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have another situation where the member has given the answer in a question.

It is regrettable when members of the Conservative Party on all of these matters cannot be taken at their word. Credibility in this place is something we, as members of Parliament, all hold very high in terms of protection. Our credibility is what makes us good members of Parliament.

I am sorry that a lot of this has happened but the government is doing it knowingly. What concerns me is that Conservatives do not care whether or not their credibility is damaged.

I see the member for Scarborough—Rouge River is ready to rise.

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 third time and passed, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Mississauga South had three minutes for questions and comments remaining. If there is an hon. member who would like to ask a question of the member for Mississauga South or make a comment, we could do so now.

I see the member for Scarborough—Guildwood rising.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite familiar with this budget bill. I wonder whether he would be prepared to comment on the fact that this bill has taken such a long time to get through the House. It started on March 19 and today is June 11. The government is pulling all kinds of manoeuvres in order to move this budget bill along, having delayed it itself.

I wonder whether this bill is not moving along because this bill has so many victims. The budget has literally two million victims in income trusts. Literally thousands of students are victims of this bill. Something in the order of thousands of business people are upset with the interest deductibility decision. All 26 million tax filers would be somewhat upset with the fact that the base rate is going from 15% to 15.5%.

I wonder whether the hon. member would be prepared to comment that possibly the real reason this bill is not moving anywhere and has not moved forward is that the government has so victimized so many Canadians.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member provided the answer in his question, so if I could take the liberty, I would just make the point that I wanted to include in my speech but ran out of time.

It had to do with pension income splitting and who in fact is getting the benefit. Of seniors, 70% do not have pension plans. They in fact are the ones who primarily invested in income trusts to provide a similar cashflow from income trusts as they would otherwise get if they were a member of a pension plan.

It really is very odd to me that the day that it announced that it was going to break a promise and tax income trusts, the government at the same time somehow also promised that it was going to provide for pension income splitting. In fact, the beneficiaries of income pension income splitting are the people who have pension plans but not the ones who have income trusts.

The government did not mask or alleviate the pain that it inflicted on about two million Canadians who had $25 billion wiped out from their retirement savings.

I think the member is quite right. The government and particularly the finance minister are ready to duck. They want to duck as quickly as possible. They put forward a motion to put the question and to stop debate on this bill. The less we talk about the budget the happier the finance minister is and that ought to tell us something.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have another opportunity to speak at third reading on the budget bill.

The Conservatives, who may be groaning and moaning in their seats as I begin another speech, have only themselves to blame.

Let us go back to this past Friday when they chose to try a very sneaky manoeuvre and invoke a Standing Order that has been used only twice in our history. Standing Order 53 was used in 1964 to send peacekeepers to Cyprus and used in 1977 to deal with an air traffic controllers strike.

They tried this very interesting manoeuvre to bring this process to a close, to have the budget process come to an end. They did not want to debate the budget any more because it is getting far too embarrassing, far too difficult for them to handle the criticism in this place, and to know that in fact momentum is growing across the country against this federal Conservative budget.

What has happened as a result of that initiative, that very peculiar move on Friday is that the government then moved the previous question which allows people like me, who have already spoken on the bill, to speak again.

I guess some would say this is poetic justice. It is the Conservatives hoisted on their own petard. The Conservatives were too clever by half and I apologize to everyone who has to listen to me give another 20 minute speech on the budget, but I have lots of issues that I did not even begin to touch on in previous discourses.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

There is so much here.

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

Yes, as my colleague from Ottawa Centre said, there is much here. We could talk for days. All we wanted in this whole parliamentary process was the ability to put on record the concerns of Canadians.

Indeed, there are many concerns across the country about the federal Conservative budget. We are not trying to hold up the process. We are not trying to be difficult. We are not trying to use any of the rules available to us to hurt democracy and to deny the need for the bill to be passed at some point, but we do want the opportunity to speak.

In fact, if we look at this whole process, as has been said many times in the debate, the Conservatives have had days and weeks to advance the bill and get it through the House.

Is it not interesting that today there is this panic? There is this need to create a crisis in order to get Bill C-52 through, but in fact the Conservatives had 11 days between April 17 and May 11 to actually advance the debate. They had 11 chances to bring this bill forward to debate, so that we could proceed and get it through committee, to report stage and back here for third reading.

Obviously, yes, as my colleague from Ottawa Centre said, it was not important enough at the time. They wanted to hide it as I am told by the member for Windsor--Tecumseh. Yes, there is clearly an attempt on the part of the Conservatives to hide, to bury, and to get rid of any avenues for discussing this budget.

First they tried not calling it, now they are hoisted on their own petard, and are forced to actually hear us out as we thoroughly debate Bill C-52 on third reading.

The developments of the last week have certainly given us a focus for debate and discussion. There is the realization on the part of the premiers of Newfoundland and the premier of Nova Scotia as well as the premier of Saskatchewan that the government in fact has no intention of keeping true to its word of keeping the promise that it made to honour the Atlantic accord and the Saskatchewan agreement.

The debate has now become, out of necessity, one that is dealing with the principle of governments keeping their word.

For too long political parties that have formed government break their promises the first chance they get. It is obvious that when a government breaks its word on something as fundamental as resources, an economic lifeline to regions such as Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, we cannot sit back and ignore it. We simply cannot let the Conservatives make up some justification for breaking their word and giving them the go ahead.

Obviously, the Conservatives who are waving their hands at me are embarrassed by this situation. They should be embarrassed. They ought to give some thought to the cries from people in the Atlantic region and Saskatchewan who want them to reconsider their position and keep their word with respect to the Atlantic accord and the Saskatchewan deal.

There are eons of writings on this issue and a multitude of quotes from members on the Conservative benches in support of the Atlantic accord and the Saskatchewan agreement. Let me quote the Prime Minister from November 16, 2005. He said:

The Prime Minister is also failing Saskatchewan on equalization. The government promised to reform the equalization program in 2004 for Saskatchewan. The government now says it will not get to that until at least 2006, costing Saskatchewan over $750 million in lost revenue. When will the Prime Minister overrule his finance minister and make the changes necessary, so Saskatchewan does not lose this money?

He went on to say on January 12, 2006:

A Conservative government would also support changes to the equalization program to ensure that all provinces and territories have the opportunity to develop their economies and sustain important core social services.

I could go on at great length making reference to all kinds of previous commitments, words, and promises by Conservative members in the context of the issue of fiscal balance and fairness in terms of distribution of wealth in this country.

However, the point has been made amply by the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley. It has certainly been made in the news today by the premier of Nova Scotia, Rodney MacDonald. It has been made very well at the finance committee by the premier of Saskatchewan, Lorne Calvert.

It is time for the Conservative government to begin to listen. We offered a solution. We said from the very beginning that this issue could not be ignored. We said from the beginning that previous promises and commitments could not be ignored. We cannot go back on our word when it comes to economic lifelines.

We asked the Conservatives to honour the agreements and view these accords in terms of ensuring that the provinces have the wherewithal and the means to pursue their provincial economies as they develop their energy resources. It does not mean for all time we must ignore a formula that would look at some variation of what amount of revenue is included from natural resource revenue. It is to say honour the accords and then begin to look at how we move forward in the future.

There is no question that the Conservatives inherited an absolute mess from the Liberal Party. The Liberal government had years to sort out this problem. It refused, as happened with the income trust file. On both counts, they had the evidence and they would not bite the bullet and deal with them.

The Conservatives inherited an absolute mess and that is certainly the case with income trusts. On that issue, the government clearly recognized that it had to act or we would see more tax evasion on the part of corporations and more loss of revenue that would provide important programs for seniors and others.

With respect to fiscal balance and equalization, the case is equally so with the government, and I quote from the Edmonton Sun of a couple of months ago: “Grits Left 'Utter Mess' Books in Disarray After Deals With Provinces, Says Tory Minister”. I agree with that. It was an absolute mess.

There was a chance back in 2004 for the government of the day to build on a consensus achieved by the provinces to put in place a formula that would hold us in good stead for years to come, but the government refused. It refused, out of political expediency and out of a totally messed up sense of priorities in terms of fiscal balance. We have a government that cares more about putting money aside for a rainy day even though it is raining today.

We had a past Liberal government that has a $80 billion of surplus because of unanticipated surpluses caused by lowballing and refusal to forecast accurately. The government accumulated over $80 billion on a most unethical and immoral basis and then decided to put it all against the debt as opposed to deal with the priorities of Canadians.

This is the strange part. The Conservatives are following that pattern, not dealing with this trend line, this pattern of broken promises. Clearly, what is needed is for the Conservatives to have learned from the mistakes of the Liberals and not repeat them.

First, that means not to break its promise when it comes to the Atlantic accord and the Saskatchewan deal. Second, it means to stop the lowballing so we do not have all this unexplained surplus or a surplus that has no demands on it and then allow that to go against the debt without looking at the priorities of the country. Stop playing games with Canadians. That is what we are saying today. Start to put the issues on the table and hear the voices of Canadians.

That would mean, for example, talk about seniors and ensure they are able to live with integrity, decency and security as a reward for having built our country. Do not nickel and dime them. Do not take away the $200 per union it would cost the government to deal with an error by Statistics Canada in the consumer price index.

My colleague, the member for Hamilton Mountain has been saying this for days and weeks. She has been tabling hundreds and hundreds of petitions from seniors who are asking why, when they make a mistake and do not pay government what it is owed, it comes after them in a flash expecting them to pay right away? However, when the government owes them money, why do they have to sit back and take excuses? Why do they have to sign petitions? Why do they have to sue the government? Why is there no justice when it comes to government error in calculations that cause people to lose money that is rightfully theirs?

In this case the money owed to seniors, because of that mistake, is about $1 billion. Why did the government not say it was important to pay the people who built our country that money as opposed to putting $22 billion and more against the debt for a rainy day, when it is raining now on the heads of seniors, when the house is leaking, when many seniors are having a heck of a time trying to make ends meet, trying to find decent accommodation, trying to pay for their drugs, trying to provide for themselves, not having to resort to turning down the heat in winter or skipping medication just to save money?

Is it not raining now? What is wrong with the Conservatives? Do they not see that when there is any kind of despair in the country, any kind of destitution because of government inaction and government callousness, is that not enough for them to put some of that money toward the people who built the country? After all, they are not in poverty because of something they did or did not do. They are in poverty because of either deliberate policies to hurt them, like the failure to acknowledge the error in Statistics Canada and the consumer price index, or errors caused by lack of foresight, vision and planning, like we see with respect to the national pharmacare program or national housing.

Is it not time that we started to put money into those areas that will help ensure people have security now and can contribute to this economy and build for a better future?

That is just one example. Here is another one. Why does the budget refuse to collect $300 million from big oil and gas companies that are getting this subsidy from government to develop the oil sands? Why are we giving subsidies to these giant corporations, which are developing and extracting our natural resources from the ground, including the water, and making huge profits?

That $300 million could have gone some distance to deal with some of the issues we see in our own communities, with concerns coming from seniors, from aboriginal people, from parents trying to find child care. That money could have gone into the economy. It could have built the economy and helped bring down the debt in the long run, and at just as fast a rate as will happen from putting it directly against the debt, $80 billion under the Liberals and $22 billion under the Conservatives, with some foolish little catchy program called a tax back guarantee, which does not mean a hill of beans for Canadians.

It will not mean anything to people struggling, but it would have meant a lot if they had taken at least some of those billions of dollars and invested them in programs that would guarantee some reasonable access to job opportunities in the country. It would guarantee some reasonable means of transportation. We might have put some money against the infrastructure deficit and some money into child care and other programs that support parents trying to juggle work and family responsibilities.

The government says that it has to get this budget bill through immediately. Otherwise it cannot spend money on a number of programs. First, that is nonsense. It knows and Canadians know that when money is in the budget and the budget is passed, it does come to fruition and people can count on that money. That is certainly a given. It is also interesting that the government chose to list a number of initiatives that it felt might not get the money on time as an excuse for ramming the bill through and bringing in rare Standing Orders, like the one I talked about, which has not been used more than twice in the last 30 or 40 years.

The government says that it must have the bill through so it can spend the $1.5 billion for the Canada ecotrust for clean air and climate change. Perhaps it is not such a bad idea that we hold off on expenditures in this area when it does so little to help ordinary people refit or restore their housing so they have heating or other services on a more sustainable basis. Perhaps it would give the government a moment to consider the fact that this program now does not provide any means to low income Canadians to retrofit their houses. Perhaps the government might want to take seriously the proposals for redefining this so-called green energy program to allow for low income households to take advantage of it.

Why do we keep getting from the government programs, tax credits and a scattering and smattering of initiatives that always benefit those at the top end and do nothing to help those at the bottom end? Why do we keep allowing the prosperity gap to widen when it is the role of government to close that gap?

Surely the way to do that is through progressive measures, not things like child tax credits, which give rich families more than low income families, not envirofit programs, which exclude low income Canadians, and not credits for manufacturers, which are meaningless when in fact all the jobs are gone and the plants are closed.

It is time for the government to reconsider its direction and realize it is squandering an important moment and a great opportunity that will build a wonderful country. However, it takes leadership and it takes vision. It takes a government that says that it will balance our fiscal priorities to ensure some money goes against the debt, some money for tax relief for Canadians and some money for those important programs that build a country.

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

Mr. Speaker, not always, but most of the time I have the pleasure of listening to the member for Winnipeg North as we share stories across the table at finance committee. I have listened to a couple of her speeches in the House. Sometimes they are exciting, but not always as exciting.

One thing I heard the member for Winnipeg North say, which astounded me, was that the moneys would go forward anyway.

I find that ironic for her to say that. In May 2004, when the Conservatives were in opposition and were pounding away at a government that was corrupt, a government that had a sponsorship scandal, a government that had done some terrible things to the people in the country, she and her party stood in support of that government. They said that the budget should pass because of what it would do for the homeless, for children, for those unemployed. Today she stands in her place and says that the money will be spent anyway.

I would like to get a clarification from the member for Winnipeg North. Why was it okay to support a corrupt government and its budget of 2005, but it is not okay to support the government's budget in 2007?

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

Perhaps I am mistaken, Mr. Speaker, but is this an offer from the Conservative government to sit down with the New Democratic Party and arrive at an agreement where we see money diverted from tax breaks for corporations and money shunted toward the debt and see it put some of that into programs like housing, education, the environment and health care, as the New Democrats managed to do with the Liberals in the 2005 budget? I would love to sit down and start to work on such a deal.

This is why I made the comments I did. We have not had any success at convincing the Conservatives to change their mind, to sit down with us and develop a reasonable alternative that would include some way to respect the Atlantic accord and ensure that money flows to the creation of child care spaces and not to wealthy families, with a parent at home, that do not need the child care spaces and money to create housing, to improve our infrastructure and to deal with the $60 billion deficit.

I have a shopping list, as long as anyone can imagine, to talk to the Conservatives about, but unfortunately they have refused.

What has happened is the Bloc has agreed to support the Conservatives, prop up the government and give it the votes it needs to get the budget through. I can count, so I know, unless it is true a deal is in the works, the budget will go through and Canadians will be disappointed.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting to listen to the member for Winnipeg North say how she was able, through her party, to negotiate a deal that would help housing, health care, environment and infrastructure with the former government. Before that budget was implemented, her party voted in favour of non-confidence, bringing the government down so the money could not be invested in the valuable things about which she talked.

It causes me to wonder this. Was she interested in doing those things, helping those people, doing the homelessness agenda, doing housing and investing in the environment, or did she want something for the resumé of the New Democratic Party in an election? What was the real interest?

The other question I would ask the member is this. She supported the Minister of Finance faster than he could utter the words “taxing of income trusts”. However, later at the finance meeting she heard from a lifelong member of the New Democratic Party who said that he would not support them again because Tommy Douglas would turn in his grave. She found out that $25 billion to $30 billion of seniors' investments was lost, $10,000 to $15,000 a year for individual seniors, on the premise of lost revenue to the federal government. She found out in evidence that it was the taxation of income trusts that would reduce the revenue to the government, causing increased taxation to the ordinary Canadian.

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

Mr. Speaker, first let me remind the member that the deal the New Democrats were able to wrangle with the Liberal government back in 2005 happened because the budget passed and went on to be implemented.

The member obviously still has sour grapes about the fact that the Liberals could not get their act together to continue to make a minority government work and to deal with other problems that the NDP identified. However, that does not negate the incredible achievement of the New Democrats back in 2005 with $4.6 billion going to valuable programs for Canadians as opposed to corporate tax breaks.

He asked where I would see money going today. Let me name a few. Maybe a few million dollars could go to housing in Winnipeg by ensuring that the Kapyong barracks are not sitting empty and are transformed into housing for people who desperately need it. There is a need for the government to invest in crime prevention programs that make a difference, such as the ambassador program in my own constituency.

I would suggest--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear what the member for Winnipeg North had to say about the plight of seniors. She is absolutely right that this budget did absolutely nothing for the people who built our country.

She pointed out how quick the government is to try to recover money from seniors. If we look at today's Ottawa Sun, the headline is about the government trying to get money back from pensioners. The article states in part:

The federal government is working to recover more than $7 million in public pension overpayments....

The department has appointed a special team to manually review the...files in an effort to recover all the cash.

We have raised in the House over and over again that seniors were shortchanged between 2001 and 2006 as a result of a miscalculation in the consumer price index. Seniors are owed, by our estimates, about $1 billion and by the government's own estimates, perhaps as high as $3 billion.

I wonder if through the hearings in the finance committee, the member got any sense at all about when it is the government is going to stand up for seniors, do right by them and make sure that they are reimbursed the money owed to them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could give my colleague some assurances that the government is in tune to those needs and is ready to act. Unfortunately, there has not been a single indication that the government, just like the previous government, is prepared to address the very serious problems that seniors are facing in this country. It will not take responsibility for the mistakes made at Statistics Canada regarding the consumer price index.

There has been no move on the part of the present government, or the previous one, to live up to a long-standing commitment to ensure some sort of catastrophic drug coverage which would be a great help to seniors.

There has been no move on the part of the government to deal with the failure of the last government when it eradicated the national housing program. There is no commitment to put in place the beginning steps of a reasonable housing program that would deal with the needs of seniors, as well as many others in our society.

This budget is devastating from the point of view of meeting the realities facing many groups in our society. The prosperity gap has actually been made wider as a result of it. That is a scathing comment on any government. If it cannot at least hold the line, what is the point of even being here unless it is to serve the interests of the corporate sector, the big banks and CEOs who are raking in huge amounts of profits and pay and benefits.

Let me conclude by saying those who found the Conservative budget to be contrary to anything fundamental in terms of a civil society include the Caledon Institute of Social Policy, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Toronto mayor, the Climate Action Network, Greenpeace Canada, the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, the National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada, Campaign 2000, which deals with poverty among children, and the list goes on. These are all reputable organizations that feel that the government has failed this country.

Bill C-52--Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to third reading of Bill C-52, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of the proceedings at the said stage.

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 third time and passed, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Third Reading

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the people of my riding of Davenport with respect to the government's 2007 budget. My comments today reflect not only my personal views but the comments that I have heard repeatedly from residents of my community and indeed people across the country.

People have written to me, met with me or called me to discuss their deep concern that the Conservative government is taking us down an uncharted road, a road that leaves most vulnerable Canadians far behind.

Canadians have come to expect both leadership and inclusiveness from their governments. They know that in many respects Canada was built based on the solid leadership of great prime ministers and forward looking governments. These leaders looked beyond the horizon of the day and led our nation to become a country recognized internationally as a model of inclusiveness, innovation, tolerance and opportunity. Canadians also know that while words have power, they must also be supported with action.

It is not enough to speak of the importance of the arts. We must also make sure that the arts have the financial support they need to grow.

It is not enough to deplore the conditions of Canada's aboriginal people. We must also be willing to invest the funds necessary to create justice and fairness.

The true language of leadership is not what one says but what one does. Canadians have heard the Prime Minister's claim of moderation but they have seen the true colours of the government reflected in the budget. It is anything but progressive or moderate.

It is difficult to know which part of the flawed budget to address first because so many groups and priorities have been neglected by the government. I think it is only fitting to begin with those who first called this continent their home, the aboriginal people of Canada.

In 2005 the federal government brokered a historic agreement with aboriginal people and the provinces. Finally we had a federal government that was prepared to take a historic and long overdue step in acknowledging the low standard of living of many first nations people. In Kelowna, British Columbia the former prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, brought everyone to the table and brokered a real solution to the issues facing aboriginal people in this country. The agreement was not about headlines, it was about doing the right thing.

When the current Prime Minister took over the government of this country, he broke the federal government's commitment to aboriginal people and he continues to do that today. The government's budget does not do anything to address the real inequalities and historic injustices faced by Canada's aboriginal people.

Is it any wonder that more and more we are seeing frustrated first nations people resort to desperate measures to express themselves. These are the actions of Canadians who have no other recourse to highlight the deplorable living conditions that face them each day. International humanitarian groups have said that they are looking at setting up aid delivery in our country.

In this nation of plenty where the economy is thriving, why is it that the government insists on leaving aboriginal people behind? Where is the real measurable help for first nations people in the budget?

While speaking of broken agreements with the provinces, let us look at the government's proposed child care plan. Despite what Conservatives like to tell Canadians, the Government of Canada clearly entered into legally binding agreements with the provinces to fund child care spaces across the nation. Many provinces were counting on the money. Canadian families were looking forward to real and affordable child care. Instead, the government abandoned its commitment. Countless studies have shown that not one child care space was created by the Conservative plan, leaving thousands of children without child care.

I want to make it clear that I have heard from people who say that they do not need child care as they have decided and can afford to stay at home. Those fortunate few in our society who would not need a federal child care system are exactly that, the fortunate few. On the other hand, there are countless families that are desperately crying out for child care. The reality is that $100 a month simply will not cover child care for a poor single mother who has the unconscionable choice between not working, which means no income, and leaving her children alone at home.

Canada can do better and we must do better. Sadly, this budget does nothing to effectively deal with this issue. The former Liberal government had a plan. This plan would have worked. Where in this budget do we see any kind of real help for those who need child care in this country? The short answer is that this kind of help is nowhere to be found in this budget.

Young Canadians also needed support as they strive to gain career skills that will propel them successfully into the future. The Government of Canada has historically played a vital role in helping young people get jobs through the summer career placement program pairing them up with community organizations and companies. This was a win-win program for Canada. Students got jobs and skills. Non-profit organizations received enthusiastic, talented workers and Canada invested in its economic future. In the wake of this budget, the Conservative Party has so grossly mismanaged this program that no one can even tell Canadians how much is being spent, how jobs are being awarded and why the government initially denied funding to vulnerable organizations in communities across the country.

Let us hope that these future business leaders of Canada do not take the definition of transparency and accountability from the government's shameful example.

The budget is also sadly lacking in respect to education needs of Canadians. For our nation to remain prosperous, for Canada to remain a leader in the world, we must be on the leading edge of the knowledge economy. Our universities must be training grounds for a generation of leaders. Instead, this budget fails Canada's undergraduate students.

The budget does not put a penny in the pockets of those who need it most. Instead of removing barriers to higher education, the government is content to rest on its laurels, whatever they may be, and wait for Canada to be overtaken by other countries that h have the foresight to invest in their post-secondary students and institutions.

That is not the only place where the Conservatives are abandoning Canada's place on the world stage. The repeated failure of the Conservative government on the environment has been nothing short of unforgiveable. We have now seen not one but two failed environmental plans. We have a Prime Minister who spends his time at the G-8 bragging about his climate change denial, a minister who called climate change a socialist scheme and a climate change policy more comfortable with George Bush's Oval Office than in nations across the world.

There is a gaping hole in the budget when comes to innovative environmental programs. It is nice that the Conservatives are reintroducing the successful Liberal programs it cut but that is not leadership, that is backpedalling.

Our cities are being neglected more and more by the government. It was the previous Liberal government that committed gas tax moneys to Canada's cities. It was a huge step forward. For the first time the federal government was taking a leadership role and recognizing that municipalities are an important level of government badly in need of help.

Our cities are in desperate need of reliable, substantial and consistent federal funding. The Liberals' new deal for cities was a great first step but much more needs to be done. As a former city councillor in Toronto, I know that our municipalities are the front lines in terms of need and services.

A city like Toronto is charged with fighting homelessness, hunger, poverty, infrastructure, public health, public transit, culture and much more. It must have the economic tools to fulfill its obligations to Canadians who live there.

When I asked the government about this last week, all I was heard was rhetoric about maintaining prior commitments. Everyone in Toronto and indeed all major cities in this country know that there is much more to be done. It is time for leadership and no more rhetoric. This budget simply fails Canada's cities.

Among the hardest hit of all by the government's neglect are Canada's poorest citizens. At this time Canada has no minister of housing and no affordable housing plan. Constituents in my riding of Davenport do not need an explanation of why a housing strategy is such a necessary element of a national safety net. They see the need every time they walk down a main street. They see it in their elderly neighbours whose pensions and meagre savings are not sufficient to keep a roof over their heads.

The government has no strategy to help thousands of homeless Canadians. There is no program to help ensure that every man, woman, and child in Canada has a place to call home. This is simply not acceptable.

If the Conservative cabinet ministers cannot see this then I invite them to walk down the streets not five minutes from this Parliament. They will have the opportunity to talk with some people living on the streets. They are Canadians too and they need help. Sadly, this budget ignores--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is always unfortunate that when people are trying to make a valid argument about a point that is important to them in this House of Commons they need to rely on using what I call emotional blackmail.

A number of comments made by the member were completely unfounded. Did none of those problems that the member expounded on today, the homelessness issue and the other issues that he has brought forward, exist under the previous government? I certainly hope that is not what he is trying to make Canadians believe because that would be an absolute falsehood.

This particular government has put a great deal of money and effort into trying to resolve those issues for Canadians. We realize it is a serious issue and it is across this entire nation.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the member was trying to allude to.

In terms of emotional blackmail, does the member actually think that when a member of this House speaks about the homeless situations in our cities, the problems that are faced by poor people who cannot find child care, who cannot find decent housing, that that somehow is emotional blackmail? I would think not. These are important issues that we as parliamentarians have a right to speak to because these are important issues facing our country and our cities.

What I was trying to get at concerns the budget. We have a major surplus, due in large part to the good fiscal management of the Liberal government. The member may not want to believe it but most Canadians do believe that. Because the Liberal Party had good fiscal management for many years, we now need to ensure the investments are appropriate to the right places. I must say that child care is a very important piece of that socio-economic brick that could assist people out of the poverty lines. That is the point I was trying to make.

The government has taken away child care. It does not have a minister of housing. I have not heard one minister yet in this House speak about the importance of housing and homelessness in our cities. Those are the priorities I am talking about but the government has other priorities and they are not the same priorities that I have.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was speaking about child care. My wife and I were eligible for the $100 credit as well. I have not had the opportunity to apply for it because it is so complicated, but it is not about that $100. My parents are living with me in my home, so it is not the child care, it is the early learning that we get. I am spending about $1,000 for early learning for my three year old.

The parliamentary secretary was talking about emotional blackmail, but an association like the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada gives a failing grade to the government on child care. I am sure this association is a very non-partisan group and I would like to ask if the hon. member would like to comment on this association giving a failing grade to the government on child care.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. colleague for the excellent work he has been doing. I agree with him 100%. It is about the importance of early learning and the child care spaces that we need to have in our cities and our communities across the country.

It is one thing to hand out a cheque for $100. Every person would love to have $100. If the government were throwing $100 to every family, that would be fantastic, but it is a question of priorities. How do we set priorities in this country? We do not have an infinite amount of money. We need to ensure that money is properly allocated to programs that alleviate poverty, homelessness and where we can get children into early childhood learning programs.

The only way we can do that, with the amount of money and the budgets that we have, is by making strong investments in child care programs, which is what we were doing. We were doing that in partnership with our cities and in partnership with provincial premiers across this country. That is a very important piece of the pie that the government, unfortunately, has missed out on when it talked about early childhood education.

It is not about just handing $100 to everybody. Some people may even call that buying votes. This is about making investments, an investment in our children, an investment in our communities, and an investment in early learning, which is exactly what our plan had but the government killed it.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my hon. colleague from Newton—North Delta talk about the Child Care Advocacy Association so I thought it would be appropriate to ask him a question.

At last count, we had noticed that the Child Care Advocacy Association had received, I believe, $6 million in funding from the previous Liberal government and yet created zero child care spaces by its own admission. I am curious. When the member refers to the association's strong record on child care, is he is talking about the spending of $6 million on a lobby group?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would not characterize it as a lobby group. The reality is that it is doing incredibly important work.

Child care is an extremely important issue. When Mr. Chrétien was the prime minister and the member for LaSalle—Émard was the minister of finance, we invested incredible amounts of money into the provinces for child care spaces. The provincial government at that time, Mike Harris' Progressive Conservative government, tried to block that money from flowing to the cities. Therefore, we could not create those child spaces in cities like Toronto. About $180 million were given directly to the City of Toronto through the transfers from the federal coffers to the provinces. We could not access that money when I was in city council because the government at that time, the Progressive Conservative government of Mike Harris, refused to transfer that money.

Maybe that is the Conservatives' hidden agenda. If they do not believe in the child care program they should be honest and say that they do not believe in child care spaces, that they do not believe in investing in early learning and child care spaces, that they do not believe in investing in our cities and that they do not believe in investing in housing, in communities and in helping the homeless and the poor in our country. What they are not able to say directly, their programs and their actions clearly indicate exactly where they stand on these issues. They should be honest with their constituents and our people and say quite clearly that they do believe in these programs.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague has a great deal of interest in the issue of undocumented workers. I note that the money for the removal of undocumented workers has been increased to $420 million. I wonder what my colleague would have to say about that because undocumented workers are actually assisting in growing the Canadian economy and without them we could be in a great deal of trouble.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief because I know my hon. colleague, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, wants to get to the second part of the debate.

I would say that the issue of undocumented workers is a big one because it affects thousands of people in communities all across Canada. A motion was passed in the House with unanimous consent that there would be a moratorium. I would hope that the government respects the will of Parliament and has a moratorium on the deportation of undocumented workers.

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

Mr. Speaker, here we are, just one week short of three months since this bill was introduced and we are still debating it, notwithstanding the efforts to pull a sneaky motion on Friday and then the government House leader introducing closure earlier today.

I am wondering why it took the government so long. It possibly has something to do with the lack of popularity of this budget.

It used to be the rule of thumb that if people were still talking about the budget 48 hours after its delivery, then the budget was a failure. By that standard, this budget is a colossal failure.

I only have to point everyone to today's headlines. One states that the Prime Minister “faces growing Atlantic Tory backlash”. It says, “Nova Scotia premier leads charge against federal budget and 'our quiet talks are about to get a whole lot louder'”. The article states: “It is clear the Finance Minister is 'determined to undermine these efforts and undermine our good faith discussions', the Premier said in a telephone interview”.

The next headline states that “Mulroney phoned” the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley “in bid for Tory unity”. That article states that the “Nova Scotia MP [for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley] said Mr. Mulroney called him twice in the days before a second-reading budget vote to see if any accommodation could be reached between the veteran MP and [the] Prime Minister”.

I can pretty well understand why the government does not want this debate to go on for too long. When we have headlines like that, it is not a good day for government, and certainly this is well past the 48 hour cut-off period to determine whether in fact this is or is not a good budget.

What must be very disappointing for the Prime Minister is that this was to be the central piece of his one step-two step lead-up to the election. His first step was to get the premier of Quebec elected and the second step was to have what we could call a goodies budget.

The first step was a bit of a disaster. The premier of Quebec almost lost his seat. The net result was Quebec's first minority government certainly in decades and possibly into the previous century. We have now cumulatively the majority of members who are either full-out separatists or quasi-separatists who are called autonomous, whatever autonomous means. That step one did not exactly come off the way the Prime Minister planned it.

Step two was a goodies budget, so to speak. Instead of being a goodies budget, it has turned out to be a victims budget. The budget has many victims. In fact, I recommend that in the event the government ever gets to deliver another budget it should precede the budget with a victims bill of rights, because when we start counting up the victims this budget has incurred, it gets to be quite extraordinary.

The fundamental rule of budget making is to not make the lives of Canadians worse by delivering a budget. The idea is to actually make their lives better. It is not as if the finance minister did not start out with hordes of cash. He has just declared a $13 billion surplus. He is somewhat reluctant to give credit where credit is due. He appears to prefer to blame the previous 13 years of government mismanagement, but when there is $13 billion in the kitty that is of course all his doing.

Then the finance minister proceeded to victimize literally millions of Canadians and all kinds of people and groups. He started with the premiers. The premier of Newfoundland and Labrador was first out of the box. He was quite eloquent in his declaration that this budget in fact was a fraud on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Next up was the premier of Saskatchewan, who said the promise that was made during the election was that non-renewable resources would not be touched. Now we have the premier of Nova Scotia saying that the quiet discussions “are about to get a whole lot louder”. This is not exactly the way to create a peace in our times budget.

All three premiers have in common a simple understanding that a deal is a deal is a deal. When the Atlantic accords, as they have come to be known, were entered into, that was a deal. It was not a deal that could be changed unilaterally by one side of the partnership. It was simply a deal.

It reminds me of a real estate agent who sells someone a house and two years later says he really did not intend to sell that house but he has a better one to sell. Maybe, just maybe, the premiers and the people of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Saskatchewan think the house they have is perfectly fine, thanks very much, and they do not want the alleged benefit the finance minister is holding out to them.

Indeed, there was an extraordinary event when the premier of Saskatchewan accepted the invitation of the finance committee to appear before it and talk about the budget. It was not a particularly good day for Conservative MPs at the finance committee, particularly those from Saskatchewan, who were in the uncomfortable position of having the premier of their province deconstruct the budget in a fairly precise way. They were left in an unenviable position. In fact, he quoted chapter and verse from the Conservative platform and how the government of Saskatchewan would be affected.

The three premiers plus all of the people of the provinces they represent is one rather large group of victims.

There is another group of victims and those are the income trust folks. Some have said that up to two million people were victimized by the decision of the finance minister and the Prime Minister to reverse their election promise. Not only did they reverse their election promise, but they executed it in such an incompetent fashion that they literally wiped out multiple billions of dollars of hard-earned savings.

I have an email from one of those victims. I do not know this man, but he sends it to me from Ladysmith, B.C. I will withhold his name because it is a bit of an embarrassment to him. He wrote: “Dear John: Thank you for so succinctly stating my situation around the income trust fiasco yesterday in the House of Commons. I personally lost in excess of $100,000 in investments of close to $400,000. More importantly, I have lost it. I can't recoup it now even if the Minister of Finance backed off completely”.

He continues: “I deregistered what was left of my self-directed RRSP and incurred a whopping $36,000 in income tax”.

It gets worse. He goes on: “Part of my investments had been leveraged with a mortgage on my principal residence. In order to service that debt we need to sell our home and relocate in a much more modest home”.

So much for their retirement. I am sure they will be terribly interested in income splitting.

His final paragraph states, “It isn't worth much, I know, to hear a thank you from me, but it's all I can offer you at this time, that and the promise that I and my family will be voting Liberal in the next election”.

That is not exactly the way to win friends and influence people, but it is just so typical of the literally thousands if not millions of people who have been victimized by the decision of the finance minister.

Students have also been loaded on. In my riding last year we received something in the order of $340,000. That $340,000 was spread over 121 students. They were at the West Hill Community Services centre. They were at the University of Toronto, the Scarborough College branch. They were at the East Scarborough Boys & Girls Club. It was not a huge amount of money in the case of each and every one of those people, but it is a terrific resumé builder and a terrific experience for these guys.

We tried to find out what was happening. I sent an email to my staff. I received an email saying that the short answer is that “we'll never know”, that they called so-and-so, who was not answering his phone, and they wanted someone named Vince to explain it to me. The government cannot and will not give us a list. I guess it is easier to shift money around if it is kept a secret. The open and transparent new government sure works in mysterious ways.

Then, of course, we have the interest deductibility decision, with a whole collection of victims.

Mr. Speaker, I see you indicating to me that my time is up, which is really quite a shame because there is such an endless list of victims from one end of the country to another. It really is an unfortunate occurrence that I cannot tell the House about all of these victims.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's story. I did take from his comments one of the interesting points about how a deal is a deal is a deal.

Both he and I worked extremely hard as members of the finance committee in trying to make sure that time was allocated to the opportunity for witnesses to come forward, as the member explained, one of which was the premier of Saskatchewan, and to make sure that ample opportunity was provided for us to listen to what they had to say.

Also, the fact is that from his discussions and mine during the morning, at the end of the day we came to an agreement that the budget in fact would move forward based on what he wanted to make sure was going to happen. He then met with the member for Wascana to make sure that was okay. I did the same.

At the end of the day, I have a question for the member. I certainly am not going to hold the member personally responsible because it was not his decision as to why we are here now, but in fact we did keep our side of the bargain. We made sure they had ample opportunity to get this out. I would like to know from the member why the Liberal Party did not keep to its side of the arrangement.

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

Mr. Speaker, what actually precipitated this deal—and I agree with him that he and I had an understanding which I thought we had worked out in the presence of the House of Commons chair of the finance committee—was frankly the desire on the part of the government to immediately go to clause by clause without the calling of any witnesses whatsoever, which was completely unacceptable to the members of the opposition on the finance committee. That was what precipitated the deal.

Then we actually did work out an arrangement, which as I say was in the presence of the chair of the finance committee, who apparently had taken a leaf out of the secret manual of committee chairs, because when we came back after the break, suddenly the deal that we thought we had worked out, which the hon. member, to his great honour, has acknowledged, was broken there in the presence of the committee. The deal ceased to be a deal and that was really—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

On that note, we will move on to the adjournment debate.

The House resumed from June 11 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 third time and passed, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I will address some comments with respect to the budget bill.

The budget would restore fiscal balance in Canada, cuts taxes for working families, invest in priorities like agriculture, health care, education, infrastructure, the environment and reduce our national debt. It is fair, it is principled and it is good for the long term.

The budget would invest in agriculture, including a $400 million immediate one time payment to address the rising costs of production, a $600 million one time payment to enact a simpler, more responsive income stabilization program for farmers, with a new savings account type program being cost shared on a 60:40 basis with the province, and a $2 billion announcement in new incentives for renewable fuels. All in all, it is a pretty decent budget for all of Canada, and Saskatchewan as well.

The budget is also a historic one in that it acknowledges and addresses the fiscal imbalance by giving $39 billion over seven years to the provinces in additional funding. The provinces now have the additional resources they need to meet their many pressing needs. Each province, including Saskatchewan, would benefit with this transfer.

Federal support for Saskatchewan would be $1.4 billion in 2007-08, including $226 million under the new equalization formula, $756 million under the health care transfer and $342 million for the Canada social transfer that includes additional funding for post-secondary education and child care and $75 million for infrastructure. In total, budget 2007 would provide the residents of Saskatchewan with over $800 million in new money.

It is in this context that the equalization formula and the amount payable to Saskatchewan under it should be viewed. The purpose of equalization is a not a permanent entitlement, nor should it be. As a province's economic fortunes improve, its equalization payments will decline. Conversely, as a province's economic fortunes decline, its equalization payments will increase.

The current formula, as requested by many provinces, includes a higher equalization standard of 10 provinces. A province like Saskatchewan would get the greater of the amount it would receive by fully excluding natural resources under one option or by including 50% of natural resource revenues under another option. Should Saskatchewan's economy, economic fortunes, resource revenues or production levels decline, equalization payments would continue where 100% of natural resources would be excluded.

The fiscal capacity cap would ensure a receiving province would not end up with a fiscal capacity higher than a non-receiving province. That is how equalization should work. Obviously, one would always like an even better and more substantial deal under equalization, but one has to take into account the context of the need for a principle based approach and the overall amount a province like Saskatchewan receives as well as the benefits flowing to Saskatchewan by virtue of the many provisions in the budget. Saskatchewan has received the largest per capita gains of any province under the fiscal balance package in 2007-08.

The budget contains many more provisions. For example, farmers and small businesses would benefit from an increase in the lifetime capital gains exemption, from $500,000 to $750,000. Manufacturing and processing firms would benefit from a two year 50% straight line write-off for investment in machinery and equipment. All of us would benefit from the tax back guarantee, where money saved from paying less interest on the debt results in personal tax reductions.

Our government has allocated $22.4 billion to our national debt in just two years. With these payments alone, the government will save $1.1 billion in interest payments in 2007-08 and nearly $1.3 billion in 2008-09, all of which will go toward tax reduction.

There are more things I want to say about equalization, but I want to highlight what I call the height of hypocrisy. All things must be taken in their proper context. I know there is great temptation to dumb down complicated issues to single issues and to focus exclusively on those issues.

The equalization issue falls within the context of the budget and is not a stand-alone document. Its purpose is to ensure that the provinces that have not are helped by those that have, so Canadians across our great country can generally expect comparable or the same types of programs and services regardless of where they live. There is, by nature, a give and take in that process, with the best interests of all Canadians at stake, which by its nature requires some movement and some give and take for the benefit of all.

First and foremost, the promise was to fix the fiscal imbalance and to get things in proper alignment to ensure the provinces could meet their provincial obligations, and equalization was part of that. Many, myself included, have argued for, and quite vociferously I might add, for the exclusion of all non-renewable resources from the equalization formula. Why? Simply put, it would mean more money. Everyone wants more money.

I have always said that one should try to substantially achieve the goal of exclusion and do everything possible to that end, but in the end a fair and equitable solution must be found to balance that interest with the good of all of Canada.

As hard as that may seem, the approach is broader, it is bigger than any one province or any one premier or any one reporter or news media for that matter. For the Randy Burtons and Murray Mandryks of this world, who see the issue in isolation of all the facts and out of the context of decision-making, perhaps they should look beyond their very narrow focus. Where were they, the Premier of Saskatchewan and the member for Wascana when the previous equalization formula was in play?

Saskatchewan lost billions of dollars while the member for Wascana was finance minister, including a time when the current Premier of Saskatchewan was watching from the sidelines. The member for Wascana will say that he delivered $700 million, but what he forgets to say is that Saskatchewan lost billions right under his nose and he did nothing about it. In fact, as one expert indicated, $1.08 for every $1 of oil that left Saskatchewan was lost, and in some cases more.

Where was the member for Wascana when the Atlantic accord was being signed by the previous Liberal government? Why was he not making a similar deal for Saskatchewan? It is the height of hypocrisy for him now to say that he would do it differently. Thirteen years of evidence shows differently. In fact, the member for Wascana put together the expert panel, resulting in the O'Brien report. For him to suggest he would have done anything other than accept the report, is utter nonsense, totally unbelievable and the height of hypocrisy. Saskatchewan will not be fooled. It would be far worse under the previous Liberal government and the unamended O'Brien report, which the member for Wascana would surely have accepted.

For the moment, Saskatchewan's economy is hot. We are doing well, despite any financial mismanagement. I know the premier would like to get his fingers on more money, not to develop Saskatchewan but to try and win an election he cannot win. It is interesting to note that the premier, along with the member for Wascana, sat on their backsides while the Atlantic accord was signed and made no noise until after the fact. Let us be frank.

The formula is taking place within the context of a budget vote. One has to take it in that context. Would one be prepared to vote against the government and have an election call? The hypocritical member for Wascana, including the Leader of the Opposition, along with all of their members would run, with their tails between their legs, rather than vote down the budget and call an election.

Only when they knew there were sufficient numbers for the budget to pass, did they decide to vote against the budget, with all the rhetoric that goes with it. They know that and so does everybody in the House. That includes their NDP cousins, who blow hot and cold, both blowing and sucking at the same time, on the equalization issue. Yes, they with their Manitoba cousins are saying that oil and gas should be included. Yes, they with their Saskatchewan cousins are saying that oil and gas should be excluded. All things to all people, but hypocritical as well.

Where is the spirit of nation-building? Where is the spirit of nationhood, where one goes against his or her better interests to ensure that nationhood works? It is called something simple. It is called greed. Give me, give me, but not if it costs me something.

We should be developing Saskatchewan and its resources. We should be growing our province so we can help others, so we can produce income and wealth. We should not be standing on a street corner with cap in hand looking for a handout. The current premier is trying to weasel a win for himself and he will go to long lengths to do it.

We are moving in a new direction in Saskatchewan. We have a new vision. We will not only become self-sufficient, but we will be leaders in our country and, in some instances, in the world.

This week the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Natural Resources and the chair of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology will visit my constituency. Weyburn, Saskatchewan has the world's largest CO₂ storage project. Estevan is the proposed site of the world's first zero emission coal-fired power plant. Midale, Saskatchewan, in the oil patch, has some of the most enhanced oil recovery technology that exists in the world.

It is time for the Premier of Saskatchewan to get on with the program and quit whining. Even Janice MacKinnon of the previous NDP government indicated that we needed a principled approach in equalization and that any side deals, in the kinds that were accorded, were done with an end in mind that was not helpful to the good of nationhood.

Our premier asked for an equivalent formula where oil and gas was included under the five province average. From what has happened in Atlantic, a 10 province average may it even make that better. That is what the equalization formula has. Yes, it has a cap, but it is for the purpose to ensure that those that contribute to equalization do not have a lower fiscal capacity than those that receive.

This is the way it should work. It is a matter of ensuring that all Canadians receive the benefits of similar programming.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little distressed to hear the members running against the premiers of their provinces. I cannot understand it. It seems like the neo-Conservative government is set to pick a fight with the provinces. That is not the way to run the federation.

My question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is this. He very well knows that hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers are in Canada. If we add up the totality of their numbers, it is anywhere from 200,000 to 500,000.

The House has very clearly expressed its wish to have a moratorium on deportation of undocumented workers who are assisting in our economy. I notice the government has increased the funding for removals by $120 million.

When we consider that its actions of having created a crisis in the Immigration and Refugee Board, we have a huge shortage of adjudicators in the immigration appeal division. This means we have thousands of criminals who have status in our country. The government is trying to deport them, but that deportation cannot happen.

Why go after in increased funding for getting rid of undocumented workers who assist in the economy and not do what the citizenship and immigration committee said, which is putting a moratorium on undocumented worker deportations and at the same time focus on getting rid of the criminals, which the government should be doing?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue on my line of the height of hypocrisy. The previous government, of which the member was a part, deported over 100,000 undocumented workers under its watch, under its nose, and did nothing.

We have put $307 million to integrate settlements of immigrants. We have also put new programs in place to allow temporary foreign workers and skilled people to come in to Canada legitimately. We are doing an extensive study in that regard.

Insofar as the adjudicators are concerned, they will be in place before long, and the member needs to stay and watch.

However, I want to make this point. The height of hypocrisy the member raises in that area equally applies to the member for Wascana. During his tenure, if he had the equalization formula in place of which I speak, Saskatchewan would have received an additional $5.2 billion that it had not received over all the years he was finance minister, in those 13 years—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Further questions and comments, the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about hypocrisy. Could he explain to the House the hypocrisy of the government and also his personal hypocrisy, when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I am sorry. You cannot refer to people's personal hypocrisy. You can refer to the government. You can accuse the collective of all kinds of things, but it is unparliamentary to accuse any member of being a hypocrite.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week the member voted and spoke against allowing people to come from areas under strife and natural disasters. A protocol was set by the Liberal government, especially after the tsunami and after the earthquake, to expedite family class, as well as spouses, parents and grandparents to come into Canada. The member, who is a member of the government, voted against the committee's recommendation.

I wonder if the member could explain the hypocrisy of the government and certainly the hypocrisy of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration which is going down that route right now.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it does not have very much to do with that but it does indicate the height of the hypocrisy of the previous government. We have to take things in context. When we look at the dissenting report that was made, it explains itself quite well. I would encourage the member to read it and take things in proper context, as should be the case with the equalization formula within Bill C-52 be taken into account.

In fact, if the government were to go down on a confidence vote, that member and all other members would be running from the House ensuring that the government did not go down because they cannot face an election. They are afraid to do that and we need to take this in the full context of where it is. We will be supporting the budget and the government because we have confidence in it. It will change the direction of this country and it will change it for the better. Canada will not be any worse off, as it would have been under the previous government.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Hopefully we have heard enough about hypocrisy from both sides of the House. We will resume debate with the hon. member for Markham—Unionville.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus a bit on the process. Some of the members may know that on June 5 the government issued a press release on its website entitled, “Liberal obstruction could hurt families, taxpayers”. The first sentence read that with just a few weeks left before Parliament rises “for the summer, obstructionist tactics being employed by [the Liberals]...could result in the loss of billions of dollars...”.

Mysteriously, that press release was taken off the website after it was pointed out by our side that it was the government that had obstructed and delayed the passage of Bill C-52 in a matter of weeks.

I wanted to put that on the record and go through a quick timetable to demonstrate the point that it was far from the Liberals obstructing the passage of this bill. It was the government side, which, presumably, is why it took down the press release from its website after it had been up there for a very short time.

First, on March 19 the budget was finally tabled in the House, much later than most budgets but, coincidentally, only seven days before the Quebec election. The first delay was to produce a budget that was so terribly late by the standards of most years.

March 20 to March 23, the usual four days of debate occurred on the budget document, which is perfectly normal. On March 29, the budget implementation bill was tabled in the House of Commons. March 30 to April 23, the budget was debated at second reading on four out of six sitting days. The time span here includes a two week parliamentary break, which is also normal.

We now come to a real abnormality. Between April 24 and May 11, the Conservatives took the unprecedented step of removing Bill C-52 from the legislative agenda for 15 consecutive sitting days, three weeks in total. That was the only significant delay the budget experienced and it was 100% the fault of the Prime Minister, his government House leader and his government.

We have asked on a number of occasions, and I believe the House leader asked the finance minister earlier today, for an explanation of the three weeks in a row, the 15 consecutive days, during which the government simply yanked the budget bill out of the legislative process. We have not had any answer at all.

Therefore, if there is one reason for a significant delay in this budget bill and a significant delay in getting all that money out to Canadians, it is not on this side of the House. It is a combination of a super late budget in the first place and those 15 consecutive sitting days.

I will continue on with the chronology. On May 14 and May 15, the budget was finally brought back for second reading and was passed in short order. May 16 to May 30, the members of the finance committee sat extra hours outside their usual meeting time in order to pass the budget through committee stage as quickly as possible. They met on five of the next possible sitting days and got the budget through. June 4 and June 5, the government's own report stage amendments were debated and voted on. From June 7 to today, June 12, we are currently on the fourth day of the third reading debate.

I have gone through the full chronology and I would simply say that it is incontestable that the two delays of this budget were from that side of the House and that in other respects this budget bill has moved expeditiously through the various stages of committee hearings.

In terms of the substance of the budget, I would like to quickly summarize the points I have made in previous remarks on this budget. For me it is really summed up with the two words “incompetence” and “dishonesty”. I think those two forces interplay with each other in a number of aspects of this budget.

On the first of those, one has to cast one's mind back a number of years when the Minister of Finance was a senior member of the Ontario government and at that time the Ontario government ran on a platform of a balanced budget.

Lo and behold, after that government lost and the auditors came in, they found there was a deficit of $5.6 billion. For a government to run on what turned out to be a $5.6 billion deficit is not only fiscally incompetent, but it is also dishonest to pretend to be running on a balanced budget when it is not.

I would give a second example. it was clear to every Canadian who paid income tax that budget 2006 contained an increase in income tax. Again, that is incompetent because there is not an economist on the planet and I think very few Canadian taxpayers who would prefer an income tax hike to get a penny off the price of a cup of coffee. It is also dishonest when the government continues to repeat that this is an income tax cut when everybody knows, all the journalists and all taxpayers, that it is absolutely incorrect. The government makes that statement not once, not twice but interminably.

The third example is the equalization. Here we have the spectacle of that famous statement by the Minister of Finance to the effect that the long, tiresome era of bickering between federal and provincial governments is over. It lasted about 30 minutes until he was red in the face in a debate with the Newfoundland premier on television, and it continues to this day, which is perhaps day 80 or something thereabouts of the budget debate, whereas it is well-known that a good budget and a successful budget is out of the news cycle in three days, and here we are on something in the order of day 80 and it is not even clear whether another member from Nova Scotia may vote against the budget today.

Here are blatantly broken promises to the Government of Nova Scotia, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and to the Government of Saskatchewan. For all the words of the member from Saskatchewan who preceded me, he essentially ignored the only relevant point, which is that the government blatantly broke a promise to the people of Saskatchewan. One wonders why there is not even one Conservative member from Saskatchewan who would stand and vote against the budget on behalf of his or her constituents, as did at least one and possibly more members from Nova Scotia.

On interest deductibility, we have gross incompetence of a finance minister entirely out of his depth. The incompetence became clear and he withdrew, but he withdrew in an incompetent manner because he focused on double dipping when all the experts are in agreement that the real issue is something called debt dumping. Not only that, but the manner in which he withdrew he alleged that only he had read the budget properly and all of those tax experts out there, whose job is to read and to analyze budgets, had in fact got it wrong. Again, here is a case of incompetence but not even a willingness to admit that any error was made.

Finally, the mother of all broken promises is income trusts. Again, we have seen a comedy of errors, a comedy of unintended consequences in terms of not just a broken promise, but a grossly incompetent execution of that broken promise.

In conclusion, I would simply reiterate that we on the Liberal side will be very proud and happy to vote against the budget. We certainly have not given up on the income trust issue. It will be an election issue in the next election, whenever that may be, and we are confident of victory. We will bring a sensible income trust policy to Canada and significant relief to those hundreds of thousands of Canadians who took the Prime Minister at his word and, as a consequence, lost some $25 billion of their hard-earned savings.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment and maybe correct the record a little bit. The member who spoke said that the Liberals were so interested in seeing this bill pass and that we are creating obstacles.

I want to remind him that between the calling of Bill C-52 at second reading on April 23 and May 4, we debated the Excise Tax Act, we debated the senate consultations, we debated the firearms offences, we debated the age of consent, and we debated dangerous offenders. We had the Liberal opposition day on residential schools. We had the NDP opposition day on Afghanistan. We had the Bloc opposition day on greenhouse gases.

After the bill was introduced on March 30, for four consecutive days the Liberals had all the time and spoke relentlessly. For four full days the debates were ongoing. As most government bills do, we allowed them to debate the bill for four full days.

How can he say that they showed signs of passing this bill when in fact they showed no signs? They were always creating obstacles in debating this very important budget bill. I would like the member to comment on where he is coming from.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if we on the opposition side are supposed to express deep gratitude to the government for deigning to allow us four days of debate on the budget. This is standard parliamentary practice, so that involved no delay whatsoever. Four days of debate are perfectly normal, standard practice.

As I mentioned in my speech, if there is any delay in getting money out to Canadians, those two delays are the government's fault. First, it is extraordinarily late to have a budget in this House as late as March 19. If we look back over the years, budgets have almost always been substantially earlier than that. Second, there were 15 consecutive days between April 24 and May 11 when the government simply yanked the budget off the agenda.

Those are measured in weeks and many days. Those are the sources of delay and nothing the hon. said that I could fathom would suggest in any way that the opposition was guilty of any delay.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to my colleague when he speaks. He is a man of great pedigree when it comes to financial matters and he uses that well in this House. I agree with everything he said except I have one little issue.

He said the mother of all betrayals was the income trusts. That was a huge one, but members will have to forgive me, particularly this week, if I suggest the mother of all betrayals was the Atlantic accord. However, there are lots of broken promises with this government, including the income trusts and Atlantic accord.

He talked about incompetence. I would also add regifting of successful Liberal initiatives. If there is one thing we have seen that the government cannot stand, it is programs that work if they have a Liberal pedigree, programs such as EnerGuide and I am not sure if my hon. colleague followed the summer jobs fiasco. Last week we had the officials at the HRDC committee who admitted that the program has been badly mismanaged and botched up.

We had the spectacle of organizations like the Autism Society of Nova Scotia, diabetes and cancer groups, boys and girls clubs, and youth and recreation groups, all being told they did not qualify. Some of them got 19 or 20 out of 70. Lo and behold, when the opposition, primarily the Liberal opposition but lots of opposition said, “Wait a second, that is crazy”, somebody turned the light on. I wonder if he has any thoughts on that. And could it possibly get any worse with these guys?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very wise comments and I would like to just acknowledge that I think he is probably the most knowledgeable person in this chamber on the subject of post-secondary education. He has brought much light to this subject when confronted with those forces of darkness that sit across the way. I guess, at least for this week, I would concede that the Atlantic accord is the number one betrayal. Perhaps when we get into the summer and the fall, we will put it on an equal footing as equal mothers of all betrayals--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

The hon. member for West Nova is rising on a point of order.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing a very important matter here. As you have heard, there is great consternation in Atlantic Canada and people are nervous about this betrayal on the accord. I think it is a very important matter and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to seek quorum.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I thank the hon. member for West Nova. We have quorum.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Kildonan--St. Paul.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on this budget that is so important to Canada and so important to my riding of Kildonan—St. Paul and indeed to Manitobans.

Our budget will reduce the tax burdens on working families, and this budget will protect our environment and modernize our health care system. This is a very important budget that has to be passed by the end of this month. I must say that this government will provide equal treatment to Canadians and this is what this budget delivers.

Through budget 2007 we are providing the provinces and territories with well over $39 billion in additional funding to restore fiscal balance in Canada. We are returning equalization to our principled, formula-based program. I would like to take a moment to talk about how this does apply to my province of Manitoba.

Restoring the fiscal balance will provide Manitobans with $3.1 billion in 2007-08 and this includes $1.8 billion under the new equalization system. It will provide Manitobans with $807 million under the Canada health transfer. It will also provide Manitobans with $350 million for Canada social transfers including additional funding for post-secondary education and child care, and $83 million for infrastructure.

I would like to ask my fellow members of Parliament and the opposition to support Manitoba. I would encourage them to listen to Manitobans. Even the premier of Manitoba said this federal budget contains good news for our province and I would encourage the NDP members from Manitoba to do what is right for the people of Manitoba and support this important budget.

The NDP premier of Manitoba said, “So, I actually think the compromise is supportable by Manitoba. I think that it is difficult to get 13 separate leaders of provinces to agree on a perfect solution. And I think the consensus in the report that was produced by the former Liberal government, acted upon by [the] Prime Minister, is the appropriate way to go. And it treats hydro at least equally to oil and gas. And from that perspective I disagree with the member from Nova Scotia and his position, and I agree with [the] Prime Minister in his position”.

Here in the House we have NDP members of Parliament who are opposing this budget and complaining about it. The fact of the matter is the NDP premier of our province fully supports it. It is obvious that we have to look at what this does for our province.

We believe that paying down the national debt is important for Canadians and our government is lowering our national mortgage by $9.2 billion on top of the $13.2 billion we have put against the debt since elected. This is equivalent to $700 in debt relief for every individual Canadian. Through our tax back guarantee, lower debt will mean lower interest payments which will mean lower taxes. This is a good start because we believe as a government that Canadians pay too much tax.

In my riding of Kildonan—St. Paul parents struggle daily with the challenge of raising a family. With higher costs of living, housing and energy, it is not easy. We need to make it more affordable for people to have children and to raise them. As a result we have created a working families tax plan and that is important to families all across our nation.

It has four components. First, for families with children it includes a brand new $2,000 per child tax credit for children under age 18. That will help families get ahead. This will save families in Manitoba $54.1 million.

Second, we are ending the marriage penalty through an increase of the spousal and dependant amounts to the same level as the basic personal amount to provide up to $209 of tax relief to a supporting spouse or single taxpayer supporting a child or relative, saving Manitoba residents an estimated $8.4 million. This is a lot of money.

Third, we are helping parents save for their children's education by strengthening the RESP program. As the mother of six children all of whom have gone through university, I know what this means to Canadian families and to Manitobans.

Fourth, we are helping seniors by raising the age limit for RPPs and RRSPs to 71 from 69 years to save Manitoban taxpayers $1 million. This is getting direct results for hard-working Canadians.

Welfare is a difficult situation many Canadians face. Too many people feel trapped on welfare. A single mother with one child who takes a low income job can lose almost 80 cents of each dollar she earns because of higher taxes and reduced benefits for drug and dental coverage.

To help people get over this welfare wall, we are investing more than $550 million a year to establish a working income tax benefit. This measure will help remove barriers that discourage people from enjoying the dignity and independence that comes with a job. This new working income tax benefit of up to $500 for individuals and $1,000 for families will reward work. It will strengthen incentives to work and will benefit Manitoba workers to the tune of $18.9 million.

I would like to remind the member for Winnipeg North what she said about the working income tax benefit. She said:

It's an important program that goes in the right direction.

I would hope that this means she will be supporting this initiative and supporting the budget. This budget is very important. It has to be passed by the end of the month or a lot of people will miss out.

The budget includes a new long term plan for infrastructure that delivers $33 billion over the next seven years. There is an estimated $17.6 billion in base funding which consists of the gas tax fund and the increase from 57.1% to 100% in the rebate that municipalities receive for the goods and services tax they paid in 2007-08.

Base funding for Manitoba is forecast to be $46 million. The Government of Canada is providing $26.8 million of gas tax funding for municipalities in Manitoba in 2007-08. This is very important to Manitobans. There have been so many plans in terms of the infrastructure advantage from this government that really benefit Manitoba.

Manitoba will benefit from the enriched $1 billion Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor initiative. The Red River floodway is very important to the province of Manitoba and in preventing the flooding of the city of Winnipeg. There is a recent federal commitment of $170.5 million to complete the expansion of the Red River floodway. This will enhance the level of protection enjoyed by the residents of the city of Winnipeg. Members will remember that there was a very big flood a few years back which threatened the whole city.

Preserving and protecting our environment is a priority for our government. We have made tremendous strides in this budget.

In order to protect Lake Winnipeg, the Red River and other Manitoba rivers we are establishing a new national water strategy. It is all centred on the budget that needs to be passed by the end of June. This national water strategy will improve municipal sewer and water facilities.

The new Canada ecotrust for clean air and climate change will provide support to those provinces and territories that identify major projects, as we have done in Manitoba, that will result in real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants. Canada's new government intends to provide Manitoba with almost $54 million through this initiative. Water quality in Lake Winnipeg has deteriorated. This budget will provide $7 million over the next two years to Environment Canada in our province.

Unless Bill C-52, the budget implementation act, is passed in the House of Commons and Senate by June 30, the critical funding for Manitoba and for my constituency will be lost.

When elementary schools, such as Bird's Hill School or Maple Leaf School in my riding, write letters about their concern for the environment, how would I explain to students, our country's future leaders, that $54 million to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution was lost because opposition parties in the House of Commons voted against the bill? At my next seniors round table discussion at Donwood South or Carriage House North when one of my constituents asks why parliamentarians gave up $27.9 million to help reduce patient wait times in Manitoba, how would I explain that?

Without that funding, how do I explain that we are working toward ensuring that all Canadians receive essential medical treatment within clinically acceptable wait times? And what about the over $21 million for labour market training? All this money will be lost. It is critical that the games in this House of Commons stop and that the opposition parties get on board.

The population in my province of Manitoba is waiting for this budget to pass. They look forward to the passage of this budget. The future of this budget is in the hands of parliamentarians here today on Parliament Hill. It behooves us to be responsible and pass this budget and see that Manitobans get that money.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in this shortened debate. I guess I am privileged to speak to the budget, no thanks to the Bloc members. Over the years when it has been in their interests, they have always spoken against closure and here they are supporting closure. I find that to be rather self-centred.

Yesterday I was amused to listen to the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca castigate me for supporting political games on the budget. We should consider that against what the Conservatives have been pulling in the House, particularly their little stunt last Friday.

If the member is looking for examples of bad news, I suggest he should talk about the Conservatives' treatment of Atlantic Canada. He might also talk about his support for the Conservative climate change plan which exempts the tar sands in his own riding from meeting the air emission standards that are so desperately needed in that part of the country. That to me is a real example of how a member is not supporting his constituency. The hon. member's statement yesterday was like much of what we hear from the government, not the complete story.

I am opposed to this budget as a whole, both as a Canadian and a northerner. My opposition is based on the fact that average Canadians do not get much help in the budget. My opposition is based on the fact that aboriginal people do not get much help in the budget. My opposition is based on the fact that it is an incomplete deal for northerners in the budget. My opposition is based on the fact that only large corporations really get help in the budget.

By taxing average Canadians to death while allowing their corporate friends to pay less and less tax, the Conservatives, like the Liberals before them, have ended up sucking an extra $14 billion from the pockets of Canadians. They have dedicated $9 billion of that to debt repayment even though Canada has the lowest national debt of any of the G-7 countries.

Our economy continues to produce good numbers resulting in huge government revenues largely by increasing the tax burden on ordinary Canadians. Working Canadians have paid over the last decade to put the government's fiscal house in order. That job is done and the benefits should flow back to average Canadians.

The numbers are staggering. We have the opportunity now not to increase the prosperity gap as has been going on for the last 15 years, but to bring it back to the way it was in the past where the middle class, the average Canadian, had a much better chance of success in this country.

The Conservatives say that the budget returns benefits across the country. They point to the revamped funding formula provided to the three territories this year, the so-called fiscal rebalancing. To be honest, the new formula funding arrangement is better than the formula imposed by the Liberals. I am glad to see the base amount has been increased so we are no longer using 1985 numbers. I am glad to see a more fair system for calculation of the formulas being used, unlike the perverse system imposed by past governments, but I am concerned that the new formula still uses population in its calculation. Multiplying the average southern cost of a program or service by the territories' population does not reflect the real cost for the provision of that service in the north.

The government as well has agreed to raise the NWT borrowing limit from $300 million to $500 million, a move that was long overdue and was really essential in providing just the basic tools for our territorial government to operate. Our present borrowing limit is strained with utility and mortgage debt. In reality the capitalization costs in western Canada have almost doubled in the last five years. This amount still remains inadequate for what the north has ahead of it with the scale of development potential.

Yesterday the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca went on and on about how I was delaying a one time payment of $54 million to our territorial government. This amount is simply an accounting correction, what in business is referred to as a credit note. The amount that the new formula increased the actual transfer of funds is listed in the budget, $10 million over what would have happened. We can see that the amounts are not that generous or that significant.

To northerners, there are many things missing in the budget. For starters, where is relief for northerners from the high cost of living? For some time we have been calling for an increase in the northern residents tax deduction. When I asked over a month ago whether the government would bring some tax fairness to the people of the north, this was the response by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development:

At this point we are focused on economic development in the north. That is the key to create jobs and employment opportunities. There is the Mackenzie Valley pipeline in particular and the $500 million socio-economic fund.

Creating jobs that cannot be filled by northerners does not help the working families of the north one little bit. It does nothing to build the north. From his response it is clear that the minister is more interested in helping the oil companies of Calgary and the Petroleum Club than the working families in Old Crow or Tuktoyaktuk or Pond Inlet.

In the budget speech, the finance minister stated that the capital gains exemption was in need of an immediate increase because it had not been changed in 20 years. The same thing applies to the northern residents tax deduction. It has not been changed in 20 years. It is not keeping up with inflation. It is not fair to northerners, but of course it was only average northerners who wanted this change and not necessarily the business elite.

The northern residents tax deduction did change a bit. The change is a cynical pork-barrelling addition of the southern part of the government whip's riding. The government members knew what was going on but chose to do one small shameful thing.

The NWT got no action on resource revenue sharing. The resources of the NWT rival those of nations such as South Africa or the United Arab Emirates, but not one cent of those royalties has helped the people of the north directly.

For more than a generation Canada has been saying that it is willing to hand over control and ownership of these riches. However, the government is just like those of the past and it continues to delay. The current excuse is that we need to restart negotiations. Every day Canada delays fulfilment of this promise is another day that millions of dollars, whether from the diamond fields or the oil and gas fields, are lost to the people of the north.

I hear the minister offering up royalties to the oil companies for the pipeline. To promote this pipeline, he is offering up the royalties that the people of the NWT have a share in. I would say to the minister that he should offer up something that is his to offer. He could offer something in the way of subsidies to a multinational oil company, and that is his to offer, but not the royalties that northerners will need to develop their territory and their region of this country, just as every other region has used its own royalties in the same fashion. The people of the Northwest Territories do not mind hearing “mañana” when on vacation in Mexico, but they are tired of hearing it from Ottawa when it comes to ownership of resources.

Another budget item that is quite worrisome to northerners is on page 186. On that page the Conservative government lays out its plan for negating its commitments under the land claim agreements and for silencing the voice of northerners when it comes to environmental assessments.

According to the budget, a law written to implement the portion of land claim agreements whereby aboriginal people are granted a say in how their land is used must be changed, because the pro-industry minister feels it is too restrictive to large corporations. It is clear that the minister's purpose is to gut the very little protection that aboriginal people and other northerners have under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and make it open season for rampant development. It is clear from this statement in the budget that the Conservatives will not let anything get in the way of exploitation, even if it means going back on the word of the Crown.

The Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board has recently turned down an application by Ur-Energy to prospect for uranium in the Thelon Basin, an area of the north for which there is unanimity among northerners about the need for its protection. This decision has been roundly attacked by the mining industry, which is spreading the falsehood that the board overstepped its bounds.

However, subsection 64(1) of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which created the board, is an act of this Parliament and the responsibility of this Parliament, and it states:

A board shall seek and consider the advice of any affected first nation...respecting the presence of heritage resources that might be affected by a use of land or waters or a deposit of waste proposed in an application for a license or permit.

The board did what it was constituted to do. The minister should do his job and support the interests of the people whose land is under threat. He should forget about the arrogant statement in the budget on the government streamlining the regulations, going against the word of the Crown and not playing fair with the constitutional rights of aboriginal people across the north.

This is all in the budget. How can I as a northerner support these kinds of things in any document that comes before this House?

I have to admit that I am not hopeful this government will keep its word to the working people of the north, because it did not keep its word of the Crown on the Atlantic accord. This is a budget that is not for everyone, and it is not for me.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I have to comment. The people of the Northwest Territories have one representative in Ottawa. They trust the member for Western Arctic to stand up for them and their interests, but to me he is playing political games that needlessly jeopardize the funding benefits for his own riding.

The NDP member for Western Arctic does not see it that way. He voted against a budget that his own premier called good news. Now he is supporting his leader's efforts to delay the budget bill. This will cost the Northwest Territories over a staggering $64 million. This includes $54 million to cover the payments related to the previous formula arrangements, $5 million to reduce greenhouse emissions and air pollution, and $4.5 million to help reduce patient wait times.

The people of Yellowknife, Hay River, Inuvik and Fort Smith sent him here to make Parliament work. As he stands here today, is he willing to cost his riding $64 million only so his party can get a cheap media hit? Is it all worth it?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that I have heard the hon. member's question before in this House at a different time. The people of the north understand this royalty game that is going on here in Canada. I am sure that I have great support when I stand here and say that we do not want to continue to be ripped off for our royalties. This budget does not identify how that is not going to happen.

When we talk about the equalization formula and the arrangements between provinces and territories, sometimes we in the north feel like second-class citizens, like the government is giving us something. The government is saying to us that it is giving this to us and we should be grateful.

We want our own way in the Northwest Territories, just as it is in the other provinces. We do not want to have government officials and politicians telling us that we should be grateful for something that every Canadian receives. I have no doubt in my mind that the people in the north will support me in what I am trying to say for them in this House.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member for Western Arctic if he remembers, as I do, that in the national election campaign the Prime Minister promised a guarantee on wait times. He promised that if people could not get in within a specific wait time for hip replacement surgery, for example, or for eye surgery, cancer treatment or cardio surgery, they could fly anywhere in North America and get that service. It would be there.

I wonder if in Western Arctic there has been anything done on wait times beyond what had been done on the Canada-provincial accords by the previous government. If there has been some improvement for Western Arctic as opposed to West Nova, I think our people will want to move there, because they are not getting those services in Nova Scotia.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, that question really does speak to something in my speech, which is that I talked about the formula and the recognition that population is not the way to determine costs. We have incredible costs for health care in the Northwest Territories. They are exacerbated, of course, by distance, transportation costs and our inability to maintain professionals in the north. These things are all real problems for us.

The wait times we are faced with are sometimes about getting diagnoses. In many cases, people are sitting in little communities and waiting months simply to see a nurse or a nurse practitioner so they can get the first analysis of what is going on with their health. That is the real situation of health care in many places in the north.

Yes, if we take a per capita allocation of resources for these important things in terms of health care, our wait times will not decrease. Our wait times will become not better but worse, and the ability of the northern health care system to provide decent service across the north to all the very remote communities will remain one of our biggest concerns.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I do not think we have time for another question, so we will move on. Resuming debate, the hon. member for West Nova.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to discuss the federal budget again and to raise a few other points.

It is unfortunate that so few members have the opportunity that I have today. The time allocated to a debate on a very important aspect of government has been limited. How will programs be implemented? How will services be provided to Canadians? I believe these questions deserve a good debate and some good discussion.

I have the honour to be a member of the House Standing Committee on Finance, where the Conservatives wanted to eliminate the opportunity for Canadians to appear before the committee to share their opinions on budget 2007. I found that most unfortunate.

We had to negotiate to bring even a few people before the committee, and even then, their testimony was restricted. For example, Premier Calvert was given only a few minutes despite having been promised a whole hour.

What has been interesting to me in this debate today is not the question of whether or not this budget represents a betrayal to Canadians. The only discussion has been on what is the biggest betrayal. Is it the income trusts or is it the Atlantic accord? What is it? The fact that there are so many betrayals is very worrying and the fact that nobody can argue that Canadians have not been betrayed.

The government has flip-flopped on the issue of summer jobs. What bothers me is not the fact that the government has flip-flopped. It is the fact that there are some issues that it refuses to flip-flop on because it comes out instinctively with an incompetent position, which causes us to fight all the time within committees and within this House to get the government to understand and to get the item out in public so the government will be forced to retract its position or improve it.

We have mentioned many examples in the House of government flip-flops but I will name one that might not get much attention. There is a small area of the scallop fishery in my province called area 29. There has always been a huge debate as to who would fish there. Is it the inshore? Is it the Full Bay? Where does the Full Bay begin? Where are the offshore scallop taken? It has taken a long time to come to some accommodation.

When I was minister of fisheries, we came to an agreement on sharing within area 29 between the Full Bay fleet and the inshore fishermen. Having been asked by the Full Bay Scallop Association to maintain the current position, a letter was sent saying that the current sharing formula would be maintained in area 29. A few days later we found out that the minister was appointing a panel to revisit the allocations in that area, again causing consternation within the fleets. This is another example of the government's flip-flops. It is perhaps not one that gets national attention, but it is one that is very important and symptomatic of what we have seen.

We have seen cuts to summer jobs which has hurt little community organizations that need summer students to operate. Thank goodness for the work of the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour who brought this to the floor. All Liberals MPs worked very hard with him and we were able to get the Conservatives to retract on that . However, we are still not sure of how we will do in future years. This year the cut was only $11 million, and we saw the impact of that. Next year the government is forecasting a cut of $59 million. What will that mean?

Foreign investment is another issue on which the government has flip-flopped. The government came out with a knee-jerk reaction in the budget saying that an individual could not deduct for tax purposes any interest expense for investments outside of Canada. The government knee-capped Canadian industries that must compete internationally with other companies. It is a global market out there. We had to embarrass the Conservatives at committee to force them to retract on that decision.

Now the government is talking about stacking and about double-dipping. Nobody wants any corporation, Canadian or otherwise, to evade taxes but it is important that our corporate sector become competitive internationally. We worked very hard on that.

The issue of income trusts has been discussed many times. There is no doubt in my mind that we had to take action in that sector because there were problems. The Governor of the Bank of Canada pointed that out very well at committee, as did many others. He also said that it was an excellent vehicle for certain sectors of the economy and that there was a demand for that type of investment in the capital markets.

Rather than solving the problem, the Minister of Finance came out with a nuclear bomb, when a surgical strike would have been appropriate, and completely crushed the whole sector, eliminating $25 million of capital savings of mostly seniors across this country. He killed a very important sector and caused these companies and corporate assets to be sold abroad. The minister had an opportunity to retract and make changes. The member for Markham—Unionville made an excellent proposal that was adopted by the committee that would have solved that problem.

I have also mentioned the issue of the Digby wharf in the House many times. For over a year and a half now the government has had the arbitrator's report. It knows that the error was an error by the Department of Transport. It is not a huge amount of money on a national basis to solve the problem and give this port back to the people where it belongs.

I want to spend a bit of time on the question of the Atlantic accord, which is a huge betrayal because, like income trusts, the Prime Minister promised not to touch it. Further, when the Conservatives were in opposition they were so in favour of the Atlantic accord that they wanted it split from the full budget so they could vote in support of that element but not in support the entire budget.

In last year's budget, the government sent out a message that it did not like the Atlantic accord and that it was not very well received in certain parts of the country. We could debate that. We could debate as to the value of that type of an agreement between the provincial and the federal government or special agreements with any province, but that is not a matter to debate. That debate happened in the House a year and a half ago and the Conservatives agreed to it. An agreement was signed between the federal government and two provinces and that agreement should be honoured.

A promise was made by the Prime Minister to the people of Saskatchewan and that promise should be honoured. A promise was made in the campaign by the Prime Minister to the people of Atlantic Canada that the accord would be maintained, and that promise should be honoured.

It is those flip-flops and betrayals that we object to and the way that people are treated.

We had the member for Central Nova stand in the House, when I questioned him before the first vote on the budget, saying that if Nova Scotians did not like the budget that he would see them in court. We thought that was some buffoonery until yesterday when we heard the Prime Minister make the same challenge, so we now know that it is the position of the Government of Canada.

While the Minister of Finance said that we would have peace in our time and that the bickering between the federal and provincial governments is over, the Conservatives have now gone fully 100% to the American way and the judiciary can resolve all these discussions. We will sue one another rather than discuss and negotiate.

We then had the same highly placed minister of the government stand in this House and say that there would be no whipping, no flipping, no hiring, or firing and that no member of caucus would be expelled for voting his or her conscience and voting against the accord. The member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley did not have a chance to make it to the curtains after he showed courage by voting in favour of the people of his province before he was expelled from his caucus.

What does the member for Central Nova, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, say in the media after that? He said that he did not think anyone would vote against the budget. He did not mind misleading the House because he thought no one would take him up on it, no one would make him show his cards. Well, one member had the courage and we now know what I believe is an egregious misleading of the House by a member saying that there would be a free vote when there was not.

We then heard from members within the Conservative caucus that they had to stay within caucus because they were negotiating and trying to find accommodation between the federal government and the accord provinces and that the discussions were ongoing.

On Saturday, in the Chronicle-Herald in Nova Scotia, we see a letter signed by the Minister of Finance of this country saying that no such discussions were happening, that it was impossible and that there could not be some discussions. What is more, we learned that the Prime Minister's Office had written a letter and tried get the member for Central Nova to sign it, which would have been a complete suicide note.

However, I want to help the member for Central Nova, the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's and the member from Newfoundland to find a resolution to this problem. I want to give one last opportunity to the Conservative government to honour its accord. Therefore, I seek unanimous consent of the House for the following motion: That the previous question on Bill C-52, the budget implementation act, 2007, be deemed withdrawn and that the bill be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Finance for the purpose of reconsidering those clauses dealing with the Atlantic accord and equalization.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. member for West Nova have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Nova Scotia for his comments, which were particularly important for people in Atlantic Canada.

Looking at everything the Conservative government has done—signing agreements, making promises—it is clear that if it changes its mind, it will say whatever it wants and break its promises and agreements.

With a government that does things like that, New Brunswickers should be afraid right now. Consider child care, where the Conservatives cut $116 million that was supposed to go to parents and children in New Brunswick. It is clear that people in New Brunswick have many other needs too.

Should the people of Madawaska—Restigouche, whom I represent, and the entire population of New Brunswick be afraid that the Conservative government will take the promises it has made and the agreements that have been signed and toss them in the trash whenever it feels like it?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, before I answer the member's question, I should point out that when you asked for unanimous consent there was not one Conservative member from Atlantic Canada or anywhere else who offered to support unanimous consent and get the situation resolved.

In response to the question asked by the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, in my opinion, all the provinces and regions of Canada should be concerned.

The Government of Canada is a permanent institution, and the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers will change, but Canada will remain Canada, the country, the Dominion of Canada and the federation. If this country signs an agreement, an accord or a contract with a province, an individual or an institution, it should be honoured, regardless of who the Prime Minister is.

I cannot understand how my friends in the Bloc could vote for this budget, which destroys the agreement with two provinces, because the Bloc members claim to defend their province's rights. One of these days, this Conservative government will destroy the agreement with the Government of Quebec, just as it has done with Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan. It is important to recognize this.

It is a good thing the Liberal members from New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island supported their colleagues from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, could it be that the Bloc understands fiscal imbalance better because the finance critic of that party never accepted it? I wonder if the member understands that this is the best deal that any province, including Nova Scotia, which he said was not getting a good deal, could possibly get.

For the member to get unanimous consent, he must remember that his NDP friends are not even on board with him when it comes to the fiscal imbalance. The NDP leader has said that he does not believe there needs to be a resolution of the so-called fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces. He fears that some provinces will use the extra money to reduce their taxes, instead of improving social services.

In 2005, the NDP leader challenged the then prime minister that he was willing to agree to anything in their backroom deal. He never raised equalization or the fiscal imbalance as a concern.

Does the member not wonder whether he is all alone on this particular issue and that he does not understand fiscal imbalance, much like the Bloc, which he says that he cannot understand why it is supporting it?

I also would suggest that the member obviously does not understand the summer student program. It is about the students, first and foremost, about students getting good, high quality jobs. I think the member needs to understand that and think outside the box.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, what I understand is the balance between responsibility and integrity, which the Prime Minister has not met. He made a promise to the Provinces of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan and he did not honour that promise.

I know and understand the Gaelic proverb “there is no greater fraud than a promise not kept”.

This was sent to my house by the Prime Minister when he was in opposition. In it he said, “That's why we would leave you with 100 per cent of your oil and gas revenues. No small print. No excuses. No caps”.

The Premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador and of Nova Scotia are telling us that it is not 100%, that there is small print, that there are excuses and that there are caps.

What I understand is integrity, honesty and keeping promises.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to address Bill C-52, the budget implementation act . It seems the Liberals and the NDP have been unable to imagine a better, safer and stronger Canada, which budget 2007 has asked us to aspire to be.

The constituents of Blackstrap get it. They can envision that Canada and they have embraced the budget. In fact, the budget is well received throughout Saskatchewan, where it largely is seen as a blueprint for better and more prosperous times. It has not hurt that Saskatchewan is a big winner in budget 2007. It is receiving the largest per capita gains of any province with the new fiscal balance package.

I do not believe there has ever been a better budget in Canadian history that has been subjected to such a barrage of misinformation, blatant partisan criticism and wholesale misrepresentation.

For instance, almost three months after the release of the budget, members of the opposition in the House of Commons as well as members of the Saskatchewan NDP government continue to claim that the government has failed to keep its promise to Saskatchewan to exclude non-renewable resources from the equalization formula.

That erroneous information has been repeated so often by so many politicians and written in so many political commentaries that it has been endowed with a sense of truth, but nothing could be further from the truth. The government has kept its promise. The Prime Minister has kept his promise.

Saskatchewan Conservative MPs are voting for the budget because the budget delivers for Saskatchewan. I have made my support of the budget very clear in the House, in letters to the editor and in columns published.

The budget gives us none of us any cause to worry. For those of us in Saskatchewan, the budget is about the tale of two leaders.

The first is of the Prime Minister, a visionary who had the courage to solve the fiscal imbalance and determine an equalization formula that is fair to all provinces, based on a 10 province standard.

The other is of the Premier of Saskatchewan, a standard politician who has spent $300,000 on a provincial advertising campaign called “Imagine”, but lacks the vision to see his province move beyond a have not status. He is a critic for criticism's sake. He will not embrace the future because he is too attached to the past. Partisan to the end, he will not acknowledge a promise kept by his political opponent, so he insists a different promise was made.

First, the government has kept its promise. Saskatchewan can exclude natural resources in the calculation of equalization revenues. The Finance Minister further clarified the equalization formula when he first reminded people that our government did not negotiate side deals with any individual province or territory and that we could not run the country on side deals.

Second, the federal government is currently consulting, not negotiating, with Nova Scotia about the implementation process and the benefits of budget 2007 to determine the process of maintaining our guarantee that no province will be worse off under the new system.

Our government is not in the midst of making any side deals for political expediency. Equalization has been restored to a principles based program for the first time in many years. Equalization has been restored to a truly national program. That is what all premiers asked us to do and that is what all Canadians expect us to do.

Restoring fiscal balance brings federal support for Saskatchewan to $1.4 billion in 2007-08, including over $800 million in new funding. That is more new funding on a new per capita basis than any other province.

Under the old Liberal equalization program, Saskatchewan would have received zero dollars this year. Under budget 2007's new, strengthened equalization, it will receive $226 million per year. That is more now than it had before to fund health care, education and other important public services.

It was that self-proclaimed defender of Saskatchewan, the member for Wascana and former finance minister, who began this ad hoc process of doing side deals with some provinces and not others in 2005.

To set my position straight, I always believed in a fair, principled transfer to all province. Saskatchewan never sought special treatment; just a fair deal. I believe the Prime Minister worked out a fair deal for all provinces, including Saskatchewan.

It is a sad day for Saskatchewan when the NDP premier suggests the government has not kept its word to Saskatchewan. Not only did he choose to misrepresent the situation, but he chose to wage his war in the media with sound bites, clips and one-liners that were less representative of the truth. When dealing with an issue as complex as equalization, a little more substance, time and debate is required.

At first the premier insisted that Saskatchewan had been forced to include non-renewable resources into the calculation of its equalization. Then when that was revealed to be false, he insisted that a cap on equalization dollars was never envisioned. A fiscal cap was always envisioned because the very concept of equalization implied a cap.

We cannot have equalization without a cap because the level of equalization would constantly rise and equalization receiving provinces would then develop a level of prosperity beyond that of provinces not receiving equalization. Some provinces would be more equal than others and the levels of have not provinces would exceed that of have provinces and have provinces would then expect equalization funding.

The no cap argument is absurd. Only because it remains a dominant news story and the opposition's favourite criticism of the budget, it is worth examining the history of equalization in Canada.

Canada's equalization program has been in place since the mid-1950s. It has always been and continues to be a complicated formula. While many changes have been made throughout the program's history, the basic approach involves assessing the fiscal capacity of provinces to deliver public services.

Equalization provides unconditional transfers to less well off provinces to assist them in providing services to local citizens. Checks and balances have always been built into the formula. Measuring the fiscal capacity of the provinces and ensuring the formula is figured out fairly and equally between the provinces is where the term cap originates.

Why Premier Calvert claims he is surprised about the cap is unclear. In the pre-2004 equalization formula, before the member for LaSalle—Émard's government went to its ad hoc ideal approach, there always were internal checks and balances to ensure that equalization payments did not lift have not provinces to a higher total fiscal capacity than contributing have provinces. This would not be fair.

The pre-2004 budget was based on the fiscal capacity of only four provinces: Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia. Due to its volatile economy, Alberta was taken out of the old formula to make calculations more viable. Since 2004, the federal approach to equalization was ad hoc, involving side deals for certain provinces. The provinces, collectively, with the Council of the Federation's provincial body, called for equalization review and reform.

The provinces wanted a new formula based approach, a 10 province standard and a predictability of funding. Therefore, the finance minister was not exaggerating when he described this budget as historic. Our government has taken equalization payments in a historic new direction, which includes a new formula with a principled 10 province standard. It is stable, it allows for long term planning and a seven year framework and it is exactly for what the provinces, including Saskatchewan, were calling.

However, the Saskatchewan premier seems not so much protective of equalization dollars as he is addicted to them. He is utterly afraid of his province ever achieving a have status and not requiring equalization dollars to meet priorities. He seems unable to perceive Saskatchewan growing beyond his limitations. In fact, the former Saskatchewan finance minister recently revealed his government needed equalization dollars to higher provincial civil service salaries.

No wonder the StarPhoenix in Saskatoon today reports that the highest paid Saskatchewan crown corporation executive actually lives in Vancouver. He receives an annual salary of $313,000.

What is going on in the front pages of our news in Saskatchewan has been analyzed by the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies. It has examined the provincial public services across Canada and has found that many use equalization to inflate the size and wages of their public services. AIMS has found that in Saskatchewan, for every 1,000 of population, 109 are public servants. In fact, it is the highest ratio per capita in Canada. Statistics Canada says that Ontario gets by with 67 per 1,000 and Alberta with 73.

That is where the extra money is going and that is why Saskatchewan is closing schools. Rural taxes for schools are very high, and the provincial government is closing schools every week. Schools there are the heart and soul of our communities in Saskatchewan. Meanwhile its population continues to decline drastically. The leader of the Saskatchewan Party was recently quoted as saying that since 2001, Saskatchewan's population declined by 10,000 residents, the size of Weyburn, Saskatchewan.

In 2004 the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce pointed out that the labour laws did not help us either. The chamber reported in its publications that Saskatchewan's labour standards act had not been amended since 1995 and pointed to labour laws as a provincial barrier to growth.

The budget is all about fixing fundamental problems and meeting fundamental needs. Budget 2007 invests in families, seniors, small business and farmers and it puts Saskatchewan at the forefront of a revitalized stronger Canada.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was carefully listening to the hon. parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Blackstrap. She mentioned equalization payments.

I come from a province called British Columbia. When we look at our budget documents, in the first two years, starting this year, B.C. is the only province that gets less money according to the new formula. The amount is $339 million.

Would the hon. member like to comment on that? Why is B.C. ignored in the budget?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I tried to express this in my opening remarks. It is way too complicated for this formula to be done on an ad hoc basis, much like what had happened with his party and how it dealt with it back in 2005. Perhaps that is why he is questioning why his province has not been understood.

His party always speaks like it believes there is a problem, but his former finance minister did not think so. He said:

This may be an opportune moment for me to address an issue that remains a preoccupation with some of our critics, both at the provincial and federal levels. That is the allegation of a fiscal imbalance in Canada. With the greatest of respect, I do not agree.

That came from the former finance minister of the previous Liberal government. He also said:

With the greatest of respect for those who hold other views, I have to tell you that I do not subscribe to the notion of a vertical fiscal imbalance in Canada.

Maybe he should ask how the last deals were done, and maybe British Columbia might get an answer.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will always remember the statement of the finance minister who said that the years of bickering with the provinces were over and there was peace in our times.

The member for Blackstrap stood and basically lambasted Saskatchewan and the Premier of Saskatchewan, saying that the premier was “addicted to equalization”. She also outlined a scenario in which Saskatchewan's population had declined and the province was rundown.

I have never heard a member of the House speak so poorly about a province or region in our country in 14 years of being a member of Parliament, except once. That was when the Prime Minister referred to the Atlantic provinces as having a culture of defeatism, referring to their so-called addiction to EI.

Would the member maybe reconsider her slanderous remarks of the Premier of Saskatchewan and maybe apologize to him on the record before this matter gets any further.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could have another 10 minutes and I will repeat my speech because I was not talking about that. In fact, my province has some hope. It is the leadership of the province, the visionless leader. This is why the equalization debate gets so distorted because that is exactly how those members interpret everything we say.

We are talking about a province that has so much potential. Nobody cares more about the province than the Conservative MPs who are in the House. We are working hard to ensure the budget gets through so Saskatchewan will be a leader again in mining. My riding is a leader in potash. I am very proud of our riding, but I am not proud of the leadership of the province. I think he speaks for himself by his actions.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, after 16 months of Conservative minority government, it is now very clear that the Prime Minister and his party are dishonest electoral opportunists and are more concerned with holding the reins of power than they are interested in the--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Edmonton--Sherwood Park on a point of order.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think if you check the record you will find that the member just said directly that the Prime Minister was dishonest. That is unparliamentary. It is also despicable. I ask that you ask him to retract those words unequivocally.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I would urge all members to deal with a great deal of caution when talking about honesty and truthfulness. I did not specifically hear the member for Richmond make that direct comment. I certainly will take a look at the blues. I would urge, however, the member for Richmond, if he did say words that were unparliamentary, to retract them and to try to stay away from imputing motives on any other hon. member.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I could rephrase that by saying that the Prime Minister and his party members are electoral opportunists who are more concerned with holding the reins of power than they are interested in the health and welfare of our nation.

In a word, budget 2007 is so divisive because it has pitted province against province, the rich against the poor. It is full of broken promises. It has slashed and burned effective programs only to later re-brand them and replace them with sad imitations.

The Conservative budget has taken gross advantage of British Columbians to pay for political gains in Quebec and central Canada. Keith Baldrey from my local newspaper, the Richmond News, stated:

--the new budget provides each British Columbian with $163 over the next two years--compared to a whopping $446 per Quebec resident over the same period.

My constituents are crying foul, and they are not the only ones. B.C. Revenue Minister Rick Thorpe said this about budget 2007: “The budget was more about politics in Quebec and Central Canada than it is about strategic importance for British Columbia and Canada”.

According to the government's own official budget tables, B.C. is the only province that will receive less funding two years in a row in major federal transfer payments. B.C. is losing in the Prime Minister's divisive funding game, down $1 million this year and $339 million last year.

At the same time Quebec is getting a $3 billion increase in this budget for this year alone.

But do not just listen to me. Jeffrey Simpson from the Globe and Mail stated, “[Quebec] will be getting more than $7-billion in additional payments in coming years, meaning that, by definition, about $5.5-billion will be transferred from elsewhere”. Don Cayo from the Vancouver Sun said, “Quebec is the big winner. Indeed, when it comes to equalization, it's the only significant winner”.

Budget 2007 is so unfair and unjust that it does nothing for students, for the poor and for the most vulnerable. The budget does not put a penny in the pockets of Canada's undergraduate students and the vast majority of students get nothing at all.

This budget does nothing to address the shortages of affordable housing in our communities. Laurel Rothman, the National Coordinator for Campaign 2000, said:

There's not a word on affordable housing, which is important not just for low- and modest-income families but for the health of our neighbourhoods across this country

Budget 2007 is so unfair that it actually increases the gap between the rich and the poor. It does nothing for single working mothers because people making less than $30,000 per year cannot benefit from the Conservative's so-called child care plan.

In 2006 the Conservatives promised 125,000 new child care spaces over five years. Sixteen months into its mandate, Canadian families are realizing this promise was not worth the paper it was printed on. There have been zero spaces created in the past year.

The budget contains no broad-based tax relief for low and average income Canadians and ignores the problem of poverty in our communities. It does increase the tax rates on Canada's lowest income earners for the second year in a row, from 15% to 15.25%, to 15.5%.

Taxes began to go up literally the day the Conservative government took power. The Conservatives have also decreased the amount that can be earned tax-free in 2006.

The budget's tax hike on the first $35,000 of income will cost Canadians $1.4 billion, which actually cancels out the benefit of the Conservative's so-called child care benefit.

With such a large surplus inherited from the former Liberal government, why should the working poor be forced to pay off the Prime Minister's big spending and political promises?

The Conservative government has spent more in this budget than in any other budget in Canadian history. Andrew Coyne, from the National Post, said on CBC Newsworld:

With this budget, [the Minister of Finance] becomes officially the biggest spending finance minister in the history of Canada. That's after inflation and population growth is taken into account. They've now increased under this Conservative government; we've now raised spending by $25 billion in two years.

With such a large budget, it is shocking and shameful that the budget is so irresponsible. It is irresponsible because it has no strategy to deal with three of the most important challenges that our nation is facing today: the global competitiveness of our economy, the huge social deficit, and climate change.

This budget is a long sad story about irresponsibility and missed opportunities, all for the benefit of the Prime Minister's short term political interests and all at a great cost to Canadians.

John Bennett of the Sierra Club of Canada has repeated the fact that:

This government has abandoned its obligations to the Kyoto protocol and abandoned its moral responsibility to keep our international commitments. This government has no intention of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It has every intention of trying to sound like it does, but has no intention to actually do it.

The government and its budget has failed to help Canadians safeguard our environment and to effectively address climate change. It has cut back our commitment to renewable energy from 5,500 megawatts to 4,000 when we should be increasing our support for clean and sustainable energy production.

The Conservatives have kept tax breaks for new oil sands expansion in place until 2015, but has slowed our plan to clean up Canada's lakes and waterways. The Conservative plan reduces funding to our provincial partners by half. It has cut effective energy saving plans only to relabel, repackage and then resell them to Canadians with smaller budgets and less impact.

The simple fact is that in this budget there is no effective Conservative plan to address Canada's environmental responsibilities or to make sure that polluters pay for using our atmosphere as a free garbage dump.

On global competitiveness this budget has failed. Journalists from The Vancouver Sun have stated, “--rather than focusing on creating the right conditions under which all Canadians can prosper, [the] budget resorted to picking winners and losers”. This budget contains no broad-based relief for average and low income Canadians and it also fails to position Canada for the 21st century global marketplace.

In 2005 the former Liberal government initiated the CAN-Trade strategy that provided a $485 million investment over five years to help Canadian businesses succeed in emerging markets. It should be no surprise that the Conservatives scrapped this program and have now replaced it with a mere $60 million--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was astounded while listening to the member's speech, which focused on nothing positive. He was focusing on negative rhetoric that he should stop to ask himself about.

He mentioned help for lower income families, child care, the environment and, what I think was done intentionally, he refused to even check back on his own government's record. In all of these particular areas, the Liberals failed Canadians so miserably that we had to start cleaning up the mess on this side.

How many spaces did his government create for child care? The Liberal government promised it for a decade. What did it do for the environment? Let me remind the House that it went 33% over the Kyoto targets. It is outrageous.

One thing he did fail to mention and I know that the constituents in his riding of Richmond have great links with Asia. Overall, we set some unprecedented funding in infrastructure. Over $800 million is flowing into the province of British Columbia when it comes to the Asia-Pacific gateway initiative. Maybe he should comment on how his constituents would welcome that sort of funding, especially because we value that trade link with Asia-Pacific.

Perhaps he can comment on something positive. I would like to hear something positive from the member.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about British Columbia and how this budget was so untruthful on the funding for B.C.'s Asia Pacific gateway project.

In the 2006 budget, the Conservatives cut the Liberal funding by hundreds of millions of dollars in the first five years. In this budget, the finance minister partly restored the funding that he had cut the year before, then added $450 million in new funding and hailed it as proof that B.C. is somehow a big winner. The problem is that B.C. will not start receiving the new money until four years from now.

After studying the budget in detail and reviewing the responses from across the nation, I can only agree with most analysts that the Conservatives' 2007 budget is very divisive, unfair, unjust, untrue and irresponsible.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. He is a gentleman who has an intuitive grasp of and a real passion for social justice issues. He well understands, arguably as much as anybody in this chamber, that one of our tasks in government is to slowly but surely narrow the gap between those who have and those who have not. I am sure he is as disappointed as I am that the gap between those who have and those who have not certainly has been widened as a result of this budget rather than narrowed.

I am thinking particularly about single seniors. I would like to ask my colleague about this. As much as the Minister of Finance talks about pension splitting, which yes, to an extent will assist senior couples, there is no mention whatsoever of and certainly no provision in the budget for single seniors, 70% of whom are women, obviously living alone and struggling to get by. I am wondering if the hon. member could comment on how that will impact on his riding. Certainly it has impacted on mine.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very precise question. I could not agree more that the impact of this budget was so badly felt in my riding. This budget was so unfair that it actually increased the gap between the rich and the poor.

There is no mention of affordable housing. My riding is supposed to be an above average riding, but we do have poverty in my riding. There are many people waiting to get into suites that they can afford. Also, because they are not in good living conditions, this has impacts on their health, particularly for the single women, as the member said.

One thing we should try to do is make our economy more competitive so that more people can get into jobs that pay better.The sad thing is that we do not see this in this budget. As Nancy Hughes Anthony, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said:

We don't see any broad-based tax relief either for taxpayers or businesses. The government promised in November that they were going to make Canada more competitive and control spending and I think they broke that promise--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. We will have to move on to the next speaker.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud today to rise in the House of Commons and have the honour of speaking on Bill C-52. Unlike the previous speaker, I will focus on some really positive initiatives that I think Canadians are very proud of when they look at our government.

Once again, I am proud of the excellent work that the finance minister has done in constructing a budget that meets the needs of ordinary Canadians. Our budget package provides a plan that will aspire to create a stronger, safer and better Canada. This will be achieved through restoring fiscal balance, reducing the tax burden on working families, investing substantially to protect the environment, and promoting our health care system.

In communicating with my constituents from the riding of Edmonton—Strathcona, I have received tremendous support for this new budget. Edmontonians feel confident that Canada's new government is continuing to speak to their needs by providing a focused fiscal agenda, something the previous Liberal government failed to do for 13 years.

Specifically, budget 2007 speaks directly to the students at the University of Alberta, to business owners and entrepreneurs on Whyte Avenue, and to ordinary parents and grandparents who put a premium on family. It is these individuals who get up every morning and go to school and to work in order to better their lives and those around them. Canada's new government wants to help them be successful.

In the past, the previous government sought to impose one size fits all solutions for very real problems. Our vision is different.

Canada's new government does not claim to have the answer to every problem or to be better prepared to address all the problems ordinary Canadians have.

Canada's new government is willing to listen to Canadians, get an understanding of their issues and provide them with the resources necessary to achieve their goals and realize their dreams. That is what Canada's new government has done and what Canada's new government will continue to do.

Students at the University of Alberta will benefit exponentially from the money allocated in this year's budget. Building upon the targeted tax relief outlined last year, budget 2007 will invest substantially to improve Canada's post-secondary education system. Our government will allocate $1.3 billion to science and technology research, coupled with a 40% increase in funding for Canada's post-secondary institutions.

In addition, budget 2007 outlines 14 supplementary monetary investments that will specifically target areas of R and D, employment training and post-secondary scholarships. All of these investments will ensure students at the University of Alberta are receiving a world class education and the necessary skills to compete in a globalized economy.

I am proud to say that Canada's new Conservative government has once again delivered for students.

Students graduating from university, technical schools and other institutions of higher learning want to know that employment will be attainable immediately upon graduation. That is why budget 2007 proposes a number of measures that will enhance infrastructure and the necessary resources for business to succeed.

For example, a small business owner on Whyte Avenue in my constituency can expect to benefit from the government initiative to reduce the paper burden by 20%. Less time will be spent on excessive government red tape and bureaucracy, and more time can be spent on driving the economy, thus creating jobs.

Furthermore, the capital gains tax exemption for small business owners will be increased to $750,000 from $500,000. Undoubtedly, this will help business people in Edmonton--Strathcona reap additional benefits from their investments.

Additionally, budget 2007 speaks to the needs of ordinary families across Canada and in my riding of Edmonton--Strathcona. Since taking office, our government has always made working families a number one priority and I am proud that we have proven that once again in this budget.

Working families in my riding can expect to receive a new $2,000 per child tax credit for children under the age of 18, along with the elimination of the marriage penalty on single earning families.

Additionally, Canada's new government also wants to help parents save for their children's post-secondary education. That is why the Minister of Finance has transformed the RESP program to allow parents to contribute more on a yearly basis and has increased the lifetime contribution limit. Education is important to Canada's new government and we want to help parents help their children to succeed.

Finally, budget 2007 sets out comprehensive funding to reduce greenhouse gases and improve air quality. Undoubtedly this is something that will benefit all Edmontonians by making a cleaner, healthier environment.

Some examples of these environmental initiatives include: rebates of up to $2,000 on new fuel efficient vehicles; investments in biofuels; the $1.5 billion ecotrust to help clean up our land and water; $22 million to enforce environmental protection laws; and, of course, a new national water strategy.

In closing, I would like to say that the government cannot spend Canadians' money better than they can spend it themselves. This budget recognizes that Ottawa can do more with less and Canadians can do more with more.

I am delighted that my constituents finally have a government that recognizes the need to support them in their choices by giving them more resources with which to shape their own future.

In short, by offering a broad based fiscal plan that targets their specific needs, budget 2007 will make a difference in the lives of Canadians and particularly the lives of people in Edmonton—Strathcona.

I cannot emphasize enough the fact that I have heard from so many people who are pleased to see a focused fiscal plan. I have had a number of phone calls and emails over the last number of weeks and months since the budget was tabled in the House, with particular examples of how families feel that the government understands their concerns and needs. In particular, there is a breadth of knowledge and there is the diversity of my riding, with Canadians who range from seniors to students to business owners. They all feel that this budget was very focused in its delivery and that it aims to help a number of them.

In particular, I will emphasize the University of Alberta. It is clear from the work done in the previous budget and then in this budget that we can see the support this government is giving to the future, particularly when we see what is happening in Edmonton and in Alberta with their current economic growth and the challenges we are facing in managing that growth. This government has implemented a number of measures to support that growth and to build on it to enhance what is happening with all the growth in Alberta.

I think back to the last budget when we made simple changes that were never made by previous governments, one being to allow foreign students the chance to work off campus. So many of them come to this country looking for new opportunities.

My family still operates a small business, as members know. I had very humble beginnings before I came to this place. I ran a small business on Whyte Avenue for a number of years. A number of our family members and others benefited from this change last year, especially in a really hot labour market where we have had a challenge in finding and retaining people.

Now we are able to have that opportunity for students who are looking for new or better opportunities in coming to Canada. Not only is it an opportunity for them to make the most of their education, but it is also an opportunity for them to then afterwards get value from that education by being in the Canadian workforce. Hopefully many of them will decide to remain here in Canada and we will benefit from those skills.

Our government even has opened up the opportunity for them to be able to look at staying here. Unfortunately, the previous government talked a lot of talk when it came to immigration opportunities and supporting students, but it really delivered very little. That seems to be the legacy of the previous government. That is something we wanted to change when we took office.

We have had a Prime Minister and a finance minister with clear leadership. When they put certain directions or changes on the table it is to deliver real results. Not only have we seen that in the budget, but we have seen environmental changes put in place. The previous government's record is unacceptable. As I mentioned earlier to the member for Richmond, a 33% increase in emissions under the Kyoto protocol is not real results. We are looking to improve air quality and the health of Canadians in working with them to implement those changes.

That is why many of the changes we have implemented in budget 2007 will help to actually integrate Canadians in working with their governments and helping shift behaviour. Those changes will benefit Canadians in the long term with real results, something that has been missing in this country for a number of years. That is the type of feedback I am getting from my constituents, who are proud to see a government and a finance minister with the vision to lead, for a change, and not follow.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was quite interesting to listen to the member go on about all the government's accomplishments. Let me tell him that I am very proud of the accomplishments of our government. A big accomplishment was producing an $11 billion surplus that was left to the current government in regard to deciding what its priorities were. Clearly we know where its priorities lie, and they do not lie in serving a lot of the people referred to by the member in regard to the area he represents.

Clearly he understands what it is like today for many of our communities that are struggling and also for individuals who are struggling. Some of those individuals have been hit on the income trusts. Some of them are the same families that the hon. member referred to. They saved for many years for their retirement and invested their life's savings in income trusts. They believed what the government and the Prime Minister committed to and made additional investments only to find out very soon that millions of dollars in savings were lost for many of those people. I think the loss figure last quoted is $25 million.

I wonder what the hon. member says and feels about that whole issue and how it was handled. He seems to be very proud of his finance minister, contrary to a lot of what we read elsewhere. I would like to know what the hon. member thinks about those issues and about those people who lost their savings and are struggling to get by.

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by disagreeing with the hon. member. There are many segments of the Canadian population who are proud of the finance minister's initiatives on tax measures, on help to families and in a number of areas that I spoke about. I think there is some really strong delivery when it comes to results. I think the member may have missed that part of my speech when I talked about results, something which we did not see from the previous government.

It is astounding that we still see members of the previous government, that bungled the whole income trust file prior to it being voted out by Canadians in the last election, stand up to defend large corporations not paying their fair share, which is putting more burden on Canadians. It is astounding in this day and age that we still see members like her stand up and defend that and defend their friends in big corporations.

Our finance minister took a leadership stand to bring fairness to the tax system, to bring balance to the tax system. In doing so, we actually implemented something that I know one of the members of her party has been so strongly behind and has somehow become completely silent on: pension splitting for seniors. These measures offset many of the negative effects initially of the income trust changes.

If we look now at the markets the value of the income trusts have come back up to a very significant level. It is a shame that we still see members like her defending corporations not paying their fair share of taxes.

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

Mr. Speaker, speaking about broken promises, I remember in the last election there was a big fanfare. The Prime Minister said that he was going to provide $50 million to prevent youth crime. There would be activities for young people. It was not just about being tough on crime but he said he would also do a lot for young people to prevent them from joining gangs and so on. I do not see one word in the 2007 budget about youth crime prevention. Where is that $50 million?

I saw in the 2006 budget, the old budget, that there was an investment of $10 million a year but there is nothing booked for 2008, and there is nothing in the 2007 budget. There was some mention in the 2006 budget, but what happened to that campaign promise of $50 million per year to prevent crime? It disappeared. That is another broken promise.

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know my time is short but I simply throw it back in the member's court and ask, where is she on supporting mandatory minimum sentences, where is she on a number of our justice bills that we put forward to get tough on crime? Members of her party talk the tough talk during an election but when it comes to actually putting their money where their mouths are here in this place, we have introduced a number of bills, but they are being held up in committee by members like her. I would like to see the member stand up and actually support those bills.

To address her concern about the $50 million, we have outlined in our budget a number of initiatives that actually will prevent crime and will support our law enforcement officers. We have a lot of credibility on those particular issues of justice, unlike the hon. member who just spoke.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak in the debate on the budget bill.

A little while ago in my riding of Newton--North Delta I had the opportunity to attend the Surrey Children's Festival Breakfast, an annual event organized by Sheila McKinnon, who does such great work in our community. This event gives the people in Surrey and Delta an opportunity to celebrate the most important citizens we have, the future of our families, the future of our communities.

That event was the perfect opportunity to reflect upon all this budget represents and all it denies for those children in the coming years. Many of them are first generation Canadians. Their parents were newcomers to Canada, many of whom qualified to come here as professionals. They had high-paying jobs before they arrived here and were told they met the standards to be qualified professionals here in Canada. Now they are working far below their earning potential and have no hope in finding positions they were educated for before they came to this wonderful country.

The budget scrapped all plans to provide for a one stop agency to deal with the foreign credentials recognition problem that we face day in and day out. That was probably because the government discovered it did not work. If the government members were honest, perhaps they would admit that they knew it would not work all along. Any real consultation with licensing bodies, trade organizations and educational institutions would have told them that a lot earlier, but like most things with this budget, the Conservatives clearly chose not to listen. If they had consulted at all, this would not be the situation.

We see the same thing happening in the Atlantic provinces. The government simply chooses not to listen.

Two budgets later, the parents of these children are no further ahead in getting the jobs they came to Canada for. Even if all those children became doctors, health care professionals and skilled tradespeople, we still would not have enough here in Canada to fill the gap.

By 2020 we will not be able to produce enough tradespeople and professionals here. We will be relying on immigration. Members might think I am talking about immigrants, but this is not an immigration problem. When I talk to the businesses in my riding about the labour shortage in British Columbia, I listen to them. This government is not listening to their concerns about getting recognition of the credentials of those technicians and tradespeople so that they can be productive members of our society. Members might think that this budget would have addressed that problem and would have made it a priority. Once again they would be disappointed to learn that they are wrong.

In fact this is a budget that cares very little about what we are really facing in the future, even though time and time again all the research tells us that the future of our country and of our economy lies in more and better immigration and immigration services than we provide.

People like Mumtaz Khan and Monica Verma in my riding, who run the Self Employment and Entrepreneurial Development Society, SEEDS, not only for new Canadians but for men and women who want to start new small businesses, can tell us that in four short years we are going to run out of professionals and skilled workers. This budget does nothing to address the fact that the answer is in new Canadians. The answer is to deal with the backlog of immigration applications. What does the budget offer? Nothing.

The answer is to deal with family reunification. Extended families can offer some of the child care services that the government is so unwilling to provide. What does the budget offer? Again, the budget offers nothing.

The answer lies in speeding up citizenship processing times and also the refugee applications. Again, the budget offers nothing.

New Canadians now realize they have to work around the government, a government that fails them time and time again. The government fails not only new Canadians. We can see resentment coming from all provinces, starting with Atlantic Canada and going to Saskatchewan and British Columbia. That is why the government is trying to push the budget forward. The government wants the resentment that is coming from different regions to be taken out of the public eye.

We know what it takes to ensure a real future for Canadians. The government's budget is a denial of the realities that hard-working Canadians face every day.

Let me return to the children at that breakfast. We are now two budgets into the government's mandate that denied child care, a mandate that said parents should have the right to choose whether to have child care or not. The first budget gave them a $100 cheque each month and what was supposed to be funding for new spaces. This budget does nothing more.

In my province, a little research will show what this has meant. Not a single new child care space has been created. None of that money has ever been accessed. In fact, many spaces have been closed down in the last year.

After two budgets, parents who have nothing but an extra $100, which is also taxed, could not afford to put their children in these child care places, even if they existed. These same parents, perhaps like myself, would like to bring their parents over to look after their children, and this budget fails on that front too.

We see the vicious circle the budget has put in place with its failures: children without child care; parents who cannot find the jobs in their chosen fields, and who cannot even look to their own families to provide the care the government denies because their family members cannot get into this country sooner and faster.

The government is failing to meet the future, to honour its potential with a budget like this. What is worse, this is only one example of how the impact of this failure is being felt by hard-working Canadian families in my constituency right now.

I have not even gone into the failure of a viable so-called green plan the government is talking about so our children and their children could have a livable environment.

I have not even gone into the budget's failure to address the rising population of young native Canadians and what it will mean for their future.

The point is that with this budget, we are a long way away from the 11% increase in after tax income that working families received under the previous Liberal government. Under the previous Liberal government there was real child care, money for child care spaces and more money for real solutions to foreign credentials recognition, and not the fake solutions of the two Conservative budgets, and not the kind of budget that would look to the one area of funding for our young people to get them into the workforce, the summer jobs program.

With all these cuts, this is a budget that imagines that hard-working Canadian families do not want real vision and leadership. The government is thinking that way in planning for our future. We can only go on with the vision, but not the cheque writing strategy.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to what the hon. member had to say. I suggest that perhaps the member was not listening when we were making the announcements with respect to foreign credentials recognition and working toward interprovincial standards for designations. The member can be assured that the government is moving forward on that. As a grandson of an immigrant family, I am very proud of that.

One thing I did not hear mentioned in the member's statement was productivity. We know there are major productivity challenges in Canada. This budget makes significant investments toward improving Canada's overall productivity in post-secondary education, in the skilled trades, in critical infrastructure like the Pacific Gateway, something the member should care about a great deal.

Why does the member stand in the House and not mention anything about the effect of the Pacific Gateway, the effect of investing in productivity in our country and what it will mean for future generations? I want to believe he believes in future generations. I know families in Canada do. Why is he not standing up for productivity in Canada?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, I am very proud to be Canadian by choice, and the only for reason for that was because we had a bright future in Canada.

The member has asked me three questions. The first question was on credential evaluation. I came to this country as an engineer. I had to go through a lot of difficulties. That is why I personally understand the issues and the problems.

The Conservative government, when it wanted to buy votes, promised to set up an agency that would solve the problem. It knew at that time that it would not work. That is why there is no money now. It has cancelled that.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

That's wrong. It's in the budget.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Those members should not be yelling at me, Mr. Speaker. They should be yelling at their own members who are leaving that side of the House to sit on this side. They should be worried about the vote on that side.

We have to come up with a real solution to the problem of foreign credentials for the businesses that are suffering right now. We had put $62 million into that program.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to speak in this chamber today to Bill C-52, the government's budget implementation bill.

I am particularly pleased to speak because I want to ensure I have the opportunity to dispel some of the half-truths and outright fallacies being propagated in debate, particularly today, by members of the opposition.

The first thing I want to talk about is the complete untruth that somehow we have been stifling debate on this important bill. We have heard it from the member for Wascana and the member for Vancouver East. They have consistently stated that the motion we brought in for time allocation today was an attempt to further curb debate on this very important bill. I assure members that is the furthest thing from the truth.

In fact, I point out, particularly for the members opposite, we have so far debated Bill C-52, this year's budget implementation bill, for 15 days. On the last two budget implementation bills presented by the previous government, now the official opposition, in the two years combined, the government had only allocated 14 days debate between the two years. In other words, to put things in context, we have spoken more days on this one bill than the last two budget implementation bills by the previous government combined.

For them to say that we have been curtailing debate is an absolute fallacy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Now that we have that settled and put it to rest, let us talk about the bill itself and some of the benefits that apply to Canadians.

In particular, we know now that the fiscal imbalance situation, a concept that the previous government, and the leader of the official opposition in particular, failed to recognize, has been put to rest. More money has been paid to provinces in the form of transfers, whether they be health transfers or post-secondary education transfers, than has ever been done before, and we are very proud of that.

In addition, we have brought in initiatives to help families with child tax credits. We put money toward infrastructure. We put money toward a biofuels industry. We put money toward agriculture to help our farmers who have been suffering a decade long of income crises, from one crisis to another. We have provided Canadians from coast to coast to coast with a type of budget, presented by the type of government, that they deserve, for the first time in 13 years.

What I really want to talk about in the few moments I have before we get into question period is the question that has been predominating the airwaves today, and that is, the entire topic of equalization, whether it be the Atlantic accord or equalization as it sort of plays itself out with all the provinces besides Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. I will give a particular perspective and insight into what it has been doing to Saskatchewan because Saskatchewan has been unfairly portrayed as a province that has been hurt by the new equalization formula changes.

Again that is, at best, a half-truth, and I would suggest a complete fallacy if members really want to know the truth. Saskatchewan has not only resulted in receiving $878 million in new money, which is a $230 per capita payment, the highest of any province in Canada, but the changes we have made to the equalization formula itself are actually there to protect Saskatchewan in an essence of fairness across the board.

Let me explain what I mean by that.

The changes we have made in budget 2007 to the equalization formulation are, as promised, 100% removal of non-renewable natural resources after extensive consultations with the provinces. Both of those elements we talked about in the election platform. We promised to make those changes, and we did.

Now the question seems to be, particularly for members opposite, is that somehow we treated the province of Saskatchewan unfairly because we put a fiscal capacity cap on the formula.

Let me just say what a fiscal capacity cap is all about. This is nothing more than something that maintains a convention that has been in effect with the equalization program for the last 50 years.

Since equalization was first announced in Canada in 1957, and later enshrined into the Constitution in 1982, there has never been an instance in those 50 years where a province that receives equalization payments ends up with a higher fiscal capacity than a province that has paid into the program. Why is that? It is a matter of absolute fairness. Because the name “equalization” means simply that all provinces should have equal abilities to deliver services at relatively the same level of taxation.

This program is not intended to make a have not province richer than a have province. In fact, I point out that had the program, which introduced in budget 2007, been in effect in the 1990s, when Saskatchewan was considered a have not province, Saskatchewan would have received an additional $4 billion in revenue.

These figures are not my own making. These figures come from the department of finance in the province of Saskatchewan. Why is that? Because with a have not province, at least in the particular case of Saskatchewan, the $400 million a year that it would have received over that decade would not have put its fiscal capacity higher than that of Ontario. In other words, Saskatchewan would have received 100% of all the benefits flowing from their non-renewable national resource revenue.

What happened? Why did Saskatchewan not receive it? Because the previous Liberal government did not address the equalization program, even though there were repeated calls from the province of Saskatchewan to consider at least removing non-renewable natural resources from the formula. The previous Liberal government did absolutely nothing.

The member for Wascana is proud to stand in the House and say that when he was the minister of finance, he gave close to $800 million in his last budget to the province of Saskatchewan, and he did. Why? To try to redress all the inequities hoisted upon Saskatchewan for the previous decade.

Even with that $800 million, he was woefully short of treating Saskatchewan fairly. As I mentioned just a few moment ago, had the provisions we have placed in budget 2007 been in place during the 1990s, Saskatchewan would have received $4 billion in additional revenues.

Unless the member for Wascana commits to coming up with another $3.2 billion to give to Saskatchewan, what he did over 13 years amounts to absolutely nothing in terms of fairness. What we have done is redress that. We have made the equalization formula not only principled, but fair to each and every province.

I hear a lot of chirping on the other side and them saying “not true”. It absolutely is true. The member for Wascana knows it. I know it. I hope the people from Saskatchewan know it as well.

That is not the only thing these changes have done in terms of equalizing and ensuring that the equalization formula is more professional and a principle based program.

I understand that we have to go to question period. I will have a few moments left after question period and I look forward to continuing this discussion then.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons will have about two and a half minutes after question period to conclude his remarks.

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 third time and passed, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Budget Implementation Act, 2007

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Before question period, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons had the floor. He has two minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks.

Therefore, we will now be able to hear the conclusion of the speech of the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, with a little order, please.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, before question period, I was remarking that there was a number of myths and half-truths that had been propagated by members of the opposition today with respect to the budget implementation act, Bill C-52.

I pointed out that in contrary belief to what the member for Wascana had been advocating, we in fact had spent more days debating this bill than the last two budget implementation bills brought forward by the member for Wascana, when he was minister of finance. To suggest we are not giving adequate debate is absolutely a fallacy.

Let me point out two more points before I sit down and entertain comments and questions with respect to equalization and the formula respecting Saskatchewan.

One of the other fallacies is that members opposite, as well as the Premier of Saskatchewan, suggest that Saskatchewan will get no equalization money next year because of changes made to the equalization formula. That is an absolutely untrue statement. The reason Saskatchewan will receive no equalization dollars next year is because it does not qualify for equalization. Its economy is red hot. It is the third fastest rising economy in Canada. The Premier of Saskatchewan, as well as the public of Saskatchewan, should be proud of that.

Here is one thing that is true. If the previous Liberal government were in power today, Saskatchewan would receive no money in equalization this year. Why? Because the position of the Liberals is not to remove non-renewable natural resources from the equalization formula and, on top of that, put a fiscal capacity cap.

The member for Wascana said that it is not true. These are words echoed by his own leader a month ago on the Mike Duffy Live show. We can check the transcript or the film. He stated that he believed there was no equalization receiving province that should have money that would result in a fiscal capacity higher than a province that paid into it.

Saskatchewan is far better off under a Conservative regime than it ever would be under a Liberal regime.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the key issues in the budget has to do with the broken promise related to income trusts. I noted that the chair of the Conservative caucus spoke earlier. He said that, yes, the Conservatives did hurt seniors, but that they promised them pension income splitting and that would offset all the problems.

The problem with this argument is that 70% of seniors do not have pension plans. It is those seniors who invest in income trusts so they can emulate a pension plan. Any benefit to pension plan holders to split their income, if they qualify, and only 12% to 14% of pensioners qualify for splitting, would not be an offset to the people who were harmed by the broken income trust promise.

Is the hon. member aware of the facts related to the income trust broken promise and would he concede that the methodology was wrong since the legislated tax increases were not included in the calculation of the finance minister's tax leakage calculation?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, let me point out a couple of facts, as the member is so fond of quoting himself. With respect to this government's performance, because of the budgetary changes in budget 2007, over 650,000 Canadians are off the tax rolls altogether, an accomplishment never once challenged by the former government.

With respect to benefits to seniors and all Canadians, we have raised the age credit. We have doubled the income credit from $1,000 to $2,000 for seniors, something that has never been done in 20 years. We have raised the RRSP from 69 years to 71 years in terms of conversion. We have done an awful lot for seniors in our country, more so than anyone who I can see on the opposite side of the House.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, one of the crucial issues in the budget bill, as it relates to Saskatchewan, is the issue of the fiscal capacity cap, which the government has chosen to impose. What is problematic about that cap is while it is very clearly imposed by the budget, it was never mentioned to the province of Saskatchewan as the intended government policy before the budget was introduced in the House on March 19.

The Conservatives' answer to that, when asked why they did not mention this rather important fact before the budget was introduced, is that they did not expressly promise not to have a cap. They did make that promise very clearly in Atlantic Canada in a widely circulated brochure that said there would be no caps. I guess Saskatchewan is not entitled to read a brochure that circulated in Atlantic Canada. It should only read the brochures that are circulated in Saskatchewan. Obviously, that is disingenuous.

The government members now say that they always intended to have a cap, they just failed to mention it, that was accidental and that was too bad. The Premier of Saskatchewan, the leader of the opposition in Saskatchewan, who by the way is not a New Democrat but a Conservative, the media, all the experts who have analyzed this say that the failure to mention the cap and then the imposition of the cap constitutes a betrayal, a demonstration of bad faith.

How can the government justify the fact that it did not once mention to Saskatchewan that it was fully its intention from the beginning to impose a fiscal capacity cap?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before in my earlier comments, which obviously the member for Wascana was not here to listen to, the fiscal capacity cap is merely a maintenance of an existing convention that has existed for 50 years. In 50 years since equalization has been a program here in Canada, there has never been one time where an equalization receiving province ends up with a fiscal capacity higher than that of a non-receiving province.

That is what the convention is, because it deals with equalization. It allows all provinces to offer relatively the same level of services at relatively the same level of taxation. That is why this convention has been in existence for over 50 years. We are merely maintaining it.

However, the member for Wascana says that no one from the Conservatives talked about a fiscal capacity cap. I will tell members who did talk about a fiscal capacity cap, the leader of the official opposition, when he said on the Mike Duffy show, “I believe a fiscal capacity cap should be put be put on to ensure that no equalization receiving province ends up with a fiscal capacity higher than a non-receiving province”. On top of that he also stated, “I do not believe that equalization should mean that non-renewable natural resources are removed from the formula”.

That would result in absolutely no money for the province of Saskatchewan. It is far better off with a Conservative government than it ever was with a Liberal government.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today and speak on behalf of not only my constituents of Brampton—Springdale but also on behalf of some of Canada's most vulnerable, the vulnerable who the Conservative government has failed time and time again, the homeless who have been left out in the cold and the single mothers who have not had access to appropriate day care. The Conservative government has failed those who have needed it the most: the Canadians families that are working hard to make ends meet and put food on the table for their children; the homeless; the women; the children; the students; aboriginals; and, unfortunately, the list goes on and on.

The Conservative government had an opportunity to close the growing gap in our country between the rich and the poor but, unfortunately, it chose to cater to its voter base, to those who are already rich.

It is evident that the government is not interested in giving a hand to those who need it most, whether we talk about the issue of health care where it failed to deliver a guaranteed wait time list, whether we talk about the Kelowna accord which the government tore up into shreds, or whether we talk about the Canada summer jobs program which failed to employ thousands of students who needed jobs and needed an opportunity to ensure they could make ends meet and pay for their tuition.

Let us talk about the issue of child care. One of the first acts by the government was to tear up the Liberal early learning child care agreements that were signed in consultation and collaboration with the provinces. These agreements would have ensured adequate, quality, universal, accessible and affordable day care programs for the children of Canada. They would have ensured that mothers and fathers wanting to enter the workforce would have every opportunity. However, the government tore those up and replaced them with its so-called child care plan, a plan that was supposed to provide a choice. Parents, however, quickly learned that it was not a choice.

Why was this plan not an adequate choice? For the $1,200 a year that was being promised for children under the age of six, parents quickly learned that the $1,200 or, if we break it down, almost $100 a month or $20 a week, they were looking at about $3 a day. Where in the country will parents be able to find quality, universal, accessible and affordable child care for $3 a day?

The Conservatives promised that they would give $1,200 to parents for day care but parents realized, once they did their tax returns in 2007, that the $1,200 was actually taxable. By the time all was said and done, parents ended up with approximately $300 to $400 a year for child care.

Therefore, a two income family in Ontario making about $40,000 would actually need to pay the government $31 a month out of the $100 a month that they were receiving. The government actually made back about $624 million as a result of taxing all of that income. However, it refused to put it where parents wanted it go, which was toward the creation of child care spaces.

One hundred and twenty-five spaces were promised. If we take a look, 16 months after being elected, how many spaces have been created? Zero spaces have been created for the children of Canada.

Time and time again, research reports and experts have highlighted the importance of investing in early learning and child care. Independent experts, such as the think tank, the Caledon Institute, have already concluded that under the Conservative plan and within the Conservative budget, it is the rich who stand to benefit. The government is failing low and middle income families. Once again, the government is showing that it is out of touch with the needs of average, hard-working Canadians.

Let us look at the summer jobs program that was created by the former Liberal government, a program that provided opportunity. It provided opportunity for non-profit organizations. It provided opportunity for students of Canada to have gainful, meaningful, valuable employment to ensure they would y be able to work during the summer, have quality work experience and utilize the money they made to pay off their tuitions and their student loans.

What did the Conservative government do to the summer jobs program under this budget? It actually cut funding to the program and rebranded the program that the Liberals had introduced and which had worked phenomenally well for many years past. They created the Canada summer jobs program. What did non-profit organizations, community groups, students and parents find out when the program was announced? They found out that their funding was denied because the Conservatives chose to target the most vulnerable in our society, the hard-working students, the non-profit organizations and the community groups.

We on this side of the House, the Liberal opposition, are working to provide an effective voice for the students, the non-profit organizations and the community groups to ensure they would get their funding back.

Mysteriously, after speaking to this issue time and time again on this side of the House during question period, during statements by members and through press releases, we quickly learned that the minister had reversed the decision.

We have seen that this budget has provided almost nothing for the aboriginal and first nations communities in Canada. We see the frustration and the anger. The aboriginal community wanted to work with the Kelowna accord that invested in health care, in education and in housing for the aboriginal community but the agreement was torn into shreds. It is due to this frustration and this anger that the aboriginal and first nations communities, championed by Phil Fontaine who has done excellent work, will be holding a national day of action, The aboriginal community, like many of the other vulnerable groups that I have mentioned, all want action. They want results and they want them now.

Due to the excellent fiscal management of the previous Liberal government, we delivered eight consecutive balanced budgets and we reduced the debt. However, it is unfortunate that despite the surplus the former Liberal government left the Conservatives, the first act of the Conservative government was to cut funding to the Status of Women Canada, which provided opportunity, to the court challenges program, which provided a voice.

It is clear that the budget does not meet the needs of Canadians.

Let us talk about the issue of housing. When we take a look at the issue of housing, one realizes that the Conservative budget is actually leaving the homeless out in the cold. When we think of basic human needs, we think of food, of water and of the importance of having a roof over one's head, but the Conservative government did not invest one cent of funding for affordable housing in the budget.

In the previous Liberal government, we had committed over $2 billion a year to housing. How much would a $2 billion a year investment have created in terms of housing units? It would have created 636,000 housing units: $1 billion in new affordable housing and $1 billion on the homeless to ensure they had opportunities. We also had national consultations conducted to develop a national housing framework. We had a budget that committed to additional resources to ensure the homeless would have the very best.

When we look at the budget, we realize that the government has not delivered for the most vulnerable in our society. Whether it is the students of Brampton—Springdale, whether it is the women in the country who worked with organizations that benefited from Status of Women Canada or whether it is with regard to housing or the environment, it is unfortunate that the Conservative government has not stepped up to the plate and has not done the job done.

Canadians are counting on some leadership. They are waiting for an action plan. When will the Conservative government step up to the plate and deliver a budget that will meet the needs of our country and move Canada forward so we can compete with the best and the brightest?

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-52, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007.

Bill C-52 is an economic plan that will reduce taxes for hard-working families, pay down debt and invest in Canadians' key priorities, like improving health care, protecting our environment and making our communities safer.

In my riding of Barrie, parents are faced with the daily financial challenges of raising a family. Bill C-52 offers parents a choice in child care by making it more affordable for families to raise their children. Bill C-52 includes a working families' tax plan. This plan has three components.

First, for families with children it includes a brand new $2,000 per child tax credit for children under 18 that will help families get ahead. A constituent of mine, Jennifer Woods from Lions Gate Boulevard, called me after hearing the news and told me how much this means to single mothers like her with three young kids.

Second, this piece of legislation would end the marriage penalty through an increase of the spousal and dependant amounts to the same level as the basic personal amount.

Third, it would help parents save for their children's education by strengthening the RESP program.

The bill would also help Canadian seniors by raising the age limit for RRSPs to 71 from 69 years, increasing the age credit by $1,000 and permitting pension income splitting.

Since being in power, the Government of Canada has introduced nearly $38 billion in individual tax relief over this and the next two fiscal years.

Our government has proposed to lower our national mortgage by $9.2 billion, on top of the $13.2 billion we have put against the debt since being elected. That is the equivalent to $700 in debt relief for every Canadian. Lower debt will mean lower interest payments, which will mean lower taxes. Through the tax back guarantee, every dollar saved from lower interest payments would be returned to Canadians through personal income tax reductions.

Bill C-52 also provides a total of $2.6 billion in new health care investments, as well as an increase in health transfers. This means our government will transfer $44 billion in health care funding to the provinces and territories over the next two years.

The Canada health transfer would provide $21.3 billion in 2007-08, or $1.2 billion more than in 2006-07, to support provincial and territorial health delivery. This would continue to grow by 6% annually to reach $30.3 billion in 2013-14.

This new health care spending is positive news for my riding of Barrie. According to Statistics Canada, Barrie is one of the fastest growing census metropolitan areas in Canada and for many years now we have been faced with the challenge of critical physician shortages and an overload of pressure on our local hospital, the Royal Victoria Hospital. The fund increase in health care by this budget would help hospitals like RVH by providing the provinces with more discretion to fund their needs.

Just recently it was announced that Barrie and Simcoe-Muskoka cancer patients will soon have access to Canada's first portable radiation unit at our local hospital. This new cancer treatment technology will begin to provide life-saving radiation therapy to hundreds of patients by this coming fall.

I want to specifically thank the Minister of Health and Dr. Rob Ballagh for first examining this concept last November. The announcement of this mobile cancer unit is an example of what increases in health care transfers to the provinces can achieve.

In addition to these transfers, Bill C-52 would provide $612 million to a patient wait times guarantee trust. For Ontario, this would translate into $205.4 million to the Ontario government for patient wait time reductions over the next three fiscal years.

Additionally, Bill C-52 would offer $30 million over three years for patient wait times guarantee pilot projects to assist the provinces and territories in implementing their patient wait time guarantees. Many Barrie residents will be positively impacted by this government initiative.

Since the introduction of the federal-provincial wait times strategy, the Royal Victoria Hospital has been a success story. Hospital procedures have been reduced by 19.6% for cataract surgeries, 17.9% for hip replacements, 11.8% for knee replacements, 25% for angioplasty, 23% for MRI exams and 13.6% for CT scans. Over $3 million has been directed to help RVH patients, and this has had a dramatic impact on our community.

We have seen an increase of more than 600 cancer, cataract and joint replacement surgeries performed at RVH, and more MRI hours of operation. The hospital has been able to increase MRI hours to 24 hour coverage on weekdays and extended hours on weekends. This means an additional 1,880 MRI hours for our hospital. I send kudos to the RVH management team of Scott Elliot, David Blenkarn, Janice Skot and Garth Matheson for using government resources so effectively to improve the health care in Barrie.

Another important priority that Bill C-52 addresses is the preservation of our environment. This includes $1.5 billion in the Canada ecotrust for clean air and climate change, the doubling of the number of environmental enforcement officers and the creation of a new national water strategy.

I am pleased that our new national water strategy commits $12 million over the next two years to support the cleanup of Lake Simcoe. This is one of the largest investments of its kind by the federal government in Canadian history to Lake Simcoe. These funds are a significant step toward preserving and protecting Barrie's beautiful waterfront, which is the heart of the city and brings the community together. Furthermore, these much needed funds will directly help residents in the community by creating clean and safe water.

Bill C-52 also takes action to make our communities safer. Many serious crimes that we read about today include gang activity linked back to the drug trade. Bill C-52 will launch a new national anti-drug strategy to combat the use of illegal drugs.

This legislation will also provide funding to protect children from online sexual exploitation and assist investigators in suspected cases of human trafficking. We have a great chief of police in Barrie by the name of Wayne Frechette. This is the type of action that the federal government should be doing to help and support our local police forces.

Budget 2007 is an excellent one for Ontarians. In fact, several leading provincial Liberals have sung its praises. Premier Dalton McGuinty said that it meant real progress for Ontarians. The Minister of Finance said that it contains some really positive elements for Ontario. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said that it offers concrete results to Ontarians.

If Dalton McGuinty's provincial Liberals think that this budget is excellent for Ontario, that means it is a good budget for Barrie, for Ontario and for all of Canada. Perhaps the federal Liberals should follow their provincial counterparts' example.

Bill C-52 will help create a Canada that will make us proud to pass on to our children and grandchildren, a Canada with a standard of living and quality of life that are second to none. The Minister of Finance has delivered another balanced budget that builds a stronger, safer, better Canada by cutting taxes for working families, paying down the nation's debt and investing in the priorities of Canadians.

It is a good budget for my riding in Barrie, a good budget for Ontario and a great budget for Canada.

[Gary Merasty, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-52. I am going to speak mostly from a Saskatchewan perspective.

I have heard a few things that I am quite disappointed about from my colleagues across the floor with respect to Saskatchewan. I want to break it down and talk specifically about some of the things that I think are drastically unfair when it comes to Saskatchewan's treatment under Bill C-52, the budget of Canada.

First of all, we have heard the Conservative members from Saskatchewan boast about the spending in Saskatchewan. I think this is quite misleading from the perspective that we have also seen increases in taxes to Saskatchewan. It is from that perspective that I am going to spend a bit of time.

First of all, we have seen that taxes have been raised in Saskatchewan by tinkering with the basic exemption. Most people in Saskatchewan unfortunately earn middle to lower income salaries. What the tinkering with the basic exemption has done is cause most people in Saskatchewan to pay more taxes at the end of the year. This is not good because it clearly does not help Saskatchewan. That is one issue.

Then we have the issue of the child tax credit. It is not available to lower income families because it is non-deductible. We have a demographic in Saskatchewan, the low wage earners, who probably need this type of supplement the most but they are virtually unable to get it because it does not apply to them. The group that needs it the most is denied it. Other tax credits are not available to low income people, and again they are being shut out, for example, spousal support and so on and so forth.

The tax regime is not favourable to the majority of Saskatchewan residents because the tax treatment they are getting at the end of the day raises their taxes and does not allow them to participate in a lot of the supposed investments that the government has announced in Bill C-52. That is a concern for a lot of people in Saskatchewan right now. It has been one tax year already, and they have seen at the end of the year that holy cow, they are paying more taxes than they ever did and that is not good. They cannot find places to reduce the tax grab from the government. They are not very pleased.

Then there is the income trust fiasco. A lot of people in Saskatchewan lost their life savings because of the flip-flop that occurred. The Conservatives promised they would not do it. People took them at their word and people in Saskatchewan have suffered. We should chalk it up as another attack on Saskatchewan. People lost their life savings, and they are not very happy about that. I certainly would not be happy. I know many people who have lost a lot of money because of that broken promise, which is just one of many broken promises.

Then there is the registered education savings plan. Again, it can be argued that by raising it and changing it in the way the government did it could be good, but lower income people could not even meet the original benchmark. The government raised it but what help is it providing to lower income people to allow their children to pursue their dreams, to obtain a post-secondary education, to pursue the careers they would like to pursue? In effect they have been cut out. They are not happy with that either.

The working income tax benefit does nothing for lower income people. It does not help them scale the welfare wall. They are kept in the situation they are in because lower income people cannot access the benefit. They are not happy with that.

The gist of my speech so far is that lower income people in Saskatchewan are being left out.

The GST cut is fine but not if one does not have the income to purchase, because it is a consumer tax. Most lower income people do not have the disposable income to make large purchases so they benefit very little from the GST cut of 1%. Again it is the lower income people who are left out in the cold. They are not happy. I get calls. I talk to people, I get phone calls, and I visit different communities. People ask why they are being targeted. It is not fair.

I guess one of the biggest things on which everybody in Saskatchewan agrees is that the Kelowna accord was virtually killed and gutted. In my previous statements in the House, I talked about how Saskatchewan's share of the Kelowna accord, if it were implemented fully, would have been approximately $600 million or $700 million over five years. This is money that would have been invested in that young aboriginal population, to mobilize them into post-secondary education, to mobilize them into the workforce, to invest in housing, to improve the quality of life for aboriginal people in that province. When they do well, Saskatchewan does well.

With the Kelowna accord we would have seen aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people in Saskatchewan walking hand in hand, prospering, taking advantage of the opportunities available for them. Saskatchewan is doing fairly well. Saskatchewan just moved out of a have not status to a have status. We are worried because we do not want to slip back. Resource revenue is just that; it is one time and once it is gone, it is gone. What is Saskatchewan to do? Saskatchewan needs to firmly establish itself so it never slips back into being a have not province.

With the killing of the Kelowna accord, not only did the Conservative government abandon the aboriginal people in Saskatchewan, it abandoned all people in Saskatchewan, because as I said, when aboriginal people do well in Saskatchewan everybody does well. They would have walked hand in hand. They would have prospered and been able to capitalize on the benefits that Saskatchewan has to offer its residents.

I guess one of the big issues over the last month has been the broken promise to exclude resource revenue from the equalization formula. Very clearly, a promise was made. The Conservatives very clearly have broken their promise to Saskatchewan.

My colleagues from Saskatchewan are feeling the pressure, and I do not blame them for feeling that pressure, not only from Saskatchewan residents but I am sure from all sectors. Saskatchewan media has chastised my colleagues from Saskatchewan for their lack of action to stand up for Saskatchewan, for trying to mislead Saskatchewan with irrational numbers which I heard today. As I said previously, the Conservatives give a new definition to the algebraic term of “irrational numbers” because their numbers simply do not make sense. They are trying to confuse and distract from their broken promise. Very clearly, a promise was made and a promise was broken. That is what people in Saskatchewan understand.

People in Saskatchewan may be misled once, but they will not be misled again. People in Saskatchewan do not like to be taken advantage of or taken for granted. Do this once and they will not let it happen again. People in Saskatchewan do not think that the government cares for them, and they are going to be voicing their displeasure through many and various means.

I talked about income tax being raised in Saskatchewan. My colleagues across said, “Look, we are putting some $250 million into Saskatchewan this year”. People in Saskatchewan are paying for that because their taxes have been increased. They are paying for it because they are not able to access the tax deductions that are made available to everybody else.

At the end of the day, people in Saskatchewan are paying for their own lack of funding from the Conservative government. At the end, it is zero. I would say there is a net loss at the end of the day to people in Saskatchewan because of the way the Conservative government has manipulated the numbers.

It is a shame to mislead the people in Saskatchewan, but it is more of a shame to take advantage of lower income people who work very hard to make a living in Saskatchewan. Instead, they see their taxes are being raised. They are being marginalized even more. They are being given no support and then there is the promise that has been broken. It is unfortunate.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Secretary of State (Small Business and Tourism)]

Mr. Speaker, as one of the members of Parliament from Saskatchewan helping sell this budget out there, there are few things I take umbrage with in the member's speech.

He talks about the GST cut. Actually, if he were to re-read the document, he would find out that was last year's budget. We did that in 2006.

He talks about it not really helping poor people at all. I am here to say that I get calls all the time from folks in my riding. I actually attend my riding office. They call me and say they are noticing a difference in the GST on the rent they pay, the power bill, the telephone bill and the gas bill. It really does not matter what layer one finds oneself stratified in society. The GST cut helped a lot of people. There are a lot of instances where people paid GST and did not even know it was part of a grocery bill or that type of thing, so it had a very positive impact.

He also talked about the Kelowna accord. Again, he is going back a year in that vintage. I guess he does not have a whole lot that is bad to say about this budget and has to go back to the one prior to it. Maybe he did not get an opportunity to speak to last year's budget.

The biggest concern I had was with Kelowna, and I certainly campaigned on it. I have nine reserves in my riding including the urban reserves and so forth. My message to them was that Kelowna was not good enough and that point has been proven. We have actually spent more on aboriginal affairs in this country since the Kelowna accord did not go through than the Kelowna accord would have actually called for. On top of that, we settled the residential schools file and those cheques will start to flow.

When I talk to people in my riding about budget 2007, taxpayers in general, the municipalities with the infrastructure moneys that are flowing and business groups are all ecstatic about this budget and are saying, “Let's get it passed and let's move on”.

The only person upset with the budget is the premier. When he came before the finance committee his major concern, and no one will believe this, was that 60% of the money allocated to the province he did not get to put his sticky little fingers on. The municipalities are saying that is good because the premier of Saskatchewan alone charges a percentage on the flowthrough moneys. Can you believe that, Mr. Speaker? That is how unfortunate it is out there.

There is a tremendous amount of positive in the budget for Saskatchewan residents. There is the biofuels strategy and the ecotrust moneys. Saskatchewan is one of the worst polluters in the country with its coal fired plants. Our ecotrust money gives it a chance to get on top of that. We also have the health wait times guarantee. This is a great budget for Saskatchewan residents.

The only question I have for the member opposite is this. Last Thursday the Liberals had a supply day which was again on this particular issue. Why did the member not stick around to vote for that supply motion?

[Gary Merasty, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, a few things the member brought up were interesting. Yes, I mentioned some things from the previous budget, but Saskatchewan people are feeling the effects today and are not very happy. Then they see more of the same in this budget, which is bad, bad and bad. They are not very happy.

I cannot remember the name of the riding my colleague gave, but he said he would like to move to Saskatchewan. I would encourage him to move to Saskatchewan and maybe prop up some of the Conservative MPs there to maybe deal with this issue.

It is interesting that he talks about the Kelowna accord and says that the government is investing now. I do not know if the member realizes it but last year's announcement for aboriginal funding actually never left Ottawa because it was designed not to leave.

After talking to Saskatchewan people and others across the country, they have actually had a net loss in funding. That is unfortunate. I am not sure where this imaginary funding is coming from that the member speaks of.

One of the things we heard Mr. Calvert say was that this is one time money, that 85% of what we are supposedly getting is one time only. He said Manitoba is getting more than his province next year. Saskatchewan gets zero next year. This is not a good deal for us. Saskatchewan is being shafted. That is the end of the story and Saskatchewan people know it.

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

Mr. Speaker, after his excellent set of remarks, I would ask the member to acknowledge that it is very easy for the government to list a whole bunch of government expenditures flowing into the provinces. In fairness to everyone around here and all taxpayers, we have a budget of a couple of hundred billion dollars and there is a lot of money moving around the country being spent by the federal government in transfers, equalization and other things.

The nub of the issue here is this. Would he not agree that it is the letdown that people in several provinces feel now as a result of the decision by the government to, if not renege totally on some of the previous federal-provincial agreements, attempt to do an end run around them and remove the benefits that had been earlier negotiated and signed with the federal government?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Time has run out. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vancouver Island North.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to once again speak about this Conservative budget.

The last time I spoke, I outlined what we see as the government's true agenda, driven by its five priorities: first, help the rich get richer and pretend the prosperity gap does not exist; second, privatize at all costs, including municipalities and infrastructure; third, treat first nations with disdain and ignore their advice; fourth, invest as little as possible in social programs, no matter how high the surplus; and fifth, ignore the crisis situation in the forestry sector.

These Conservative priorities are doing little to address the needs of everyday Canadians, however, they are in the best interests of the corporate sector.

Today I want to talk about the significance of rising inequality in Canada, but I also want to address another important issue facing Canadians that the government failed to address in the budget, and that is the failure to live up to our commitments to the world on foreign aid.

According to a study done by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Canadian economy is doing great and we have not seen it this good in over 40 years. We have sustained economic growth, low interest rates, a low inflation rate, the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years, and years of back to back surpluses in the federal budget.

Yet, there is a growing gap between the richest 10% and the poorest 10% of families raising children. Despite nine fiscal surpluses in a row, the gap between the rich and the poor is growing in this country and it is at its highest that it has ever been in 20 years.

What about those families in between? With this greater polarization of incomes, middle class working families are losing ground. Families today are better educated. They are working more for longer hours, but they are feeling the squeeze of rising housing costs in all our cities and communities, a lack of child care spaces, rising prescription drug costs, no relief from tuition fees for post-secondary education, rising bank fees at a time when bank profits are at an all time high, and rising gas prices when the industry is making record profits, not to mention getting record subsidies.

It is an embarrassing list that impacts hard-working families. Their real incomes are stagnant or decreasing in the face of economic growth. Most Canadians are taking on greater levels of debt for mortgages, tuition fees and child care expenses. They are virtually only a couple of paycheques away from hard times and with all those stresses, everyone working more and earning less, our society is at the breaking point.

With the surplus in the federal government's coffers, the government could have made the choice to address the real concerns of hard-working Canadian families, but it chose a different path. It threw a few crumbs to those hard-working families, but its corporate friends got the biggest pieces of the pie.

What ordinary Canadians wanted was assistance up front, not a refund. Everything in the government's budget is designed to make hard-working Canadians part with their hard-earned cash first, then apply for rebates or tax credits. The problem is that most families are stretched to the limit, making it hard for them to participate in the government's consumption plan. These are just some of the reasons why we in the NDP will not be supporting this budget.

I would like to switch gears now and talk about my second topic, the failure on the part of the government to live up to our commitments to the world, just one more broken promise in a long list.

When we talk today about committing 0.7% of our gross domestic product to foreign aid, we are actually referring to an international agreement made many years ago. In September 1969, Lester B. Pearson, the former prime minister of Canada, unveiled a report for the World Bank entitled “Partners in Development”.

This report reviewed the results of how wealthy nations had distributed development assistance over the past 20 years. The report clearly stated that there was a great need to increase the amount of resources that were going to developing countries. The commission recommended that funds equivalent to 0.7% of the GNP, or gross national product, of developed countries like Canada flow to developing countries.

In October 1970 the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 2626, the international development strategy for the second United Nations development decade.

Through this resolution Canada and other developed countries agreed to increase our foreign aid contributions to developing countries to a level equal to 1% of their GNP and that a minimum of 0.7% of the GNP would be provided by 1975.

This was the commitment that we made in 1970, 0.7% of GNP was the minimum that we had promised to the world and that is our responsibility. However, we are not even coming close to meeting our promises of assistance. The closest that any Canadian government has ever been to meeting our goal was in 1975 when 0.53% of our GNP was committed. Since then, our contributions have gotten smaller.

In 1993, when the previous Liberal government came to power, our contribution went from 0.44% of GNP down to 0.22%, our lowest point since 1970. All of these cuts were in the name of balancing the budget.

The most recent calculations show that our contribution lies at less than 0.33%, better than in 2001 but well below our commitment. In fact, it is not even half.

One might ask if anyone has ever met these commitments. The answer is yes. Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden have all met their commitments and they have gone above it. As well, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Finland, Spain and Belgium all have timetables to meet their obligations, all before 2015. Many of these countries have almost identical economies to ours, so we know that it can be done.

Canada has no timetable. Neither the previous Liberal government, nor the current Conservative government have committed to meeting our promise. In fact, out of the 22 most developed countries Canada ranks 14th in terms of development aid, an embarrassing fact and one that questions Canada's image as a model of leadership in the world.

Canada must face up to the shameful record the country has had in the last 15 years on foreign aid. The NDP strongly believes that reaching 0.7% must be a priority. With surpluses every year, it is blatantly unfair to deny and turn our backs on the promise that we made to the world.

The NDP's foreign affairs critic, the member for Halifax, described the state of affairs most clearly when she said:

Millions of people are dying unnecessarily of hunger and disease because of the grinding poverty in which they are living. Canada is a contributor to those killer conditions. Instead of the Liberal government moving us forward with a level of overseas development assistance that would allow Canadians to hold their heads up high, it took us from 0.5% of ODA, which was in place under the previous Conservative government, back to where it was at .23%...then in the name of heaven let us agree and commit ourselves to fast track a bill that the government would introduce so we could then get on with taking action.

Canada can afford to do better. In fact, all parties of the House of Commons agreed with the member for Halifax in 2005 that the government should set up a plan and a timetable to achieve the 0.7% target by the year 2015. That included the Conservatives and this Prime Minister.

With a record federal surplus and after promising Canadians and the world that we would live up to our commitments on foreign aid, we see nothing in the budget, no plan and no commitment.

The government knows that its budget falls short on many fronts. In B.C., the province the Conservatives forgot in their speech, I guess they really meant it when they said their Canada goes from the Rockies to New Brunswick. Whatever happened to “from coast to coast to coast”? In B.C. the budget falls short.

In the Atlantic provinces the government chose to turn its back on yet another previous commitment, forcing one of its own members into a corner with no way out except to sit on the other side of the House.

In the north, where it is even more costly to live, the government could have given some relief by changing the northern residence tax deduction, an allowance that has not been changed in almost 20 years. On so many issues where they could have made meaningful contributions, the Conservatives did not.

Some things can be done: a national housing strategy to make sure ordinary families do not have to live in poverty just to put a roof over their head; a national child care program to provide security, stability and affordability to parents when they go to work; and lower tuition fees so young people do not have to start their careers with enormous debt loads.

These are just a few of the ideas that the NDP is happy to share with the government. These are some of the things that the government could have done with the record surpluses. Unfortunately, it did not.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech. She did not really address some of the great things in the budget.

I come from Oshawa. We manufacture cars. The manufacturing sector has suffered under 13 years of Liberals, who did absolutely nothing for the manufacturing sector.

We took the industry committee across Canada. For the first time ever, we listened to manufacturers. We listened to their needs. The NDP industry critic was part of a unanimous report that we gave to the Minister of Finance, and 16 out of 17 fiscal recommendations were addressed in the budget.

The budget has been called the best budget for manufacturing ever. NDP members say that they are in favour of jobs, that they are in favour of industry. However, in the budget they are voting against their own critic's recommendation.

The hon. member did not address the people of Ontario. Nor did she did not address the people of Oshawa, who are struggling right now for manufacturing jobs.

Why is she saying no to manufacturing jobs? Why is she saying no to auto jobs? Why is she saying no to the manufacturing industry that needs the budget and needs it now?

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to disagree with my hon. colleague. I did not see much that is great in the budget. The government sees its budget as the best thing since sliced bread, but unfortunately, we in the NDP do not see that at all.

Over 250,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost. This is a crisis in our country. Yet there is no auto strategy in the budget to address some of those jobs.

The government is selling us out on so many fronts in the manufacturing sector. In British Columbia, where I come from, everyone knows about the softwood lumber sellout, another reason we cannot support so many things the government does such as when it takes our resource sector jobs and sells them out at alarming rates. Around 5,000 jobs have been lost since that sellout.

The member should know that 250,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector are gone from Canada, and that is a complete sellout.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's comments. I think we all know the implementation bill will pass the House shortly. The concern I have is that the Liberal dominated Senate is currently threatening to delay the bill.

This delay could cost Canadians $4 billion in critical year end funding, including $300 million to B.C. Will the member stand today for B.C. and tell the Senate to pass the bill before funding to B.C. is lost?

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, I will stand up for British Columbia and vote against the budget, because we know there is precious little in it for British Columbians.

We probably will see the passage of the budget, with the Bloc support. Bloc members get up day after day to speak against the budget, yet at every turn they vote for it. Unfortunately, we know it will pass.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member gave a great presentation when she talked about how B.C. had been completely left out of the budget. When the Finance Minister made his presentation, he even talked about his Canada going from the Alberta Rockies to Newfoundland and Labrador.

She talked about the softwood lumber sellout, which has had appalling impacts on British Columbia. She talked a bit about the pine beetle and the fact that the government promised but has not delivered on aid to pine beetle affected communities.

Would the member address another broken promise, and that is leaky condos? Tens of thousands of British Columbians have been left high and dry. The Conservatives promised they would take action, and there is not a penny to address these condos in the budget.

Why does the government treat British Columbians with such disdain?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster left the hon. member for Vancouver Island North 15 seconds.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I knew it would be hard for my hon. colleague to keep it short, but absolutely, we have to wonder at the Conservatives when they keep leaving British Columbia out. As I said in my remarks, their Canada goes from the Rockies to the Atlantic, unfortunately, not from coast to coast to coast.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to Bill C-52. Before I start, I take exception to what the NDP just said, and that is the government has not taken British Columbia into account in the budget. Prior to that, we had a Liberal member stand up and talk only about Saskatchewan.

Those members of Parliament think the government is not addressing provincial issues. We are addressing provincial issues. We are addressing issues that affect all Canadians. This is their way of twisting the facts. That is how they want to do it. The actual fact is the budget is for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We disagree with the opposition parties, but that is their way it is.

The member from Saskatchewan talked about Saskatchewan and then he went on to talk about the Kelowna accord. I remind him that a short while ago the Prime Minister made a speech on how our new government would address the issue of land claims. What is interesting is the national chief was with the Prime Minister. This is what he said:

—today's announcement...is a positive response to what our people have advocated for decades, and it is a testament to the perseverance and dedication of our people.

By this statement, he is saying that the Liberals ran the country for 13 years and for 13 years they did nothing.

Since the Conservative government has come into power, it has taken action. We know the previous government was run by Mr. Dithers. The Conservative government is run by Mr. Action. The Prime Minister has shown commitment and action. He has given a firm direction of where we want the country to go. That is reflected in the budget.

Very clearly, this is a Conservative budget with Conservative values. This is not a Liberal budget that dithers on this side or that side.

What are the Conservative values in the budget? They are restoring fiscal balance, tax relief, debt reduction, investing for Canadians, preserving the environment, improving health care, supporting our troops, supporting our farmers and supporting our seniors.

The NDP and the Liberals of course do not support it or the things about which I have talked. They want to go down to their narrow, little agenda.

Let me talk about seniors. This is what CARP, an association for people who are 50-plus, had said. Again, after years of advocating when the Liberals were in power, nothing was done. Now they stand and cry indignation about all the things which they did not do. CARP says, “After years of advocating for the age at which RRSPs must be converted from 69 to 71, this has happened as well as income splitting”. CARP is saying that this is a good budget for seniors.

Let me talk now about tax fairness, income splitting and income trusts. The previous speakers did not address the issue of income trusts. Do they really think we could have the income tax burden moved from corporations on to the shoulders of ordinary Canadians? That is what would have happened. They do not want to talk about that. That is why the government was very firm, despite the fact that we had to change the rules on income trusts. We knew tax fairness was very important for Canada. The Conservative government stands for that.

Budget 2007 carries the Conservative policies, which are good for Canadians. It addresses issues that Canadians want. Of course we do not expect the Liberals to like this budget because they never did it.

What is really very funny about the Liberals is they argue about things as if they were never in power. It is as if they had nothing to do with the situation we are in today. However, the good thing about is the Conservative government is very forceful. We know where we want to go. The Prime Minister made it very clear in the election promise as to where our direction would go. That is strongly reflected in the budget.

When the Liberals and the NDP members vote against the budget, this is what they will vote against.

The budget is about tax relief for individuals and families. It is about tax relief for businesses. It is about money for infrastructure. It is about making Canada's economy stronger. It is about reducing federal debt. It is about post-secondary education and skills and training. It is about science and technology. It is about defence and public security. It is about preserving our environment. It is about investing in Canadians, improving our health care system and most important, restoring the fiscal balance for a stronger federation.

The main point is the budget is the firm direction, the firm road map to where Canada will go, after listening to Canadians. The budget is all about that. When the Liberals and the NDP vote against this, they will vote for what Mr. Dithers and the Liberals did for the last 12 years they were in power.

I sat on that side through three Liberal budgets and I listened to the Liberals. They had this whole beautiful budget that would make Canadians feel good because they would address all these issues. At the end of the day, most of the issues were never addressed.

I am very happy and glad that the new Conservative government will tackle those issues right.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the member for Calgary East, one would think the budget was very laudable. We know from the reaction of Canadians and the provinces that it is exactly the opposite.

The member prides himself on how the government took firm action, was resolute and moved forward in that way. I guess, in a sense, it did in that it took a resolute decision around the equalization and the Atlantic accords. Conservatives were very firm in being very unfair and going back on their word to Atlantic Canada. They were also very resolute in the way that they dealt with income trusts when they took away about $25 billion to $30 billion out of the assets of Canadians and seniors who had saved through that vehicle for their retirement.

The Conservative government was quite firm and resolute in the way it screwed up the interest deductibility, which takes away an advantage of Canadian companies that want to compete internationally and acquire some foreign companies.

I noticed the other day the Conservatives were very firm and resolute when they finally, in reacting to political pressure on foreign acquisitions, and meekly said that they would table some changes to the Investment Canada Act, which is about time. However, unfortunately, it looks like they will deal only with elevating the criteria from strictly an economic test to one which deals with security interests, which is not far enough.

Could the member opposite tell me if there are any more surprises that the government will bring forward in a resolute way, which will work against Canadians and will have everybody's back up in the way it has treated the fiscal realities of our country?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I assure my hon. friend that we will come forward resolutely to address the issues that help Canadians, not go against them. We are very confident. We will come forward with a firm decision, with a firm will to ensure that Canada moves on the right path, not in the way the member's government did while dithering on this side and that side.

Most important, he talks about fiscal balance. As the Prime Minister said, we have broken no promise. In fact, we have strengthened the fiscal balance to ensure that all provinces get maximum advantage. They have the choice. They should also look at what the budget does overall for their citizens. There is no such thing as only a citizen of Saskatchewan or a citizen of Nova Scotia. They are all Canadians and the majority of this is to their benefit as Canadians.

In reference to income trusts, I remind my friend on the other side that he and his government did not take any action. He literally believes that the tax burden should shift from the corporations to ordinary Canadian taxpayers. Does he really believe that is the way it should go?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about responsibility. He said that the budget was responsible and that Conservative actions have been responsible.

I have a question for him. When we see the practices of the Conservative government, we see exactly the opposite. This budget continues $9 billion in corporate tax cuts at a time when Canadians are trying to get better health care and access to post-secondary education. We have a homelessness crisis, a housing crisis and an affordability crisis. Most Canadian family incomes have actually gone down.

The government is giving $9 billion to the corporate sector. It has shovelled $1 billion off the back of a truck to the profitable oil and gas industry. Most recently, there is the forgiving of $400 million in taxes owed by the former Hollinger company. How does the member square that frivolity of throwing money around with so-called Conservative responsibility?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the actions we have taken are to strengthen the Canadian economy. We are very pleased to provide tax relief to individuals, families and businesses. We are very pleased to reduce the federal debt. All of these actions work to strengthen the Canadian economy. That will benefit the workers of Canada.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche, Justice; the hon. member for Gatineau, Official Languages.

[Bill Casey, Independent, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again to talk about the budget and the implementation bill, Bill C-52.

I want to address the hon. parliamentary secretary who just spoke so eloquently. I want to draw his attention a couple of things. He mentioned Mr. Dithers and criticized him and described the current Prime Minister as Mr. Action. I want to point out to him that it should not be just Mr. Action, but Mr. Right Action.

There are a lot of good things in the budget for my riding. It is a rural riding and I do not hesitate to say that there are a lot of good things in the budget for my riding, but it does not mean that one can break a contract. As we have heard over and again, this budget breaks a contract with the people of my province of Nova Scotia.

It is a nine paragraph contract signed by Cecil Clarke, the minister of energy at the time. It is the Atlantic accord agreement, which gives Nova Scotia 100% access to the gas and oil revenues, with no clawbacks, and it was meant to be applied to whatever equalization formula is in existence at the time.

Anyway, that is now broken in this budget that we are debating here today. Every day I hear the Minister of Finance, maybe the Prime Minister and maybe other ministers say that Nova Scotia can have the new formula or the old Atlantic accord. That simply is not true. They say over and again that the Atlantic accord has no amendments, that it is not changed. I do not know how they can say that because of consequential amendments in Bill C-52.

I want to read this into the record: “Section 220 of the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act is replaced by the following:”, and after that there could be about 10 paragraphs of replacements and amendments. Several parts of this act are amended.

As well, clause 81 amends the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act by adding another paragraph. This goes on for several amendments, replacements, additions and so on. This also includes the 2005 offshore revenue agreement that was negotiated by John Hamm. It is amended as well. Whole paragraphs are amended and definitions are changed. It is just not accurate to say that the old Atlantic accord is still available.

I hope that in these closing hours leading up to the vote tonight the government side will come to its senses and restore the Atlantic accord exactly as it was signed by John Hamm in 2005.

Members may recall that I voted against the budget on this issue. It was a difficult decision in a way, but in a way it was not. It was not a matter of policy whereby we decided whether it was good policy or bad policy; it was just right and wrong. The contract with my province of Nova Scotia was supposed to be a 15 year contract. In two years the government has made all these amendments to which I just referred. That changes the contract. It was supposed to go for 15 years, but it only went two years before the changes were made.

At this time I want to say that I did not make this decision easily. I want to thank my wife and others for helping me make that decision, because it affects her as much as it does me. It has had a big impact on my family and is going to have a big impact on whatever future I may have as a politician. My wife Rosemary was a very big part of this decision and I hope she is listening. I also want to thank my brother Dan. He is not interested in politics and does not have anything to do with politics, but he helped me because he actually gave me a non-political point of view on this.

Also, I had a lot help from friends and people in my riding association. A lady by the name of Tilly Armstrong said some things I will not forget. Her husband Dave and son Scott said a lot of things I will never forget. There were others like Jeff Hunt. Many people helped me make that decision.

I want to come back to the accord, because if the budget passes the House at third reading tonight, the accord as we know it, as it was negotiated in 2005, will be gone. Every single Nova Scotian will feel a loss if this happens. I hope that when it goes to the Senate the senators will use their sober second thought to review it again, to make sure that the right thing is done, and to make sure that the Atlantic accord is restored exactly as it was written, because once it is gone, it is gone, and I doubt that we can get it back.

I did not know a lot about the Atlantic accord until this debate came up. The more I got into it, the more I realized how magic it is and how well thought out it was, how well it was written and how it really represents the interests of Nova Scotia and provides a future for the economy of Nova Scotia.

I want to compliment former premier John Hamm, who did the negotiations, and Cecil Clarke, who was very much a part of them as well. He was the minister of energy at the time. We should all be grateful to them, but we should all also fight to make sure that this accord is kept exactly the way they negotiated it.

Another thing I hear quite often is that Nova Scotia gets this gift of $95 million under the new program. It is not a gift. It is just part of the same program that all the provinces have. It is not a gift any more than whatever the province of Quebec or any other province gets in the way of funding from the equalization formula.

However, somehow it is made out to be a big consideration for Nova Scotia. It is not. It is exactly the same benefit the other provinces get, but what it does do is take away the ability for the offshore revenue agreement to be attached to the new formula, which is what it was always intended to be.

What has happened is that under the budget the government has changed the whole concept of the offshore revenue agreement. It was originally envisioned to go with whatever equalization formula is in place at the time. It was to follow that. It is a rolling commitment to follow whatever the equalization formula is.

What the budget does is lock it into the previous formula. It changes the whole concept and the whole basic formula of the Atlantic accord. It means that after this budget passes it will not apply to the formula that exists at the time, but that is exactly what the formula was supposed to be. That is exactly what its purpose was.

This budget changes it dramatically and takes that away. I do not believe the people of Nova Scotia are going to accept that. Certainly it does not look like it to me from the response I have had, even just from my vote, and it absolutely puzzles me why I am getting this positive response, because all I did was ask the government to honour a signed contract. This is not a political promise. It is not something that was said loosely. This is a signed contract. It is signed by the Government of Canada.

I believe that every Canadian wants the signature of the Government of Canada to be honoured. It does not matter whether it is on a nine paragraph agreement with the Government of Nova Scotia or a trade deal with Washington or some kind of deal with Moscow. When Canada signs a contract, everybody in the world should know that it is rock solid, that it is solid gold and it will be honoured.

In this case, the signature was supposed to mean that the contract would be honoured for 15 years. It was honoured for only two years and now the government is changing it. In any case, it is a sad day at this point due to the fact that we have not made more progress. I understand that the premier of the province of Nova Scotia is in town today. I understand that he has met with the Prime Minister.

However, I do not think the government has agreed to restore the Atlantic accord, which is the only thing that Nova Scotians are going to accept at this point. At some point they might have accepted a compromise, but they are mobilized. Nova Scotians from every walk of life are mobilized and focused. They are crystallized on this matter of maintaining the Atlantic accord. Nothing other than the Atlantic accord will be accepted. We had it. We should continue to have it.

I think the government made an awful mistake to tamper with it. It had been going for two years. Nobody found a problem with it. It was working. It was accepted by all the other provinces. Why in the world the government brought it into the debate on the budget and tried to tamper with it and tried to change it, I will never understand. I think in the end the government is going to pay a price for it because it has opened up the whole debate again.

I hope that Nova Scotia will have the Atlantic accord restored, but I do think it is going to cause other provinces to become more animated in the debate and to seek similar agreements. It is a shame the government ever tried to meddle with this.

With that, I will end my remarks. I hope that between now and the vote tonight the premier of the province of Nova Scotia and the Prime Minister of Canada find a way to restore the Atlantic accord exactly as it was negotiated and as it was signed on Valentine's Day 2005.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has paid the price in a very literal and personal way for the Conservatives' betrayal of Atlantic Canada. I think all members of the House respect him for the stand that he took in the interest of his constituents and in the interest of Nova Scotia.

We have seen the reaction of public opinion in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. We have seen the reaction in Saskatchewan. We have seen the reaction in British Columbia to this bad budget that now the Conservatives are trying to rush through because they are realizing that public opinion is certainly being raised against them right across the country, from coast to coast to coast.

The government brought in closure today to force through the budget bill. We saw last Friday that the government tried to give itself special emergency powers, a conjurer's trick that it tried to use to get the budget through.

Why do the Conservatives not get it? Why do they not understand that these betrayals and broken promises, particularly the betrayal on the Atlantic accord, are simply not acceptable. I want to know the member's opinion. Why do the Conservatives not understand that a broken promise is illegitimate and wrong and they should make amends?

[Bill Casey, Independent, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could answer that but I cannot even come close because I do not understand why the Conservatives do not understand why a signed contract should be honoured.

I think every Canadian should demand of their government, whatever government it is, that if we sign a contract, if we put Canada's signature on it above the little red flag that we are all so proud of, that commitment should be honoured no matter where it is.

I do not understand. I have a theory though. I think the government wants to have uniform programs for everything. It wants to run Canada by an Excel spreadsheet. It wants everything the same. That happened with the summer job program. It wanted to do everything the same.

The problem is that we are not a uniform country. We cannot have uniform programs in this country because we are not uniform. We have so many different economic and cultural standards in the country that are different that it just does not work.

I think the Conservatives, if they want to stay in power, will need to adapt and realize that every region has different challenges and that they need programs that are designed to meet their needs. We just cannot have one program that fits all.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my friend on his words. He is virtually a neighbour of my riding and many of his constituents visit my riding and vice versa.

The economy is very strong in southern New Brunswick and in northern Nova Scotia. Communities like Truro and Amherst are economic hubs of their areas.

Could the member underscore again for the House and for the country how important it is for the pockets of prosperity in Atlantic Canada to have hope and to have economic tools that the Atlantic accord would provide for our future, for our children's future and probably, in the member's case, his grandchildren's future?

[Bill Casey, Independent, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member mentioned that because my first grandchild will be born in August and her name will be Willow. We are all quite excited about it. Here is to Willow Victoria Casey.

Most economists estimate that by the government not honouring this contract, it will cost Nova Scotia about a billion dollars. That means so much in the way of economic development, future growth and not being able to build infrastructure to attract industry and investment. It will have an impact on everyone for decades and decades to come.

When this agreement was signed it was not signed as part of an equalization formula. It was signed as an economic development program. Now it is being taken away because the government made it part of equalization and removed the concept and changed it dramatically.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add a few words to this debate on what has been happening today for Canadians watching.

The government has moved a motion to ensure the budget gets through Parliament today. Canadians may be wondering what the rush is and why the government is so determined to get the budget through today. The simple answer is that if the budget does not go through today and it does not get to the Senate for it to consider and, hopefully, pass, then important spending measures would simply disappear, which is an important and undesirable consequence.

The budget was introduced on March 19. Members of this House have had three months to attack it, to rail against it or, conversely, to laud its virtues and the good things about it. There has been plenty of time for everyone, not just members of this House, but Canadians themselves to look at this budget. The budget has been out in the public domain for quite a while.

This budget should have passed the House a few days ago in order to give the Senate reasonable time to consider it, study it and make its determination on it. If this budget does not pass the House, there will be no royal assent and the budget will fail, as will the important spending measures in this budget implementation bill for Canadians.

If the spending programs are not endorsed by Parliament, by law the money will need to go toward paying down the debt. These programs, which Canadians are counting on, and a lot of my colleagues have gone through the list many times, programs for the environment, for education, for the provinces and for a whole range of good, proper and appropriate things, will not be implemented. In the next budget there will be less money to work with and there will be other priorities so these spending measures could well be lost altogether. The government cannot allow that to happen. It is, therefore, urgent that this budget pass and go over to the Senate before the Senate rises for the summer as well.

Getting the budget through is fundamental to the government's interests, and I do not think anyone would question that. I think everyone recognizes that fact. The Liberals agreed that if they could have all the witnesses they wanted at the finance committee to look at this budget, that they would not impede the budget going through the House in time to preserve these important spending programs.

However, as events unfolded, the Liberals saw an opportunity to cause grief to the government by continuing to attack the budget. I understand that is a well-nigh, irresistible opportunity for the Liberals in the official opposition so they broke the agreement to let the budget go through the House.

Here we are today and the government needs to get these measures through. This is an urgent matter. It is not something that would be nice to get through or that we would really like to get through. It must go through or these measures will be lost. Limiting debate through time allocation, which we are debating today, is the only way to save these important spending programs.

I do not understand the Liberal hypocrisy of saying that the government should not be limiting debate. There has been plenty of debate in this House on the budget. I might add that the Liberals used closure and time allocation as a matter of course when they were in government. Almost every single major government bill put forward by the Liberals had time allocation limiting debate. They pushed their legislation through. More than one-third of their measures were pushed through that way and yet they are crying foul when, on a clearly urgent matter, the government is using the only tool available to get the budget through.

The government is not doing this alone. The majority of the members in the House want the budget to go through, including members of the opposition. It is not just the big bad Conservatives doing this. The majority in the House recognize that we cannot lose these important spending programs.

The Liberals know they cannot defeat the government's budget through the front door so they are claiming they should be allowed to defeat it through the back door with these delaying tactics, but that is just not so. They said that they would not use these tactics and yet they are using them. We now need to limit debate, but not in any unreasonable or arbitrary way because there has been plenty of debate, but we need to get the budget through the House so it can go to the Senate and then Canadians can have the programs they have been counting on.

We heard a lot of hues and cries from over there because new program spending for festivals was not released two weeks after the budget came out. However, the same people who are asking us for the money are not supporting the budget. There is so much hypocrisy that it is hard sometimes to even sit still and be quiet about it.

My friend who just spoke has one interpretation of the Atlantic accords and what they should mean, but he knows there are other legitimate interpretations in the Conservative Party, among the experts who he cited and in his own province. There are legitimate differences of opinion. That is not a surprise. That is what happens in a big country with a lot of experts and people looking at many different factors. These are very complex programs.

He says that we need to find a way to resolve these differences of opinion. I agree and the government agrees that we need to find a way but how will we find a way if we close the door, walk away from the table or refuse to be part of the discussions? Sadly, that is what my friend did. I have the greatest respect for my friend but we cannot resolve differences or find a way to bring people with different opinions together if we just throw it aside and say that nothing will happen my way so I will walk away.

As the House knows, voting against the budget is a public statement of non-confidence in a government. How can someone be part of an organization in which he says publicly that he has no confidence? If I am a member of a law firm and I say that the firm is not doing a good job for its clients, does anyone think that law firm would keep employing me, paying me money and letting me be a partner when I am saying that it is not a good law firm and I do not have any confidence in it? It cannot be that way.

The member, unfortunately, is not sitting on our benches and is not part of any discussions that might be taking place in order to resolve the very differences that he says we must resolve. I might remind the Liberals opposite who say that this should not have been done and that someone who says that he or she has no confidence in the government should still be sitting on government benches, their party just a few months ago kicked somebody out who dared to give the Prime Minister of Canada some advice in an area in which he had some special expertise. He helped the Prime Minister of Canada and, therefore, was kicked out of the Liberal Party.

Another member of the Liberal Party was kicked out because there was something in the budget that his constituents had been asking for quite a while. The Liberals did not give it to them but it was in the Conservative budget and the member felt that he had to vote for it. He was kicked out.

We then had the Liberal leader saying that a member would be kicked out if he or she supported the two measures that the Liberals had put in and, even though the Liberals decided they did not like them, members had to vote the way they were told.

The fact is that we do not want anyone to be kicked out of any party. What we want is for all members of the House to realize that we are here to do a job for Canadians. If there are differences of opinion we want to resolve them in a timely and reasonable manner.

We want to get this budget through. We want to continue to work to bring people together to give them the programs they need and deserve. I urge members of the House to vote tonight for the budget and let us get on with doing the job that we are here to do, which is to help the people of this country.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague in the government to verify to Canadians that it is the government House leader who sets the agenda for which bills are called before the House.

About three weeks went by after the budget was introduced when the bill never saw the light of day on the House order list. We could have been at this earlier. I just want the hon. member to confirm that it was the choice of the government in the movement of the bill. Here we are today finally with another time allocation period. I believe that if the Conservatives had wanted to do this earlier, they could have.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is only partly true that the House leader sets the agenda.

What has happened over and over in the House is that the opposition has called for something called a concurrence motion. The opposition has moved a concurrence motion, which automatically means that the motion is debated for three hours in the House. The opposition has done that about 20 times or more, so the House leader cannot bring forward legislation when there are impeding measures by the opposition to interrupt the business of the House in order to have these side debates on concurrence motions.

The hon. member knows that. Things get delayed and delayed, and then agreements are broken, and here we are today with an urgent matter which, I believe she knows full well, all members of the House have a responsibility for creating.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I simply disagree with what has just been said by the parliamentary secretary. It is simply not true. The government could have put it on the order paper, but chose not to.

We had the incredible spectacle last Friday, when the government moved to make this a life and death emergency two minutes before the expiration of private members' business. It is incredible that on a Friday afternoon the Conservatives would pull such a despicable conjuring trick to try to get their budget through.

The real reason for the closure today is that we have seen reaction from across the country to the budget. We have seen the reaction to the betrayal of the Atlantic accord. We have seen the reaction everywhere, except within the Conservative caucus, to the betrayal of Saskatchewan and the Conservative members from Saskatchewan who are not speaking up for Saskatchewan.

We are seeing the reaction from British Columbians who have been betrayed on the lack of funding for flooding, the betrayal on the leaky condo promise, and the lack of action on the pine beetle

We are seeing in this budget a critical mass now of Canadians simply saying the budget is wrong. It should be rejected. That is why the government is moving to impose closure today. It is for that reason, simply because the government knows it no longer has credibility with the budget. That is the reason.

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

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the overheated rhetoric of my friend, and I understand he is in opposition and has to do this, he knows very well that the government has many other issues it has to deal with. We have to deal with the crime bills. We have had cries just today from the opposition saying that we have to keep criminals off the streets. These are important measures. We had democratic reform measures to reform the Senate and bring other democratic reforms forward.

We have a broad agenda, a full agenda. We give time for all of these aspects to come forward. I would say that it was the delaying tactics of the opposition that brought us to the point where the government had to use whatever measures it could to get the budget passed in time for the spending measures to go forward.

It is important that the government does all its business and manages its business, so that it is not just a one note government. There are a lot of other measures that have to be dealt with. The member knows that. To try to impede one measure and say somehow it is the government's fault just does not wash.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the NDP government of the province of Manitoba has said nothing or presented nothing but accolades for the government's current budget. I do know that there is some concern from our side, the government side, that the Senate may hold this up. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I want to speculate on what the Senate might do. I have a high regard for the members of the Senate banking and finance committee who will be looking at the legislation. I know that they understand how urgent this is, and I can only hope and trust that they will have a little bit more responsibility than some members of the House have shown in order to get this legislation--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for London West.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on Bill C-52. I believe very strongly that if the government had wished, it could have brought this bill forward earlier for debate. The record will show that during a three week period this bill could have been debated, but here we are today with time allocation on the bill.

To me, the message that this budget brings to mind, and I have been here since 1993, is that it divides so much. It has pitted province against province. It has pitted the wealthy against the poor in our society, those with children against those without children.

Governing is not just about writing cheques after a bill has been passed. Governing is about real leadership. It is about developing policies that find substance in a budget, a budget speech coming from a throne speech and that is implemented through an act of Parliament.

I do not think that Canadians want a country where people are just told to fend for themselves. There are things that a government provides, services through its programming to individuals in society. I believe and hope that all members in this House want a united and strong Canada, hopefully led by a government that will change in due course, and we can get a real commitment to meeting our country's challenges and making our lives better in this country.

I have been in my riding many times since the announcement of this budget. What do people recall about the budget? I have to say that in my constituency office, people have been coming to talk to me, and the things they talk about are issues with respect to some of the smaller museums in my riding, issues with respect to literacy cuts that happened during the course of this government.

I was at a chamber of commerce meeting once and it talked about the money that went out in this budget, the volume of dollars. I chaired the finance committee three times when we were the government and this is the highest spending budget we have had.

Yet, what do people really think that they got from this budget? It is like telling people that in the last budget they got a 1% GST cut. Who noticed it? What they really noticed is that they did not have a child care space for their child.

In this budget, there was money given to graduate students, but what about undergraduate students? Undergraduate students received nothing in this budget.

We need to be talking more about productivity. We need real productivity in all of our industries in this country because now those industries have the challenge of a rising dollar. I have heard the stories from people in the manufacturing sector to the auto sector. They have been coming in and talking about how this will affect not only them, but if they are not productive in their industries, they are going to lose their jobs in the communities. They are going to lose their lifeblood and that will change the communities that exist all across the nation. This is not a regionalized situation, but we have heard today and other days how this is upsetting people.

The finance minister talked in his budget bill about peace with the provinces. I do not think so. The headline yesterday in a national newspaper was talking about the potential of the Prime Minister suing provincial governments. I have never seen that before. That is not peace. It certainly is not equitable in transfers. Our Atlantic province members are saying that. We see the cries from the Saskatchewan province and premier as well.

I want to go back to child care because I was recently called to a meeting with my local board of education, the public board of education. There were members of all political stripes there, NDP, Conservative and Liberal. That is the makeup in the London region in southwestern Ontario. The board was trying to convince people of how necessary real child care spaces were, that people needed these in their lives. This is something that last year's budget was going to create: 125,000 new child care spaces. It is a year later and there is not one.

We used to do a budget consultation that actually listened to what people told us. I chaired that report, “People, Places and Priorities”. That financial report called on our government at the time to create the child care spaces because Canadians needed them. Families needed them. Single parents needed them.

We have a token amount again. The government is putting some money out there as an incentive for industry to create these child care spaces, but it is not in the business of child care provision. The industry is in the business of producing whatever it is it produces, but it is not child care spaces. It wants the experts and people deserve to have the experts in these organizations, people who know what they are doing.

When last year's budget hit this House, it really did hit this House. It terminated agreements that were made by ministers with all of the provinces and territories. It was a go forward because there was a real need here. That need is still there. This was an investment and there has been zero delivery.

Again, if people listened to the consultation, they would have heard that there is not going to be uptake again even though there are small amounts of money put out. It will just not work. We need children and families to be supported.

The $1,200 that last year's budget brought forward, I do not think a lot of people realized until this year's tax return time that it was taxable. So the average family had $400 out of the $1,200 taxed back. That is a new first for a child care tax. But what is lost in this shuffle is that there is now a universal benefit going out that we abolished in the past.

These were failed things where everybody got the money. We had child tax credits that went to the most deserving, the families that needed that money, not to the high income person who has money and it is not going to make the impact it would with a targeted approach.

I have been disappointed. One of the trustees sitting at that London meeting talked about how a woman who had five young children and gets the money said that it really did not go to the education and care of her children, it went to whatever the household expenses were. Even if we gave more money to the provinces in a social transfer tax, there is no agreement saying what the money is specified for like we had with the child care agreements.

There is no control over those moneys and there is a real need here. The government has to understand that there is a real need for child care and we lost it. It took a lot of work and we have lost it now.

I want to talk about how I saw this budget spend billions and billions of dollars. I believe the real reason that this was not put on the order paper immediately is because the Conservatives thought that this was a budget they would go into an election campaign and maybe there would be an election called back in March when everybody was saying there would be one. They would then not have to put through all of these high spending things that we see here because I have never seen such a calculated buying of votes that I see in this budget plan, if it can be called a real plan because a plan would be something integrated with policy.

In my riding of London West there is a billboard against the current government on the breaking of its promise on income trusts. I hope that billboard stays there a long time. It must be costly for the people, but not as costly as it was for the people who lost their money because they believed the promise of no change in the income trusts. We know that is not happening.

We have the situation of the GST promise of the last budget. People do not even notice it. Who notices that one point loss? Now we hear that the government did not even put it in this budget. Remember when the Conservatives came to power, they said they were going to do another reduction? I can remember those commercials talking about lowering the GST, well that is scheduled for 2012, a promise long in the future.

My Sister's Place is an organization that caters to the homeless and women in need. It received a couple of dollars to take it another couple of months. It seems like the Conservatives will give funding, but there is no homeless initiative or housing in this budget plan. It is just funding until the next election.

Organizations cannot run that way. They need sustainable funding whether it is child care--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we heard from the parliamentary secretary earlier. She referred, with respect to the defection of one of the hon. members of the government side, to the analogy of a law firm. I know the member is a lawyer by trade. Has she ever heard of the firm of Dewey, Cheatem & Howe and does that apply to the firm across the way

However, more seriously, because this is a serious budget, with respect to the breach of the Atlantic accord to which the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley has referred to as an economic development tool, not an equalization program, does she see, in her considerable legal background and experience, how the government can possibly win? Morally, how can it go to the courts, first? Second, how can it possibly win when the Government of Canada has signed an agreement with a province in Canada?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is about breaking promises. The new government does not seem to have a problem breaking promises. It broke promises on the Kelowna accord. We have a bill in Parliament about the gun registry with which it has not even dealt.

The situation here, with the Atlantic accord, was a contract that was created. You have not lived up to what was signed by the Government of Canada. I hope the member, the foreign affairs minister, is looking at the current newspaper in his riding. If he were listening to his constituents in Atlantic Canada, they would be telling him that he should be living up to the accord and not changing the formula. There are changes and it has been outlined section by section by many members of the House, who have tried to advise and plea with the government.

I know another member from Atlantic Canada is considering how he will vote tonight. I hope that the members from Saskatchewan take a look at the budget with which they are trying to work.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for London West has made reference to her vast experience in the House so she will not mind that I remind her that, in view of this vast experience, she should not refer to other members of the House in the second person, but rather in the third person.

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 third time and passed, and of the motion that this question be now put.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today to the budget once again. It is worth speaking to more than once. It is significant for the country and it is significant for my riding in St. Catharines. It strengthens our economic federation. It invests in a stronger, safer and healthier Canada. It builds on the foundations of policy, which were developed and announced in November, to talk about Canada's strengths.

We announced what the policy framework and measures were going to be, in terms of moving forward, and we ensured that we acted upon those policies within the framework of our budget, those policies being fiscal advantage, tax advantage, infrastructure advantage, knowledge advantage; and entrepreneurial advantage.

The budget is fiscally responsible and it is a prudent balance between long term prosperity and short term needs.

In terms of long term prosperity, we have a significant debt payment. It requires, based on the way the budget is structured, that future governments do the same in ensuring that any surpluses go against our national debt. It ensures that not only are those tax savings on interest going back to Canadians through reductions in personal income tax, but it also tells future generations that we are acting responsibly and turning a country and an economy over to them that will not be straddled with a significant national debt.

It also recognizes and rewards the people who make our country great. We do not talk about this very often, but owners of small business, low income working Canadians, Canadian parents who pay household bills and try to save for their children's tuition are the people who make our country great. It is unique in terms of Canadian strengthens. Canada's government is committed to building on those solid foundations.

Budget 2007 is a first step of Advantage Canada's long term plan. Several major announcements, as I mentioned, fulfill the promises and commitments that we made in November.

For example, for small and large businesses, we are committed to reducing the paper burden on them by 20%. When we talk to small businesses across the country, business owners who employ perhaps themselves and their families or perhaps two or three employees, the paperwork they need to go through to keep that business running and to keep everything accountable is significant. From a federal perspective, we have said that they should have less paperwork, less red tape with which to deal.

We have also told those same people that it is time we increase the lifetime capital gains exemptions for small business owners, for farmers and for fishermen, from one side of the country to the other. Will we ensure they have the benefit of lifetime capital gains? Yes. We are moving from an amount of $500,000 to $750,000. The last time it was increased was back in 1988, almost 20 years ago. Its time has come.

We have also ensured that we have increased capital cost allowance rates on buildings used in manufacturing or processing, from 4% to 10%. We have ensured that other capital cost allowance rates have been raised, as well. It puts Canada's tax rate on new investment now third lowest among G-7 nations.

For manufacturing, there is a two year, 50% straight write-off for any capital investments in equipment and machinery acquired after the announcement of the budget on March 19. That is significant for manufacturing. General Motors announced a potential expansion in St. Catharines of some $400 million into a building, an investment it can make because it realizes that investment can be accelerated in terms of its write-off. It is already spurring economic activity across the country and the budget has not even been passed yet.

However, business cannot do it alone. Infrastructure is also desperately needed. Therefore, we have renewed our gas tax commitment. We have ensured that all municipalities, like the City of St. Catharines, will receive a portion of the gas tax credit.

By 2010, the city of St. Catharines will have received some $4.2 million. When we put that into context and look at the city of St. Catharines' operating budget, that $4.2 million will represent 5% of its yearly operating budget. That means property taxpayers should not have to see the types of increases they have over the last number of years.

We have also extended that gas tax credit until 2013-14. It means communities like mine can count on that money. They know it will be there. They can make their investments. They can talk about infrastructure and make the type of investments they need to ensure their communities are strong. Municipalities across the country know they have a partner in the federal government.

There will be priorities for these funds such as a cleaner transit system and better access to hospitals so people can get there sooner? We look forward to working with councils across the country to get this job done. In my riding the relationship, based on this, is a strong one. We look forward to working together.

The building Canada fund will mean $8.8 billion of investment over the next seven years for areas including border crossings and trade gateways from one side of the country to the other.

The budget is historic because it restores fiscal balance. It implements the recommendations of the expert committee on equalization. Glen Hodgson, chief economist for the Conference Board of Canada, said, “I think we can probably declare the fiscal imbalance between the federal and the province governments is over”.

This is what it means for Ontario and my community. It honours the Canada-Ontario agreement, which means close to $7 billion of new investment into the province and communities like mine. It means that social programs will be funded for the first time, especially those of health care, on a capital basis, which is huge for the province of Ontario.

In total Ontario will receive more than $12.7 billion in transfers in this fiscal year alone. The transfer means so much to the province. Regions like Niagara need to make it clear to the provincial government that they expect their fair share. Let me provide an example.

This government committed $250 million in new money for child care expenditures through 2007-08. That meant for the province of Ontario there would be $95 million to create new child care spaces in the province. Obviously that would trickle down and hopefully mean new spaces in Niagara and St. Catharines.

However, the provincial government in Ontario determined that, despite the fact it would receive $95 million in child care payments, it would only include an additional $25 million in its budget. That means $70 million in transfer payments, which hopefully were to be dedicated by the federal government to the province of Ontario, will not be invested in child care.

There was a lot of talk in the House from parties opposite that maybe we needed to invest more because there was a need for more spaces. The cheque was cut, the money was sent and the spaces were not provided and the money was not invested by the province of Ontario.

We have also had the opportunity to restore the fiscal balance with the Canadian taxpayer. There were $9.2 billion put toward debt. It has been said, but it should be said again, that $22.4 billion over the last two years went toward paying down the debt. Debt reduced today means taxes reduced tomorrow.

We have ensured that personal tax cuts are there as well. There is a $2,000 child tax credit worth $300 a year for every child under the age of 18. There is pension splitting for seniors, finally, after 40 years. We have also made key investments in the area of education, research and development and cultural heritage. All of this is to ensure that from 2005-06 to 2008-09 spending will increase by 4.1%, a full percentage point less than the economy is expected to grow.

Excluding the one time cost of restoring the fiscal balance since budget 2006, the value of these tax cuts announced is more than double the value of new spending announcements.

We believe in responsible fiscal management and we will live up to the promises of advantage Canada to reduce debt, reduce taxes and position our country to be a world economic leader.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by congratulating the member for St. Catharines. He has sat on the finance committee. I have had the opportunity to substitute on that committee and I know that all the members of that committee do a tremendous job in working for the Canadian taxpayer in trying to do the best with every dollar that they give us to spend on their behalf.

I listened quite closely to the member's comments. He has somewhat of a special interest as I do, in that a lot of seniors live within my community. I know that the budget offered a lot of benefits to the seniors in our communities. I would ask the member for St. Catharines to elaborate a little on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent question and I certainly want to congratulate the member on his support for seniors in his riding and across the country.

The 2007-08 budget is historic from a seniors perspective. For the first time in 40 years we are going to do what a report recommended to the Senate and the House, that seniors' pension incomes should be split so that they will pay less tax, so that they will be able to keep more dollars and will be able to stay in their homes and pay property tax or be able to afford the things that are necessary.

We have taken another position with respect to the new horizons program. We have a new seniors council. The Prime Minister said that we will have leaders who are dedicated, which we do in Senator Marjory LeBreton and the Minister of Health, who will show the leadership to make sure that the seniors council provides us with the type of advice that the government wants and needs to help seniors in the short term and the long term.

That commitment comes through clearly in the new horizons program where 14 million new dollars are being invested so that communities like mine can ensure that seniors have programs that are dedicated specifically to them. We want to make sure that they too have an opportunity to play a role in their communities.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his intervention and for his support of this very visionary budget.

There is something that puzzles me. I have listened to some of the debate from the Liberal members in the House and what has been notably absent is any discussion about the benefits which Ontario receives under the budget. I have listened to some of the Liberal members from Ontario speak and there has been no mention at all about the huge benefits the budget delivers to Ontario.

Since my colleague is from Ontario and represents the riding of St. Catharines very well and actually understands what is in the budget, perhaps he could comment on the kinds of benefits Ontarians can expect to receive under the budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question from the member for Abbotsford.

Yes indeed Ontario benefits from the budget, so much in fact that I am surprised that of the nearly 60 members of the Liberal Party in opposition, I have yet to hear one of them talk about how the budget hurts the province of Ontario. That is an easy question to answer when one asks whether it does or does not hurt the province of Ontario.

Members will not be surprised to hear that the budget does everything intended for the province of Ontario to show that we are committed to making sure that the country's largest province is included in the new fiscal arrangement and the benefit it will provide for our country.

[An hon. member]

Even the premier likes it.

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

Even the Liberal premier, as my colleague mentioned, has said that this is a good budget for the province of Ontario. It is a budget that brings close to $12.8 billion in funding. More important, for the first time in the history of equalization payments, health care is funded on a per capita basis. Based on the population in the province of Ontario we are finally receiving the health care dollars we deserve from the federal government.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-52, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget.

I listened to the member for St. Catharines talk about how the Conservative government is setting up the new seniors council. After the Conservative government talked about not having patronage appointments, what it has done is it has disbanded the National Council on Aging, an organization that had been set up by our Liberal government, and has started a new seniors council. The council basically has the same mandate and the same terms of reference, but there is one noticeable difference: it is stacked with Conservative appointees. This is not strictly a budget matter, but I had to comment on it.

This budget lacks vision. It lacks a direction for Canada. It is a collection of some sundry items, but it has no cohesion. There is a large amount of spending, spending in the wrong areas and spending that is going to be inflationary. In fact, we are already finding that it is inflationary because of the intended actions of the Bank of Canada to deal with it. We knew it would be inflationary. If the spending had been put in the right places, it would not have been as inflationary and might have had some benefit. The spending is in the wrong areas. Let me give an example.

Of course we know the Conservative government wants to reduce the GST, but in doing so, it increased personal income taxes, which any self-respecting economist will say is not good economic policy.

The government has also reneged on the Kelowna accord, which was providing many benefits to our aboriginal people in terms of housing, schools, clean water and many of the basic needs that aboriginal Canadians in this country need. The government has reneged on that.

The Conservatives have failed to deliver the funding required to implement the early childhood development agreements that had been negotiated in good faith by our Liberal government. They set up this phony child care program which does not really provide any spaces for child care in Canada.

The finance minister stood in this House, and I will never forget this, and said that the acrimony with the provinces and territories had been resolved, it had been fixed. He said that the so-called fiscal imbalance had been dealt with. I remember thinking how naive can a finance minister get. Certainly that came home to roost in spades when Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan and many of the provinces said that this budget fails to deliver on equalization, that it reneges on the promise with respect to the Atlantic accord.

Income trusts are another good example. The Conservatives campaigned on the idea that they were not ever going to tax income trusts. What did they do? They broke that promise. They have come in now and taxed income trusts with hardly an apology. They wrote off about $25 billion to $30 billion in capitalized value of Canadians who counted on the word of the Conservative government not to tax income trusts. That promise was broken.

Many of us in the House would agree that the income trust question needed to be dealt with, but there were ways to deal with it in a much smarter and a much more fair way for all Canadians. In fact, the grandfathering that the government chose was not fair. It could have been done in a much more equitable fashion. In fact, I think there was an argument to be made to go back to the original raison d'être of income trusts, which was to help with the capitalization of energy companies and with property management companies. What did the government do? It brought in this measure which really hurt many Canadians who were saving for their retirement.

The government through the finance minister has come out with provisions with respect to the non-deductibility of interest expense. What the Conservatives tried to do was deal with some tax evasion measures, in other words, where income by companies is put into low tax or no tax jurisdictions and the interest expense is put into the jurisdiction of Canada and treated as an interest expense.

Yes, there was some abuse of that, but what the government has done is taken the measure to a ridiculous extreme. It has created the unintended consequence, or maybe the intended consequence, I am not sure how clearly the government thought this through, that companies in Canada will be put at a disadvantage when trying to acquire companies abroad.

The income trust decision of the government and the interest non-deductibility measures mean that Canadian companies are going to be targets of more takeovers, more takeovers than we have seen already. The list goes on of Canadian icons such as Inco, Falconbridge, Hudson's Bay and many other companies that have been taken over by non-Canadian interests. Takeovers of energy companies are going to increase, given the income trust decision, and also of companies in general, given the non-deductibility of interest measures.

What does the government do? The industry minister sits on his hands while the world goes by. He argues that the markets will solve everything and that the government should not be an interventionist. The government is finally going to respond and is proposing to make some changes to the Investment Canada Act, but I suspect it will be too little, too late.

There is one aspect of the budget that I think is particularly devastating. The budget provides no real initiative to enhance Canada's productivity, nor to enhance the rate of innovation in Canada. We have some productivity challenges, especially with respect to our neighbours to the south, our major trading partner, and this budget does nothing with respect to innovation or research and development.

We look back to the mid-1990s. Our government inherited a $42 billion deficit in 1993. In three short years, with the cooperation and the commitment of all Canadians, that deficit was eliminated and our government began on the path of reinvesting in research and innovation.

We created the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the CIHR, and the Canada Foundation for Innovation. We set up research chairs across Canada. We also provided some funding for the indirect costs of research overheads. We changed the brain drain to a brain gain.

When a number of my Liberal colleagues and I visited the MaRS project in downtown Toronto recently and we went to the Hospital for Sick Children, I was saddened to learn that some of that brain gain is in jeopardy. We met researchers from all over the United States who had come back to Canada based on the research environment here, but they were thinking that maybe the research environment here in Canada was not so wonderful after all.

There was a lack of commitment to funding for the CIHR in this budget. There was a paltry increase. The CIHR also has some serious challenges with respect to continuity of funding. If a researcher who is an expert in his or her field cannot set up the team that he or she needs and set up a research program over a number of years, then that research is in jeopardy. That is what is happening.

There is also a significant problem with respect to the indirect costs of overheads. Our Liberal government took some measures in that area, but more needs to be done to ensure that the research environment continues here in Canada.

I will talk briefly about crime and safe streets. In our 2006 election platform, the Liberal Party promised a complete ban on handguns. In fact, the then prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, came to my riding of Etobicoke North and committed our party, if elected to government, to a complete ban on handguns.

Just this weekend, again in my riding of Etobicoke North, there was another murder, a drive-by shooting. It was a senseless cowardly act. One person is dead and three are injured. This happened because of the proliferation of handguns.

It is true that handguns are coming across the border from the United States, and that is why our government made more commitments at our border to stem the flow of guns coming from the United States into Canada. More needs to be done on that front. However, the reality is that many handguns are stolen from collectors

Instead of backing away from the gun registry, which is what the Conservatives are planning to do, they should be investing in the gun registry. They should be banning handguns.

We know that putting $1 billion into arming our border guards will have no deterrent effect on the people in Chicago, Boston or wherever, who run guns or drugs into Canada. These people are not sitting around thinking that now that Canada has armed border guards they had better not run the guns or drugs into Canada. Instead of using $1 billion to arm our border guards, that money could be put into much more useful endeavours.

This budget fails on a number of accounts and I will be voting against it for sure.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address something the member for Etobicoke North raised in his speech that I think needs to be countered. It is in regard to his comments with respect to our government's plan in this budget to put Canada's fiscal federalism back on track.

When we became the government in 2006, we were left with quite the tangled set of arrangements with respect to fiscal federalism. Let me recount for members what actually happened.

In October 2004, the previous Liberal government, at a first ministers meeting chaired by the then prime minister, came up with this absurd idea that Canada was going to go to a fixed pot for equalization, that we were going to disconnect the equalization formula from any real world economic realities.

The government was going to go to this fixed pot of $10.9 billion a year that would grow at an annual rate, from there on in, of 3.5%, with absolutely no idea of how the government was going to apportion that new amount of money among the various provinces. There were no connections to real world economic realities. There were no connections to the 33 tax bases that the provinces use to collect their taxes.

Subsequent to that, the previous government negotiated these deals for the Atlantic accord and the Canada-Ontario May 2005 agreement that left the other provinces out of the loop, so we were left with the difficult job of trying to disentangle the arrangements of fiscal federalism, which we did.

I would say to the member opposite that he has a very rose-coloured view of the performance of the previous government with respect to fiscal federalism.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during our mandate we came a long way in dealing with the challenges of fiscal federalism. One good example, I think, is that we made huge investments in the Canada health and social transfer. In the latter years of our mandate, there was a $41 billion commitment to the Canada health and social transfer.

Let me tell the member what I find most objectionable. I think the current finance minister for the Conservative government made a reasonable attempt to try to deal with this issue, although I think in some cases the problem was somewhat exaggerated, at least from my own personal perspective. I think the provinces actually have a lot of capacity to raise revenues, but nonetheless there were some difficulties.

There were some challenges. There certainly were some provinces and territories that felt the matter needed to be addressed, but to stand in this House and during the presentation of the budget say that the fiscal imbalance was dealt with, that all problems were set aside, was at the very least the most naive thing that I think I have heard in this House for some time. I, for one, sitting here in this chair, not even with the benefit of hindsight but just with the benefit of knowing how this country works, know that we would never ever get to that position in anyone's lifetime, in my judgment.

I think it was a serious attempt, but the problem was that the finance minister did not honour some commitments that were made by the federal government. As many members on this side have pointed out, including the member who has just come over to this side of the House, a contract, a commitment by the Government of Canada, should be honoured. The Atlantic accord was a commitment by the federal government. The premiers were counting on that. To go back on that, and to try to put a rose-coloured glass around it as if the Atlantic accord was being respected, is hypocritical in the utmost.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this budget from the Conservatives has been rightly criticized because of the broken promises right across the country, including the Atlantic accord and broken promises to British Columbia.

We have also seen another characteristic of this Conservative budget, which is shovelling money off the back of a truck to the corporate sector, with $9 billion in corporate tax cuts being maintained and $1 billion in subsidies for the profitable oil and gas sector. It is hard to tell hard-working Canadians who are already being gouged at the pumps that their taxes are also going to fuel that enormous profit in the oil and gas sector. We also have seen tax forgiveness, with hundreds of millions of dollars of moneys owed simply written off by the Conservative government.

The Conservative approach is very similar to that of the former Liberal government, which we saw for 13 years as it broke promises and shovelled money at the corporate sector. My question for the member is very simple. Does he realize now that the Liberals were wrong to do it when he sees the Conservatives doing exactly the same thing the Liberals did when they were in power?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster sort of rewrites history as he speaks, but unlike that member of the NDP, I and most if not all of my colleagues on this side of the House happen to believe that to create jobs and economic activity in this country we have to create an environment that attracts investment. If our corporate tax rates are not competitive, we could deal with those. We need to do this.

A classic example is Ireland, which decided to lower--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I am sorry, but the time for questions and comments has expired. The hon. member for Burlington, resuming debate.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I may be the last speaker on Aspire, our budget for 2007, which will make for a stronger, safer and better Canada.

Our government has tabled a balanced budget that moves to restore fiscal balance to Canada, cuts taxes for working families, reduces the national debt and invests in key priorities such as improving health care and environmental protection.

Budget 2007 helps in the restoring of fiscal balance by providing $39 billion in additional funding over seven years, which will allow the provinces and the territories to do a better job in providing the services and infrastructure that matter to Canadians. That includes everything from roads, bridges and public transit to better equipped universities and colleges. It includes improving on health care. It includes clean rivers, oceans and air. It includes job training that helps Canadians compete with the best in the world.

We will see further tax relief for families with the working families tax plan, which includes a $2,000 per child tax credit. Budget 2007 also helps parents save for their children's education by strengthening the registered education savings plan program, and it supports seniors by raising the age limit for registered pension plans and registered retirement savings plans to 71 years of age from 69.

There are further debt reductions that will result in savings for Canadians. After paying down $13.2 billion on Canada's national debt in September 2006, we will further reduce the debt by $9.2 billion. Thanks to the government's tax back guarantee, the interest savings on this year's debt repayment will be returned to Canadians in the form of further tax cuts.

Our government will be investing in Canadians by providing $550 million per year for the working income tax benefit and $140 million over two years to establish a registered disability savings plan, something I worked very strongly on the finance committee to implement.

We are focused on preserving the environment with a balanced action plan, including rebates on fuel efficient vehicles and efficient alternative fuel vehicles, an incentive to get older, polluting cars off the road, and a green levy on fuel inefficient vehicles, and by providing $1.5 billion to establish a Canada ecotrust for clean air and climate change.

The budget provides a national water strategy, something for which I have been advocating since the last election. I am happy to see that the Hamilton Harbour has been specifically targeted as an area that we need to clean up.

Our government will continue to work at improving health care by investing $400 million for the Canada Health Infoway to support the development of electronic health records and up to $612 million to support jurisdictions that have made commitments to implement patient wait time guarantees, and by providing the provinces with $300 million for a vaccine to help prevent cervical cancer.

Budget 2007 is historic. It restores fiscal balance, implements major elements of Canada's long term economic plan, Advantage Canada, and will create opportunities for Burlingtonians and all Canadians to fulfill their dreams of a good job, a world class education for their children, a home of their own and a retirement they can count on.

What does the budget mean for Ontario? Managing Canada's $1.5 trillion economy means making choices and striking the right balance. In budget 2007 we have achieved this by balancing the budget, cutting taxes for working families, investing in priorities like health care, the environment and infrastructure, and restoring the fiscal balance by providing provinces the resources they need to deliver the front line services that matter to Canadians.

For my province of Ontario, restoring the fiscal balance brings federal support for Ontario to $12.8 billion in 2007-08. This includes $8.1 billion under the Canada health transfer, $3.8 billion for the Canada social transfer, which includes money for post-secondary education and child care, and $664 million for infrastructure. Also, $205.4 million is available to the Ontario government through the patient wait time guarantee trust. Another $117.2 million is available to the Ontario government to implement the immunization plan that I just mentioned.

As well, $574 million will be paid to the Ontario government for outstanding commitments under the Canada-Ontario agreement. There also will be $298.5 million in gas tax funding going directly to municipalities in Ontario. There is $400 million for an access road for a new Windsor-Detroit border crossing. We will see $963 million to fund transit projects in the greater Toronto area. There will be $38 million in corporate income tax relief from changes in capital cost allowances for buildings. There will be $383 million in additional corporate tax relief from the temporary two year writeoff for manufacturing equipment over the next two years.

We will see approximately $35.2 million in tax savings for farmers, fishers and small business owners through an increase in the lifetime capital gains tax exemption to $750,000. As well, Ontario will receive $586 million from the Canada ecotrust for clean air and climate change. For Burlingtonians and Ontario, the new $2,000 child tax credit will save parents in Ontario $597 million. An increase in the basic spousal amount will provide an estimated $109.6 million in tax relief in regard to those who are the supporting spouse or a single taxpayer supporting a child or a relative. Also, the working income tax benefit will benefit workers of Ontario with $212 million in tax relief.

Ontario farmers, some of my favourite people in the world, will receive approximately $240 million under the new initiative in budget 2007. Increasing the RRSP and registered pension plan maturation age will save Ontario taxpayers $56 million. As part of the national water strategy, there is $27.5 million to clean up the Great Lakes. There is $50 million for the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, and I am not exactly sure what it does, and there is $6 million to help move the CANMET Materials Technology Laboratory to Hamilton.

All of that was just about Ontario. I wanted to highlight what the numbers actually mean and what members are actually going to be voting against if they do not support this budget.

As a member of the finance committee, I had the opportunity to go across this country and also to talk to people here in Ottawa at meetings. I can tell members that not one group that I can recall came to tell us to spend less money. Everybody wanted more money, more tax money for whatever their cause was, and that is part of the balance of government. We cannot solve everybody's problems. We do have to set goals and objectives. We did that as the finance committee. We presented a report that had recommendations in it and some of those recommendations are in the budget.

Others are priorities of this government that we had set out during the election to accomplish for Canadians. We are doing it through this budget. We can stand up here all we want and talk about things that are not in the budget, but I can tell members about people who told me that for every dollar we spend we get three back, so let us add up the billions and billions of dollars we are spending. Under that scenario, which we know is not accurate, we would just continue to spend every single penny we had and it would come back threefold. That is just not the way the economy works. That is not the way the real world works. We have to make choices.

This budget makes choices. We have put in the budget a number of things that deal with restoring the fiscal balance of this country. Not everybody agrees. We have heard that from our own side. Not everybody agrees with our approach, but we cannot have side deals with different provinces all over this country and call it a national program. We have put together a national program. We are working on those issues. It takes up a big chunk of this budget. I have told this to my constituents who say there is no money for this or that. We need to set the record straight. We needed to get this country back on the right road from a fiscal balance perspective.

The party opposite does not believe there was a fiscal imbalance. If there was not, then why are people screaming and yelling at our door that they want more money and they want a different program than what is provided?

We have done that. We have taken the initiative as a government. We have taken some very bold steps with this budget. It tries to provide balance for everybody. It is a balanced budget and a good budget for this country. I am very proud to be part of the finance committee and of the government. I am proud of the budget aspirations because they will make a stronger, safer and better Canada.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member for Burlington a very simple question. He is from a nice riding in central Canada. He has visited my riding and knows that it is a nice place as well. For a budget that is so wonderful, in his words, why is it receiving such a poor reception in all of Atlantic Canada? Is it because the word of the Government of Canada has been broken by the implementation of this budget and that the Minister of Finance would dare to sign an op ed opinion in the maritime provinces as if he were the leading minister in Atlantic Canada?

I wonder if the member would appreciate it if the minister responsible for Ontario abdicated his responsibility to represent Ontario and had a minister from New Brunswick sign a rather scathing letter completely rejecting the arguments of most of the premiers, almost all the MPs and almost all the people of Atlantic Canada. How can the government stand behind a budget that has ignored and, worse, betrayed a whole region of Canada?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I simply disagree with the member's debate on this issue.

In order for him to understand, I will read from page 112 of the budget. It states, “Budget 2007 Implements the Recommendations of the Expert Panel on Equalization”.

By the way, I believe that panel was appointed by the Liberal government at the time. It goes on to read:

Budget 2007 delivers a new Equalization program that is fair to Canadians living in all provinces. It will be formula-driven and principled. It will be simplified to enhance transparency and accountability. It will be stable and predictable. It will meet the commitments related to exclusion of non-renewable resources and respecting the offshore Accords.

We are standing by our word and honouring our commitments and this budget does that. I cannot speak for other people but in my opinion it is black and white in the budget. We will aspire to do what is right for this country and this budget does that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of third reading of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion that this question be now put. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #201

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

Before I put the question on the next motion, I should advise hon. members, who might be attending the reception that I am hosting this evening at Kingsmere, that buses will be available to shuttle members to and from the reception.

The buses will be behind the Confederation Building after the votes. Everyone is welcome.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #202

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

It being 6:24 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.