Bill C-28 (Historical)

Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007 and to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on October 30, 2007

Part 1 implements goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed in the March 19, 2007 Budget but not included in the Budget Implementation Act, 2007, which received Royal Assent on June 22, 2007. Specifically, the Excise Tax Act is amended to
(a) increase the percentage of available input tax credits for GST/HST paid on meal expenses of truck drivers from 50% to 80% over five years beginning with expenses incurred on or after March 19, 2007;
(b) increase the GST/HST annual filing threshold from $500,000 in taxable supplies to $1,500,000 and the annual remittance threshold from $1,500 to $3,000, both effective for fiscal years that begin after 2007;
(c) increase the GST/HST 48-hour travellers’ exemption from $200 to $400 effective in respect of travellers returning to Canada on or after March 20, 2007; and
(d) implement changes to the rules governing self-assessment under Division IV of Part IX of the Excise Tax Act to ensure that GST/HST applies appropriately in respect of intangible personal property acquired on a zero-rated basis and consumed in furthering domestic activities, applicable to supplies made after March 19, 2007.
Part 2 amends the non-GST portion of the Excise Tax Act to implement measures announced in the March 19, 2007 Budget. Specifically, the excise tax exemptions for renewable fuels, including ethanol and bio-diesel, are repealed, effective April 1, 2008.
Part 3 implements income tax measures proposed in the March 19, 2007 Budget but not included in the Budget Implementation Act, 2007, which received Royal Assent on June 22, 2007. In particular, it
(a) introduces a new Working Income Tax Benefit;
(b) eliminates income tax on elementary and secondary school scholarships;
(c) eliminates capital gains tax on donations of publicly-listed securities to private foundations;
(d) enhances the child fitness tax credit;
(e) expands the scope of the public transit tax credit;
(f) increases the lifetime capital gains exemption to $750,000;
(g) increases the deductible percentage of meal expenses for long-haul truck drivers;
(h) provides tax relief in respect of the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games;
(i) allows for phased-retirement options for pension plans;
(j) extends the mineral exploration tax credit;
(k) enhances tax benefits for donations of medicine to the developing world;
(l) streamlines the process for prescribed stock exchanges;
(m) introduces an investment tax credit for child care spaces;
(n) introduces a new withholding tax exemption with respect to certain cross-border interest payments;
(o) prevents double deductions of interest expense on borrowed money used to finance foreign affiliates (the Anti-Tax-Haven Initiative);
(p) eases tax remittance and filing requirements for small business;
(q) introduces a mechanism to accommodate functional currency reporting;
(r) provides certain tobacco processors that do not manufacture tobacco products with relief from the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Surtax; and
(s) provides authority for regulations requiring the disclosure by publicly traded trusts and partnerships of information enabling investment managers to prepare the tax information slips that they are required to issue to investors on a timely basis.
Part 4 implements the disability savings measures proposed in the March 19, 2007 Budget. The measures are intended to support long-term savings through registered disability savings plans to provide for the financial security of persons with severe and prolonged impairments in physical or mental functions. Part 4 contains amendments to the Income Tax Act to allow for the creation of registered disability savings plans. It also enacts the Canada Disability Savings Act. That Act provides for the payment of Canada Disability Savings Grants in relation to contributions made to those plans. The amount of grant is increased for persons of lower and middle income. It also provides for the payment of Canada Disability Savings Bonds in respect of persons of low income.
Part 5 implements measures that provide for payments to be made to provinces as a financial incentive for them to eliminate taxes on capital under certain circumstances.
Part 6 enacts the Bank for International Settlements (Immunity) Act.
Part 7 amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 to permit phased retirement arrangements in federally regulated pension plans by allowing an employer to simultaneously pay a partial pension to an employee and provide further pension benefit accruals to the employee. These amendments are consistent with amendments to the Income Tax Regulations to permit phased retirement.
Part 8 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of Canada’s contribution to the Advance Market Commitment.
Part 9 amends the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act to authorize the National Energy Board to regulate traffic, tolls and tariffs in relation to oil and gas pipelines regulated under that Act.
Part 10 amends the Farm Income Protection Act to allow financial institutions to hold contributions under a net income stabilization account program.
Part 11 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to provide for an additional fiscal equalization payment that may be paid to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. This Part also specifies the time and manner in which the calculation of fiscal equalization payments will be made and it amends that Act’s regulation-making authority. In addition, this Part makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 12 amends the Canada Education Savings Act to clarify the authority of the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development to collect, on behalf of the Canada Revenue Agency, any information that the Canada Revenue Agency requires for purposes of administering the registered education savings plan tax provisions.
Part 13 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to an entity, designated by the Minister of Finance, to facilitate public-private partnership projects.
Part 14 implements tax measures proposed in the October 30, 2007 Economic Statement. With respect to income tax measures, it
(a) reduces the general corporate income tax rate;
(b) accelerates the tax reduction for small businesses;
(c) reduces the lowest personal income tax rate, which automatically reduces the rate used to calculate non-refundable tax credits and the alternative minimum tax; and
(d) increases the basic personal amount and the amount upon which the spouse or common-law partner and wholly dependent relative credits are calculated.
Part 14 also amends the Excise Tax Act to implement, effective January 1, 2008, the reduction in the goods and services tax (GST) and the federal component of the harmonized sales tax (HST) from 6% to 5%. That Act is amended to provide transitional rules for determining the GST/HST rate applicable to transactions that straddle the January 1, 2008, implementation date, including transitional rebates in respect of the sale of residential complexes where transfer of ownership and possession both take place on or after January 1, 2008, pursuant to a written agreement entered into on or before October 30, 2007. The Excise Act, 2001 is also amended to increase excise duties on tobacco products to offset the impact of the GST/HST rate reduction. The Air Travellers Security Charge Act is also amended to ensure that rates for domestic and transborder air travel reflect the impact of the GST/HST rate reduction. Those amendments generally apply as of January 1, 2008.

Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

moved that Bill C-28, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007 and to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on October 30, 2007, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to get onto the discussions of Bill C-28. We have all been waiting for this second budget implementation bill to finally get to the House and we are so excited to be discussing all of the wonderful things that are in it. There are some tax cuts for which Canadians have been waiting. We are certainly seeking quick passage of the bill so that we can make sure that Canadians see their tax cuts as soon as we can possibly get this bill through the House.

I am very pleased to present Bill C-28 today at second reading. The first bill to implement measures from budget 2007 received royal assent on June 22, 2007. This comprehensive bill also proposes to implement bold new measures from the 2007 economic statement that will reduce taxes further for Canadians and usher in a new era for Canadian business taxation, while further reducing the federal debt.

The measures in Bill C-28 are key components of this government's strategy to create a tax advantage, one of the priorities identified in our long term economic plan, Advantage Canada. To that end, there is little doubt that our government is well on its way to establishing a proud legacy of tax relief. In fact, we have provided broad based relief in personal income taxes, consumption taxes, business taxes and in excise taxes.

Moreover, we have made tremendous strides in a short period of time, but we are not finished yet. Canadians expect their government to help them build on this legacy. They want a government that sets clear goals and delivers concrete results for all Canadians. We have done that.

The 2007 Speech from the Throne delivered on October 16 outlined how the government plans to build on the action already taken to implement the commitments to Canadians in the Advantage Canada plan. Reducing taxes for all Canadians and establishing the lowest overall corporate income tax and new business investment in the G-7 is part of this government's long term vision of creating a tax advantage for Canada.

With the almost $60 billion in tax reductions for individuals, families and businesses announced recently in the 2007 economic statement, we have reached that goal. That is $60 billion in relief over this and the next five years. Combined with previous relief provided by the current government, the total tax relief over the same period is almost $190 billion.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Incredible.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

That is incredible, Mr. Speaker. My hon. colleague is reminding me how incredible that is, $190 billion.

Furthermore, the government's plan to reduce the federal budget by $10 billion will bring total debt reduction since 2005-06 to more than $37 billion. That is over $1,500 for every man woman and child in Canada. Not only have we reduced the debt, but through our tax back guarantee, we have further reduced taxes for Canadians.

We are limiting the growth of spending in government and we are balancing the books. We are building modern and accessible world-class infrastructure that will help move Canadian goods to market, allowing our economy to grow and prosper. Our economic fundamentals are solid. We are experiencing the second longest period of economic expansion in Canadian history.

Business investment is expanding for the 12th consecutive year. Corporate profits are at an all time high in Canadian history. Along with that, overall inflation has remained low and stable. Our unemployment rate is the best it has been in 33 years. But we cannot rest on our laurels and we are not about to. At the same time we must be aware of the significant challenges ahead.

Our government is prepared to meet those challenges head-on. Let me illustrate how we are going to do that by outlining some of the key measures in Bill C-28. These measures are many, so today I will focus on the key provisions of the bill.

For too many low income Canadians, working can mean being financially worse off than staying on social assistance. In Advantage Canada, Canada's new government committed to work with the provinces and the territories to lower the so-called welfare wall by implementing a working income tax benefit to make work pay for low and modest income Canadians.

The working income tax benefit will provide up to $1,000 per year to low income working couples and single parents and up to $500 to single individuals. This benefit will help make work more rewarding and attractive for an estimated 1.2 million Canadians already in the workforce, thereby strengthening their incentive to stay employed.

In addition, it is estimated that a working income tax benefit will encourage close to 60,000 people to enter the workforce. Advantage Canada has also committed to foster academic excellence and choice.

Hon. members may recall that in budget 2006 the government fully exempted scholarship, fellowship and bursary income received by post-secondary students. The combination of these measures will help ensure that no Canadian is deterred from accepting and experiencing exceptional education opportunities. This measure will benefit about 1,000 Canadian children and their families.

This government also pledged to increase health spending for sport and physical activity. In budget 2006 we acted on that commitment by introducing the children's fitness tax credit, which became effective January 1 of this year. Parents can claim the credit for eligible fees up to $500 a year for each child participating in physical activity programs.

An important component of this initiative is that substantial additional support will be provided to children who are eligible for the disability tax credit. This recognizes the unique barriers these children face in becoming more active.

Hon. members may also recall that in budget 2006 we introduced the public transit tax credit. The proposals include measures that will help low income individuals who may not be able to afford the financial commitment of a monthly pass to take advantage of the credit.

I have spoken about tax measures in this bill for individuals and families. This government also understands the need to ensure Canada's corporate tax system is competitive. I can assure hon. members that we are delivering on that need. In fact, the economic statement announced that we will move Canada to the goal of establishing the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G-7 by 2011.

Capital taxes increase the cost of investing for Canadian businesses and reduce the competitiveness of Canada's tax system. Recognizing this, the government took action in its first budget, budget 2006, to eliminate the federal capital tax in January 2006. Bill C-28 proposes further action on this front by establishing a financial incentive to encourage provinces to eliminate their capital taxes as soon as possible.

Provinces can qualify for the incentive if they enact legislation after March 18, 2007 and before 2011 to eliminate their capital taxes over that time period. Provinces have an important role to play in improving Canada's business tax competitiveness. This incentive is important because it will encourage provinces to do the right thing and eliminate their capital taxes.

By reducing taxes for small businesses, it will help them succeed in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. However, small businesses also face other challenges, such as handling the paperwork associated with filing tax forms and remitting taxes. This can sometimes be an onerous task for small businesses. Bill C-28 proposes to implement measures from budget 2007 to ease the paperwork burden by reducing the frequency of tax remittances and filings for small businesses. These proposed changes will reduce the filing and remitting requirements of more than 350,000 small businesses by, on average, about one-third.

This government also recognizes the importance of small business owners, such as farmers, fishermen and fisher women. Indeed, these sectors are key drivers of Canada's economic success.

One of the ways that Canada's federal income tax system supports these entrepreneurs is through the lifetime capital gains exemption. Providing a tax exemption on capital gains realized on the disposition of qualified farm and fishing property, or qualified small business corporation shares, increases the rewards of investing in small business, farming and fishing. It also helps to ensure financial security for their retirement.

In recognition of the importance of these entrepreneurs to the Canadian economy and to help them better prepare for the future, budget 2007 proposes to increase the lifetime capital gains exemption to $750,000 from the existing $500,000. This is the first time it has been increased since 1988.

Canada's economy depends on the trucking sector to function effectively. It is all very well to manufacture quality Canadian goods, but if we cannot get those goods to market, where does that leave us?

Increasing demands for highly skilled truck drivers and a rapidly aging workforce are raising concerns that Canada may be facing a shortage of qualified truck drivers. In budget 2007, the government introduced a proposal that is aimed specifically at helping this important industry.

In order to provide better recognition of the significant meal expenses incurred by long haul truck drivers while on the road, budget 2007 proposes to increase to 80% from 50% the share of meal expenses that long haul truck drivers can deduct for tax purposes. To parallel the treatment on the income tax side, Bill C-28 proposes to amend the sales tax legislation by increasing the percentage of available input tax credits for GST/HST paid on meal expenses of long haul truck drivers.

As I have outlined here today, Bill C-28 contains numerous measures that will help businesses. There is one other measure that I would like to mention because it builds on a commitment made by this government to create child care spaces.

Hon. members will recall that in budget 2006 we introduced the universal child care plan, a strategy to provide support for families with children. In July 2006 parents began receiving support of $100 per month for every child under age six, to be used for the priorities identified by parents as they determine how best to balance home, work and other commitments.

By recognizing that parents often choose to use child care services, the government also committed to provide $250 million annually to support the creation of up to 25,000 new spaces, beginning in 2007-08. In budget 2007, and indeed in this bill today, we are further delivering on a commitment to help create child care spaces.

I would now like to outline the measures in Bill C-28 that were announced in the recent 2007 economic statement. These initiatives complement the proposals from budget 2007 that I have just outlined.

Canada's strong fiscal position provides us with an opportunity that few other countries have to make broad based tax reductions that will strengthen our economy, stimulate investment and create more and better jobs.

About three-quarters of the tax reductions will benefit individual Canadians and their families. This includes reducing the GST rate to 5% from 6%, effective January 1, 2008. Building on last year's GST reduction, the combined two percentage point reduction represents some $12 billion in annual savings for consumers. The total savings are significant. Let us look at some of these examples. A family purchasing a new $300,000 home will save $3,840 in GST. Spending $10,000 on home renovations will save a family $200 in GST. A family spending $30,000 on a new minivan will save $600 in GST.

It is important to point out that to benefit low and modest income families, the GST credit will remain at current levels, even though the GST is being reduced.

Bill C-28 also proposes to increase the amount all Canadians can earn, without paying federal income tax, to $9,600 in 2007 and 2008 and to $10,100 in 2009. Furthermore, the lowest personal income tax rate would be reduced to 15%, from 15.5%, effective January 1, 2007. Together, these will deliver relief on next spring's income tax returns and move some 385,000 people off the income tax rolls at least a year earlier than currently legislated.

For Canadian businesses, Bill C-28 proposes a bold new tax reduction imitative that will reduce the general federal corporate income tax rate to 15% by the year 2012, starting one percentage point reduction in 2008 beyond the already scheduled reductions. This move will give Canada the lowest overall tax rate in new business investment in the G-7 by 2011 and the lowest statutory tax rate in the G-7 by 2012.

Canadians want a government that sets clear goals and delivers concrete results. We have set those goals and with the measures in this bill, we are delivering those results.

Once passed, the measures in Bill C-28 from this year's budget, in combination with the tax reduction initiatives announced in the 2007 economic statement, will deliver to Canadians key components of the “Advantage Canada” plan that would help secure Canada's place as a clear leader in the world.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member across recites a number of statistics, which are an acknowledgement of the tremendous situation the government inherited.

I remind the member of the last time we had a Conservative government in Ottawa. When it was voted out, the annual deficit was $43 billion, unemployment was 11%, and interest rates were over 10%. I would like some explanation from someone as to what programs, what initiatives, what policies led to that mess.

However, when I talk to average Canadians in the manufacturing sector, they have either lost their job or they are scared to lose their job. Farming, especially hogs and beef, is not having tremendous times. Tourism is being hit by the Canadian dollar. Students, who have been on the Hill in the last couple of weeks, received nothing at all. City mayors have been here. The infrastructure package is about a third of what it was with the previous government. I listened to question period today and the answer we get to every question, on behalf of every Canadian, is tax cuts.

It is my submission that Canada is larger than this. We have a shared destiny. We need leadership, vision and a party that speaks for all Canadians, wherever they live, all regions and all sectors.

Is the member as disappointed as I and other Canadians are in the direction of the government?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to answer that in one simple word. I thank the hon. member for the opportunity to suggest some of the things he has obviously failed to recognize.

The answer is I am quite excited about the bill we have put forward. I am quite excited about what this government has done for Canadians. I am almost as excited as many of my constituents were when this government took power.

I live in Alberta, in Conservative country. For many years ,y Conservative constituents have asked why the former Liberal government was allowed to slash and burn.

The hon. member talks about those 13 dark years we faced with the Liberal government. He talks about what we inherited from it. More important is the recovery that the previous Progressive Conservative prime minister left for the Liberals. He had fixed it. They inherited that.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, only the Conservatives can claim repetitive tax cuts to bring it back to where it was when the Liberals were in power.

My question for the hon. member is very specific.

Last March, the Prime Minister, with fanfare, made an announcement about public transportation. He committed to help the city of Mississauga by investing $83 million to help build the new bus rapid transit. At the time he said that this was part of the 2006 budget.

We are now are talking about the implementation bill for the 2007 budget, and the city of Mississauga, to this minute, has yet to receive the 2006 promise. Will this be another broken promise, like the child care spaces promise, like help for immigrants to get foreign credentials, like the income trust promise or will the government finally send the city of Mississauga the funds promised so the people of Mississauga can have their bus rapid transit?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that a member of the Liberal Party would stand and ask about supporting public transit. It seems to me that 13 years might have given the Liberals the opportunity to support public transit. I do not think there was anything done until the Prime Minister recognized what had not been done and the finance minister said, “Let's get it done”. They budgeted the money to get that done.

There was a little help from local members of Parliament who encouraged their local councils and provinces. There are a lot of things the provinces can do to help initiate these projects.

I am very remiss. In answer to the previous question, I should remind the hon. member that we are investing $33 billion and through public-private partnerships, we hope to triple that by leveraging it to $100 billion. This is the largest infrastructure investment in Canada's history.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the public-private partnership aspect. The government is going down the road of creating another bureaucracy. It has created its own department for this, which is really the sell-off of Canada. In fact, it is getting so bad that it is trying to sell off things that are not even built yet. That is the new border crossing in the Windsor-Detroit region.

Why is the government moving for a P3 project there when we know it is going to be a new toll tax. The Citigroup study, which is a financial group, very much a right wing institution, did an analysis of private border crossings versus that of public. Historically, of the 22 border crossings, most have been public border crossings between Canada and the United States.

Why is the minister and the government moving toward a process that is going to be extra fees for commercial and transport users? This will turn the border into a business with a profit zone. We should reduce tolls and make it more efficient and accountable.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for reminding us of efficiencies and how we need to improve them. This is one thing the government has been very solid on, which is the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars. If we can involve private companies, the provinces and the municipalities, that is the best way to leverage taxpayer dollars to get things done for Canadians.

I know for the NDP “profit” is a dirty word, but fortunately our country is build on that. It is the opportunity for individuals to profit. If we can increase the opportunities and provide the services to Canadians, what is so bad about that idea?

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for his riveting speech. Whereas his delivery was excellent, the substance of the speech was even better.

The moral of this story is Canadians have had enough of a party and a government that was for everything for everybody, but accomplished nothing for nobody.

Now we have a government and a Prime Minister with a vision and leadership to accomplish some of the things he wanted to do, some of the things Canadians taxpayers have begged for us to do.

Could the member comment on several things such as the kept promise of reducing the GST to 5% and reducing personal income tax? However, one of the things I would like the hon. member to concentrate on is the reduction in corporate taxes, particularly for small businesses. People from my constituency and my area have begged for that for years.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. parliamentary secretary has about 25 seconds left.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is very unfortunate. I do not think I could get all the exciting news into five minutes, let alone those few short seconds.

We need to recognize the importance of getting the legislation passed and passed quickly. In answer to my hon. colleague's question, small and medium sized enterprises want to see their taxes reduced. Individuals want to see their taxes reduced. Businesses want to see their taxes reduced. We must get on with it. It is very important that we get this bill passed immediately.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-28, the budget implementation bill. I ask for unanimous consent to split my time today with my colleague, the member for Halton.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Does the member have the unanimous consent of the House to split his time with the member for Halton?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have had several opportunities to speak on past Conservative budgets and every time I speak on them, the same problem comes up, and that is the lack of vision displayed by this government.

We know it takes months to prepare a federal budget. It involves many hours of research and consultation. However, what good is a budget if it contains no vision for the country? What good is it if it does not set out a plan for Canada's economic security?

As we debate the implementation of the Conservatives' latest budget, I will like to discuss some of the most problematic areas of this document.

First, I would like to talk about Canada's economic prosperity and our ability to be competitive in the future. These subjects are important to me, as a member of Parliament, because I believe that without a strong economy and prosperous citizens, our country cannot and will not be able to continue to sustain its generous social programs.

As deputy chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, my role is to ensure that Canadians are constantly informed and that we are advancing progressive ideas in order for this government to keep the economic prosperity of our country growing.

These various economic proposals are developed in different ways. The Standing Committee on Finance provides me with one of these opportunities, as we meet with hundreds of business leaders, non-profit organizations, environmental groups, artists, industry stakeholders and many others.

Over the last two years, overwhelmingly experts from these non-partisan meetings have told us that Canada's next major economic challenge will be to improve our productivity. Some of the economic solutions that have been suggested are to allow manufacturers the ability to write off assets in accordance with their useful lives. Other suggestions are to make all research and development credits earned refundable. However, cutting income taxes is at the top of almost everyone's list: first, corporate and second, personal income taxes.

However, no one advocates cutting the GST. Our leader, the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, has been clear on this position. He is not advocating increasing the GST. His preference is to cut income taxes and has been on the record since last year. The only people who think cutting the GST will improve our economic prosperity are the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance.

One may ask whether the Liberal Party has any credibility when it talks about the GST. The world has changed since 1993. The economic challenges are no longer the same. The world is changing faster and faster with increased trade. Technology has evolved and has transformed the way we do business.

Goods and services are exchanged more quickly and more efficiently than before. Fifteen years ago, income taxes were the main source of revenue for a number of countries.

The idea was to tax people and company profits. If the companies had physical infrastructures, governments knew that it was unlikely these companies would relocate, so they hit them harder with an endless barrage of taxes. They did not matter. Consumption taxes such as the GST were viewed as a deterrent to spending, so countries stayed away from that form of taxation. They needed spending to grow their economies internally.

When the Liberals came to power in 1993, they inherited a deficit exceeding $40 billion. They faced a dilemma because the country needed the revenue from the GST and from personal and business income taxes. The Liberal government had to make tough decisions, and all Canadians had to make major sacrifices.

Once expenses were brought under control, the next step was tax reform. Would it not have been a popular and politically smart move to reduce the GST then? Perhaps, but that would not have been the best way to proceed, nor would it have been in the country's best interest.

Let us not forget that our dollar was weak then. So why would companies invest here? Even though they would have had opportunities to make a profit, they would have been taxed on those profits, and the competitive advantage would have been lost because of the weak dollar. That is why the finance minister at the time, the member for LaSalle—Émard, chose to reduce personal and business income tax instead of the GST.

Was that the right decision? The proof is in the pudding. Today, in 2007, Canada has enjoyed a decade of annual surpluses, high employment, has paid down over $75 billion in debt during that same period and has become the country with the lowest debt to GDP ratio in the G-8.

The government now needs a vision to attack the productivity agenda. Instead of formulating a solid plan to improve productivity, the Conservatives have spent most of their time in office bringing in legislation to make short term political gain, never looking beyond the next election.

For 12 years, the Liberal government helped set the vision for our economic prosperity.

What has the present Conservative government done in the last two years? Has it presented a vision of any type? Yes, it has supported a combative role in Afghanistan. It has increased spending, the bulk of which has gone to the military, and in two years the Conservative government has become the highest spending government in the history of Canada.

Economically, Canadians have seen no vision. The finance minister says that Canadians are overtaxed but in budget 2006 he increased personal income taxes at the lowest rate from 15% to 15.5%. During his economic update, the minister announced that he would lower the tax rate back to the original Liberal rate of 15% and he had the audacity to call it a tax cut.

With regard to this bill's corporate income tax cuts, they merely match the ones proposed by the Liberal government in 2005. These cuts have been advocated by our party's leader, the member of Parliament for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville during the last year.

Furthermore, last year, the Minister of Finance decided to tax income trusts despite his campaign promise not to do so. Because of this, Canadians lost between $25 billion and $30 billion overnight.

A lot of Canadians were affected by that broken promise, but many had no idea what was going on because most of the losses were in pension funds. Individuals can ask the people in charge of their pension funds or their brokers to explain the situation.

The energy and resource sectors are looking for ways to finance expansion. Just a few months ago, our weak dollar encouraged foreign investors to buy up Canadian income trusts at fire sale prices.

We can take the example set by Nordic countries where social spending in these countries has always been a priority and now income taxes are being lowered to continue to attract foreign investors.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member will have two minutes left to conclude his remarks.

The House resumed from November 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-28, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007 and to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on October 30, 2007, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be able to get up and remind Canadians of the economic performance of the Conservative government, and I am pleased to have a few minutes this morning to do just that.

I hope that Canadians and our media, and everybody who is watching the proceedings in the House today will not be too amazingly distracted by what happens in the ethics committee and Mr. Schreiber's testimony. There are a lot of things that affect individual Canadians in their everyday lives and we tend to lose sight of them sometimes around this place as we go for the headline grabbing sensational.

I am pleased to talk a bit about the economic reality for a lot of Canadian families. There are some issues that I know are very much on the minds of Canadians.

One of them of course is our high Canadian dollar. The Canadian dollar has gained about 28% in value in the course of a single year. That is very substantial. The shock to a lot of Canadian industries has been breathtaking because the acceleration in the value of the dollar has been far faster than those industries have been able to cope.

Why has the dollar gone up so quickly? There are a number of reasons. Obviously our dollar is considered to be a petro currency and because of the rise in oil prices that is one reason. Also, the American dollar has fallen in value against almost every currency in the world and Canada's is no exception. Our dollar has gone up relative to the American dollar going down.

We cannot do a lot about those things, but there are some factors here that are Canadian. The root and cause is found in the actions of the Conservative government. For example, the government has been spending more money than any previous Canadian government. In fact, the rate of increase in government spending is now about twice the rate of inflation.

Inflationary spending by government tends to have an impact on inflation, the CPI, and that tends to have an impact on the currency. It also affects fiscal monetary policy. We end up with a lot of money coming to Canada from around the world for a number of reasons and that has only accelerated our problem. Canada has a high dollar, a high interest rate, and high inflationary policy, and this is hurting Canadians.

What damage is being done? Retailers, the tourist industry, manufacturers, shippers, the resource sector, and automakers are very much on the front line of what is happening today. Plants are closing . Factories are going idle. Equipment has been unbolted from its cement pads in factories, crated up, and sent to China.

I was in an aerospace manufacturing facility in my riding the other day where hundreds of high qualified, high skilled jobs are in peril right now. People are contemplating selling much of the equipment in that plant and shipping it to China. I found out during my tour that there are more of these high quality, very expensive metallic fabricating machines sitting in crates in China ready to be installed in factories than there are existing now in all of Canada. That is a very disturbing situation.

In the past year, 350,000 Canadian workers in the manufacturing sector have lost their jobs. The finance committee has been spending a bit of time looking into this issue. We found out from experts at committee, a lot of them economists from unions and banks and industry, that this is just as they called it, the tip of the iceberg. They are expecting at least another 300,000 jobs to be lost in the next year.

If the Canadian dollar remains at parity or above the American dollar in value over the next two years, probably an equivalent number of jobs will be lost each year. That means two years from now the accumulated loss of manufacturing jobs could be close to one million. That is breathtaking.

This is an issue that goes to the fundamental economic management of the government because it is not managing this problem. The finance minister runs around the country and talks about the strong Canadian dollar. It is not strong. It is toxic. A lot of Canadians are seeing their jobs go as a result.

One example is in the Minister of Finance's own riding. He represents Whitby—Oshawa. One of the premier yacht building companies in Canada is in Whitby. It is called PDQ Yachts. It went bankrupt last month. The reason it went bankrupt is that it could not cope with a 28% rise in the value of the Canadian currency. Why? Because almost all of its sales are to the United States.

What company can take a 28% drop in the price of its product being shipped to its clients? Almost no company can do that. PDQ Yachts, in the Minister of Finance's own riding, went bankrupt. On December 13, the equipment in that plant is going to be sold at public auction. It is not good when we see companies deserting. It is a small company. It has only 100 employees. However, when we go a hundred by a hundred by a hundred in riding by riding by riding and in community after community in this country, suddenly we have a jobs crisis.

What are those workers supposed to do? They are highly skilled. How about their families? How about their mortgages? People who live in the Minister of Finance's riding, where houses are not cheap, spend $300,000 to $500,000 buying a home and have to finance it. They have mortgages to pay and their jobs are now gone. This goes to the very heart of the economic mismanagement by the government.

Second, after the high Canadian dollar and the way that has been mismanaged, we have an income tax situation that is very troublesome indeed. The government, in its first budget, raised income taxes. The basic income tax rate was raised in the first budget and then it was raised in the second budget. This is the same government that campaigned on taxes. I admit it, I was a Conservative candidate in the last election, and I did not go from door to door promising people that their income taxes would be increased. I was rather shocked when it happened, but it did nonetheless.

Canadians had two income tax increases. In its last economic statement in October, the government finally relented and brought taxes back down to where they were two years ago, but not only two years ago, $2 billion later, $2 billion from Canadian families in overtaxation, which we finally see ending. Thus, income tax is the second problem.

Third is family financial stress. Our families are under a lot of stress. In this place, we are insulated. We are surrounded by opulence and gold leaf on the ceiling and stained glass windows. We make $150,000 as members of Parliament. Ministers make another $70,000 more. We have lovely offices. We live in a bubble here in Ottawa.

We do not see the financial stress that is going on across our country, but families are under financial stress. They have seen higher income taxes. They have seen higher mortgage rates because the government has inflationary spending that has forced the Bank of Canada to raise interest rates over the past few months. They are seeing higher energy costs. It costs $1.04 for a litre of regular gasoline. Families have a hard time coping with all of that and now there are reduced employment prospects because of the devastation that has been wrought in the manufacturing sector by the Canadian dollar.

We have a high dollar, loss of jobs, higher taxes and family financial stress. That is four strikes against the government, but it does not end there. There is another thing the government has done that two million Canadians will never, ever forget. They are the two million Canadians who were income trust investors.

I would like to read for a moment from testimony given before the House of Commons finance committee this week. It was delivered by Margaret Lefebvre. She is executive director of the Canadian Association of Income Funds.

Here is what Margaret had to say to our committee: “This committee should be aware that the damaging consequences of the government's actions continue. Since October 31, 2006 there have been more than 42 transactions that involve the selling, merging or acquisition of income trusts with an enterprise value in excess of $31 billion. The majority of these transactions by dollar value involve foreign buyers of Canadian assets. Most have gone into the hands of private equity and pension funds and virtually all of these entities pay little or no tax”.

This is probably the greatest failing and I think the greatest symbol of the government's economic mismanagement: campaign on one thing and deliver another. Campaign and tell Canadians that it will never tax income trusts and turn around 10 months later and impose a 31% tax. The consequences of that, although unintended in large part, have been devastating, and two million investors will never forget.

I could go on for some time, but I see that my time is up. I would simply end by saying it is my conviction that our Minister of Finance is out of his depth. He has done many things on his watch that have hurt this economy. They have wounded it. More importantly, they have hurt Canadian families. For that, so many millions of them will not forget, and when they come to cast their ballots, and soon, I would say, the consequences will be obvious and painful for our friends across the way.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way talked a lot about promises in trying to harangue our members and actually members all around the House on the matter of keeping promises. However, let me ask him a direct question. Does the member intend to keep his promise to resign his seat and step away? Is that a pledge that he feels he should honour and follow through on for the members of his constituency?

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that of course has nothing to do with the subject of what we are debating, but I am happy to answer. I did stand in this House on the day that I joined the federal Liberal caucus and say to the Prime Minister that I would resign my seat and that all he needed to do was give me a date on which we would have a byelection. The Prime Minister would not do that.

I also said I thought that would be incumbent upon, perhaps, the Minister of International Trade from Vancouver who was elected as a Liberal and ended up as a Conservative, and perhaps the member who is now an independent member from Mississauga—Streetsville but who was elected as a Liberal and sat as a Conservative. If we are going to have members who cross the floor resigning their seats, let us have them all resign their seats and have simultaneous byelections. Why not? That makes sense.

If the Prime Minister and the members opposite have the fortitude to call a byelection and determine a date, then absolutely we are all happy to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for his fine speech and ask him a question.

Any government in an era of surplus has the responsibility to plan an economy not for the next 5 years but for the next 50 years. At a time of surplus, we can invest in those strategic assets a country needs in order to ensure it can weather the storms that will inevitably come, including investments in education and access to education and investments in infrastructure and cities, those things that enable our economy to move forward and enable our private sector to be nimble and competitive internationally.

I would like to ask my colleague, because he was on the other side, whether he thinks the absence of this from the Conservative government, and also the fact that the Conservative government has grown the government by 14% in a year and a half, are symptoms of a larger problem and that the Prime Minister is turning our democracy into an autocracy and in fact a dictatorship?

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's observation is well put.

I am very disappointed that this government, although it has been overtaxing Canadians to the tune of some $15 billion a year now, has not invested in any long term projects to date. A great example of that is the infrastructure deficit, which is happening right across our country. The lower or junior level of government now has to deal with the very serious situation of a fraying infrastructure, but what does the Minister of Finance tell the mayors of cities? Basically he tells them to stop whining, to get a life, to go home, to drop dead. That is what the Minister of Finance is saying to our municipalities and I think that is a very disgraceful way to go.

We have many serious structural problems. Physical infrastructure is one. Demographics is another. With a rapidly aging population, there will be real pressures on our social safety net and our health care system down the road. We are doing basically nothing to prepare for that.

While the government swims in a surplus of overtaxation, we have very serious problems yet to be addressed because right now, and we hear this every day from those guys, we have a government that is more interested in campaigning than it is in governing. That is a very serious deficit.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate for a few minutes, and it feels as though I am at a Conservative caucus. There is a lot of buck-passing by both the Liberals and the Conservatives.

What are the Liberals trying to do today, with their talk of planning five years ahead for investments and the protection of jobs in the manufacturing and forestry sectors? If they had put that theory into practice, we would not be in this situation right now. Conservatives and Liberals are one and the same.

If they had listened to the public in the first place, to their hopes and needs, and to the main voice of the people, the Bloc Québécois, we would be in a different situation. Not to mention that a number of members would be in better shape since they would be wasting less energy debating things of the past.

Could the hon. member explain why, a year and 10 months ago—not that far back—the Liberals did not do what they are asking the Conservatives to do today?

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a year and 10 months ago, let me tell my friend, the Canadian dollar was not 28% higher, as it is today, and the serious situation that has evolved with manufacturing and forestry did not exist. It is a little disingenuous of the member to ask that question.

What governments need to do is cope with situations and events that happen rapidly. They need to respond rapidly. That is where this government has failed. It can do a number of things in terms of economic and fiscal policy in order to mitigate the effects of the Canadian dollar. It can certainly encourage the Bank of Canada to respond as well.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us now is very odd. The adoption of a budget is typically accompanied by a budget implementation bill. If the measures in the bill match those announced in the budget, those who voted in favour of the budget generally support the bill. That is the logic that parliamentarians apply—logic that the Bloc Québécois was prepared to apply.

However, the Conservatives made a truly partisan decision to combine completely different elements. On the one hand, we have the 2007 budget, which the Bloc Québécois supported and continues to support. On the other, we have some elements from the economic statement, which we did not support, and the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador offshore oil agreements, which we also did not support because they are unfair to Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois will therefore vote against this bill because on the whole, it is not in the best interest of Quebeckers. The economic statement is the main reason we have taken this stance. The government made a unilateral decision to use $10 billion to pay off part of the debt. They made that decision without holding any debate on the subject and despite the fact that our people have serious, urgent needs, which I will list briefly.

First, the Bloc Québécois believes that $3 billion of this year's $11 billion surplus should be used to pay down the debt, not the whole $11 billion. The ratio of debt to Canada's gross domestic product has been improving steadily over the past 10 years. We have now reached a point where the government's desire to use the entire surplus to pay down the debt looks a lot like a homeowner's obsession with paying off the mortgage as quickly as possible. That same homeowner is ignoring the fact that the deck needs a coat of paint and is kind of unstable, and he is failing to ensure that his children or parents who live with him have enough income.The Bloc Québécois does not share the government's obsession with paying off the debt at any price and does not want this bill to go through.

The Bloc Québécois feels that, instead of using the full $11 billion to pay down the debt, the government should pay it down by $3 billion. This is a reasonable amount, and it would let Canada meet its goal of reducing the debt to GDP ratio to 25%. The remaining $8 billion could be spent on urgent issues such as the guaranteed income supplement for seniors.

In an affluent society like Canada, it is important to do justice to our seniors. We currently have an old age pension system that includes the basic pension and the guaranteed income supplement. This system is supposed to protect seniors against poverty. However, the total monthly benefit amount is still $100 below the poverty threshold.

Instead of using the full $11 billion surplus to pay down the debt, the federal government could at least start by paying the retroactive benefits it owes people who were entitled to the guaranteed income supplement but did not receive it because the system did not provide for automatic registration. When you come right down to it, the federal government took advantage of our seniors' lack of knowledge to pocket as much money as possible.

As a result, today some people are living below the poverty line. Last week, we heard the incredible but sadly true testimony of someone living below the poverty line. With retroactivity, this person, who is over 65, would receive $12,000. Since 2001, this person has been living on very little money. She was entitled to the guaranteed income supplement, but the current act does not allow more than 11 months of retroactive benefits.

Each one of us has had to deal at some point with the Canada Revenue Agency. When this agency reassesses tax returns to recover unpaid taxes, it can go back not only up to 11 months, but up to five years. That is why we would like the government to make fully retroactive payments to the people entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. This would cost an estimated $3 billion.

Then, $1.5 billion should be invested in the workers. Of that, $60 million would go towards a support program for older workers. That is not an astronomical sum, but it would allow many workers affected by the forestry and manufacturing crisis to bridge the gap until their retirement and to live with dignity until they receive their old age pension.

In addition to that, a reserve of $1.4 billion must be given to employment insurance.

As we know, for the past 15 years, the federal government has made a cash grab of $54 billion from the EI contributions paid by employers and employees. It has used this money for all kinds of expenditures, including the deficit. There has never been any return on investment for unemployed workers, for people who paid into the system and all those who were affected by the stricter criteria.

One would think that, with this year's $11 billion surplus, the government could make a one-time payment of $1.4 billion to a reserve, in order to improve the conditions of the employment insurance program.

Of that $11 billion surplus, $3 billion should go towards the debt, $3 billion should go to seniors, $1.5 billion should go to workers and $2 billion should be invested in the manufacturing economy. There is unanimous consent on this in Quebec, not only within the Government of Quebec, but also within the manufacturing associations, the Quebec federation of chambers of commerce and the forestry industry, which has been sending us congratulatory letters, telling us not to give up and that policy changes are definitely needed in the manufacturing sector.

The economic statement included some nice tax reductions for companies that are making profits. The problem is that those who are making profits, the oil companies for example, are going to pocket a lot of money. However, all the businesses that are not making as much profit, or almost none at all, will not benefit whatsoever from this uniform tax reduction. They would earn a lot more if refundable tax credits were offered. That would allow companies to draw the maximum benefit from the higher dollar.

If a manufacturing company had the means today to buy machinery to increase productivity, and it bought that machinery, that would be its way of having a competitive product. To do that they need money. Without profits, that is not possible. If it had a refundable tax credit for research and development, that would be possible.

I know that the government, especially the senior public service, is saying that it is too great an expense. But estimates have been made; people have studied this; it is a reasonable amount of money.

This year, thanks to the surplus, the government could allocate $1.5 billion to that end and $500 million to reinstate Technology Partnerships Canada. What is that? It is a program that encourages innovation in aerospace and a number of other sectors. For example, in La Pocatière, Premier Tech used that program to develop new products from sphagnum peat moss. This helped develop an industry that is carving out a place for itself in the Rivière-du-Loup area. It is a major driving force behind the economic development of that region. I want to give credit to the Liberals for creating that program, which I always defended. The Bloc Québécois defended it as well. The Conservatives abolished the program.

In today's economic conditions, with the higher dollar and global competition, this program is an investment for the federal government, not an expense. Reinstating this program for $500 million, out of an $11 billion surplus this year, would be one way of encouraging productivity. This would also allow money to be invested across Canada in companies that develop new products.

We have the means to allocate the reasonable sum of $2 billion to the manufacturing economy, and that money could come from this year's $11 billion surplus. We also have the means to put $3 billion toward the debt.

And what about the regions affected by the forestry crisis? During the election campaign in the riding of Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, I had the opportunity to see the serious impact of the forestry crisis on the regions. Last week, at the Standing Committee on Finance, the mayor of Hearst, in northern Ontario, told us the same thing. I also live in a region struggling to cope with the forestry crisis.

If we apply the $11 billion surplus to the debt, that will only decrease Canada's debt. Instead, we could establish a $1 billion fund for regional economic diversification. With that money, this year, right now, in the coming days and months, we could breathe life into our regional economies. We have the means to do it. This would not be borrowed money; it would come from the federal government's current surplus.

Finally, we could allocate $1 billion to the environment for the purchase, for example, energy saving appliances. That would improve our ratio of fuel oil versus electricity consumption, enabling us to move increasingly towards clean energies.

We see that there is a fundamental difference between the bill the government wishes to pass today and the 2007 budget that we supported. The latter resulted in a partial solution to the fiscal imbalance and we supported that bill. I believe that Quebeckers are pleased with that.

But with regard to the other part that has been included in the bill on the economic statement, it clearly is not in the interests of Quebeckers. This is significant enough for us to vote against this bill.

In addition, the bill now includes the agreement with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador concerning offshore oil resources. For the Bloc Québécois, obviously, that aspect is neither relevant nor positive because it creates an unfair advantage in terms of equalization.

Let us briefly review the facts. With respect to the Atlantic accord, Newfoundland and Labrador’s oil resources, and the whole Nova Scotia question, it was rather difficult to follow the Conservative government. It had initially made a commitment that satisfied the Atlantic provinces. Then they refused to consider all of the revenue related to energy in the equalization formula. The bottom line is that there is now an agreement to try to put things back together and correct a blunder.

However, the final version creates more inequities and, for us, that is not appealing. The Bloc Québécois believes that this measure should not have been incorporated into the same bill that implements the 2007 budget because they are different matters.

The government has an opportunity to correct the situation, but the way it is presenting this bill is really unacceptable to Quebec. They cannot, on one hand, seek approval for the 2007 budget and, on the other hand, incorporate measures that are clearly contrary to the interests of the Government of Quebec.

In truth, one can ask the question whether, after Quebec had paid for the development of fossil fuel energy, the province should pay for its exploitation. That is out of the question. These grants and federal investments have cost Quebec dearly. They have, in part, amounted to more than $10 billion over the years. This agreement amounts to giving a bonus to the provinces that produce oil and making the provinces that produce hydroelectricity pay for it. That is turning the world upside down when there is an increasing demand for the development of clean energy. The federal government is doing the opposite with this measure.

There really is an almost unhealthy connection between the petroleum industry and the Conservative government. Most of Canada is paying the price, especially Quebec, which has developed hydroelectricity over the years without any support from the federal government.

Accordingly, the government will have to revise its position before we can vote in favour of this bill.

Why do I think the economic statement is so odd? It is now fall of 2007. Since February 2007, the federal government has been in possession of a unanimous report from the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology entitled “Manufacturing: Moving Forward—Rising to the Challenge”, which clearly stated that we needed a quick action plan to help the manufacturing sector. The committee chair, the member for Edmonton—Leduc, had this to say in the foreword to the report:

While the rest of the Canadian economy is generally very robust, many industries within the manufacturing sector are struggling to remain competitive against the backdrop of a Canadian dollar that has risen in value by more than 40% in just four years in comparison to its American counterpart, rising and unpredictable energy costs, increasing global competition, particularly from China and India, and excessive and inefficiently designed regulations, to name but a few challenges.

Further on he said:

The Committee believes that the Government of Canada should make the preservation of a competitive Canadian manufacturing sector a national goal, and that given the gravity of the challenges facing the sector, the recommendations presented in this report should be implemented in a timely fashion.

If this report had been produced in October or the beginning of November 2007, it could be said that the government had not had enough time to prepare, and that it would do so for the next budget. However, this report was published in February 2007. There was time to prepare for the 2007 budget, and especially to prepare for the economic statement, to propose a real program to help the manufacturing sector. Yet it was not until yesterday at the Standing Committee on Finance that a motion was finally passed, with the support of the Liberals and the NDP, calling on the federal government to implement as soon as possible all the tax measures set out in the report.

What is really significant here is that the Conservative members did not vote. The motion was adopted unanimously because the Conservatives did not oppose it. These were the recommendations in a report that was adopted unanimously in February 2007 by all members of the committee, from all the parties. By their abstention yesterday, the Conservative members acknowledged that they really should have done something. What I want to say to them today is that they need to act now.

Insofar as the economic statement is concerned, it is amazing to see the attitude of the Minister of Finance, who is from Ontario and can see the devastating impact on job creation in his province. I remember the committee going to the Windsor area a year ago. The catastrophe could already be seen looming. We know now that the effects of the rise in the dollar this fall—not the rise three years ago but the one four months ago—will be felt a year from now. If the government does not act, another 150,000 or 200,000 jobs will be lost in addition to the 130,000 already lost since the Conservatives took power. There is a disaster out there, but the government just closes its eyes.

The approach they are taking is an ideological one. They want to reduce taxes across the board and let the market adjust on its own, but we know very well where that leads. It means that more and more industries in the energy sector will reap enormous profits while more and more industries in the manufacturing sector will be unable to keep pace with the competition. The tax recommendations in the report, on the other hand, were to give companies refundable tax credits, create a fund for them like Technology Partnerships Canada, for example, and in this way give them a chance to diversify the economy in our regions. These were very specific, practical recommendations that the government could have included in its economic statement but chose not to.

Our vote today against Bill C-28 is largely due to this inaction on the part of the federal government. I thought that with the change in the industry minister, the department might take a more pragmatic approach, but it is sticking to the same theoretical line.

It is always good for the Minister of Finance to go out and consult people. The newspapers tell us today that he is going to consult with the manufacturing industry in the Quebec City area. I hope that when he returns, he will have changed his tune and will take action as quickly as possible in accordance with the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Finance, which was adopted unanimously not only by the Bloc—it was our proposal—but also by the Liberals, the NDP, and the Conservative members, who told the government through their abstention that it should take action and implement these tax measures.

Decisions need to be made quickly. If we wait for the next budget, we will have lost several months in the fight that is going on at present. The Canadian dollar is at par with the American dollar. The crisis is not over just because the dollar has gone down from $1.05 to $1. The Minister of Finance's arguments on this point are simplistic. The dollar may be at par, but its value has gone up by more than 40% in the past few years. The manufacturing sector has adapted to this reality as best it can. It has adjusted its productivity as much as possible, but now the federal government needs to take action.

When the minister places responsibility in the provincial ministers' hands, he is not doing his job. It is his job to make sure that, in its industrial strategy, the federal government can take real action as quickly as possible to help companies. The Canadian system is a bit complicated; you always have to convince two governments of everything. It would be simpler if we had just one government instead of two. At least, that is what we have to do as long as we are still part of the Canadian system. We know what the Government of Quebec has done. People may criticize its actions, but at least it has an action plan and it has asked that the federal government give this issue priority.

For all these reasons, in order to send a clear message to the Conservative government, the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C-28. Obviously, we were in favour of the budget tabled last fall, and we continue to be. We believed that we had to support it, if only because of the issue of the fiscal imbalance. However, it is impossible to include in the same bill both the whole issue of the economic statement and the accord with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador on offshore petroleum resources.

I believe that we represent exactly how Quebeckers are feeling. With our vote, we are sending a clear message to the government that it needs to go back to the drawing board, come up with an action plan for the manufacturing sector as soon as possible and waste no time in using the surplus for something other than just paying down the debt.

The time for putting everything on the debt is over. The federal government must use a portion of the surplus tax it takes each year to pay down the debt, but it must also use a significant portion to correct inequities and lend a hand where needed to go forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the contradictory message delivered by the member, with whom I sit on the finance committee. I was very attentive yesterday to his motion and was intrigued that he used the industry report as part of his presentation this morning.

He may have used, I would like to call selective memory, but probably a selective choice of words in the document from which he quoted. If he had read the document carefully, he would have seen that one of the important parts of that document was the foreword inserted by the chair of the industry committee. It states that on behalf of the committee, the recommendations presented in this report should be implemented in a timely fashion. He does not say abruptly, stupidly, without thought, without the necessary work in order to ensure that taxpayer money is spent wisely and that all companies in this country that would benefit from further tax reductions or proper investments from government could benefit from them.

While the member was quick to point out the aggressive nature upon which he acted yesterday, which I do not think was in a very thoughtful manner, he should have accepted the amendments moved by the Conservative members of the committee. We are in agreement with the report and take no issue with it, but we certainly will not move forward in a manner that either handcuffs industry and manufacturing in this country or handcuffs the financial aspect of the Minister of Finance's responsibility.

Therefore, I would ask the member to at least acknowledge that the implementation that the finance minister and the government included in the budget, which he supported, the accelerated capital cost allowance for manufacturing that has produced $1.8 billion of investment, of which the majority of the funds are used by manufacturing companies in Quebec, is a benefit to his province and this country.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to give my colleague a very simple answer. On the question of accelerated capital cost allowance, if half of a recommendation in the report produced such a result; if half a recommendation had the effect we have seen, imagine what would have happened if the other 21 recommendations had been implemented. We would not be facing a manufacturing crisis today, or, if there were one, our businesses would be solidly equipped to face it.

Yesterday, in debate on this question, when the Conservatives wanted to replace the word “promptly”, I think they were not considering the fact that the industries in my riding, in Quebec and in Canada, and the entire manufacturing sector, have been crying for help for several months. Those industries would not think it was too soon if we adopted measures today, although they might think that we were already too late by a few months.

We received the report in February 2007 and the budget followed a month and a half later. The government implemented half of one measure. We understood at that time that it could not implement all of them. But eight or 10 months later—when the government’s economic statement was presented, or today—there was no longer any reason why the government could not move ahead. The only explanation I have been given by senior officials on the question of refundable tax credits is that they considered the cost to be too high.

We have been given figures by experts in this area, and the cost is not that high. Yesterday, the Bloc Québécois proposal alone, about using the surplus for this year instead of paying $11 billion toward the debt, could have injected $2 billion to help manufacturing firms. We could have implemented those measures quickly and we would not have a larger foreign debt. We would have avoided an even worse financial situation.

In my opinion, the position I stated yesterday was supported not only by the three opposition parties, but also by the Conservatives, because they did not vote. That is a very clear signal that they do not oppose our motion, because they know it would be publicly unacceptable. If the Conservatives had voted against our proposal, which says that it is urgent that tax measures be put in place regarding the entire question of the manufacturing sector, they would have paid the political price. They chose to take the middle of the road.

The Minister of Finance must now act promptly on the proposal by the Standing Committee on Finance, for the benefit of Quebec, Ontario and the entire manufacturing industry in Canada.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have many questions and many of them pertain to manufacturing. The hon. member will know that I am from London—Fanshawe where we have experienced a manufacturing crisis of our own. Three hundred thousand jobs have been lost across Canada and a significant number of them have been in London--Fanshawe.

Just last month Siemens announced that it would be closing. We have lost Beta Brands and Ford Talbotville is now on one shift, which has significantly reduced the economic advantages that we in the London area once rejoiced in.

To add insult to injury, the federal government is currently negotiating a Korean free trade deal. The reality is that while we import $1.7 billion in the automotive sector from Korea, we are only allowed to export $11 million, which adds to the difficulties we are undergoing.

A couple of weeks ago in this House the Bloc put forward a motion that indicated very clearly that the government should do something tangible in support of manufacturing jobs and jobs in the natural resources sector. The Conservatives voted against it and the Liberals sat on their hands.

I wonder if the member could respond to that inaction and that lack of concern from two sides of the House.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

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

In last year's recommendations from the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology, there was also talk of using safeguards, for example, in order to avoid objectionable imports.

Her comments show just how wrong the Conservatives are to think there is no urgency. There is an emergency in the manufacturing sector. This is a very special situation. People have long thought that, since the unemployment rate was very low, the economy was doing well and things were going well everywhere. Things are going very well for the energy sector in the west, especially oil and gas, but things are not going well for the manufacturing sector.

We have the opportunity, all together, to do something to correct the situation, to adopt an aggressive policy for the manufacturing sector that will allow us to really help our businesses. Cutting the GST by one percentage point will indeed increase purchasing power, but this will not necessarily help our manufacturing industry. It could mean a rather direct transfer to Chinese industry, among others. I have nothing against the Chinese, but I would have preferred to see a manufacturing policy that created fiscal tools, in order to be able to produce goods at competitive prices so they can sell. Only then will we have protected our jobs here at home.

The Quebec chamber of commerce said that many jobs were created, but they were primarily jobs at $8, $9, $10 or $12 an hour, while the jobs that are being lost paid $15 or $20 an hour. This creates poverty, which then slows our economy. We therefore believe that it is important to move forward. I hope we will be able to reach unanimous consent, as did the Standing Committee on Finance, which is calling on the government and the Minister of Finance to come up with an action plan as soon as possible to help the manufacturing sector.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have suggested that they have solved the fiscal balance in their budget and that there is peace among all the provinces. Is that true?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I understood the question.

With respect to the fiscal imbalance, the $3 billion in the 2007 budget was money to which Quebec was entitled. We hoped to receive that money and that is why we supported the bill. However, the other side of the coin is that the fiscal imbalance has not been resolved once and for all. That would take an agreement that would actually transfer the money to Quebec.

We must stop tinkering with the Canadian federation, as was just done with the Nova Scotia agreement. That model is not of interest to us. To create a good equalization model, we must include all resources—they contribute to revenue—the revenues from natural resources. We have to come up with a formula that looks at the whole picture and, above all, that does not patch things together, piece by piece, for the purpose of electoral gains.

A much more dynamic approach is required. Specific objectives and criteria are needed. There must be the will to have good productivity and to provide support to those affected by this productivity. We are speaking of an integrated policy of assistance for the manufacturing sector, of incentives for the purchase of equipment and also of support for those who are the victims of globalization.

That is why the Bloc Québécois has taken this position and it is one of the reasons why, today, we will vote against the Conservatives' bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of sound and fury in the House this morning signifying not a whole lot. Why? Because ordinary Canadians cannot count on the official opposition, the grand Liberal Party of Canada, to actually do anything about the mini-budget. The Liberals will sit on their hands and not participate at all in the vote that will come after the debate.

The bill before us has 14 parts. None of the 14 parts really contributes much to ordinary Canadians and their communities. It continues the grand Liberal tradition of giving large corporate tax cuts to the most profitable organizations in Canada.

From 2001 to 2007 Canada has lost over $53 billion in revenue that we could have had. Imagine what that money could have done in terms of investing in communities. It does not surprise me that in the upcoming vote in the House, members of the official opposition will sit on their hands and not vote because the mini-budget before us continues the Liberal tradition.

Part 14 of the bill reduces the general corporate income tax rate much further, from the original 2001 tax rate of 28% to 21%. Now it will take it down to 15%, because 18% is not low enough. The government will forgo at least $14 billion per year because of corporate tax cuts.

What does that mean? When the bill passes, all the massive tax cuts in the mini-budget will mean close to $190 billion in lost revenue, a complete gutting. That is really unfortunate, because there will not be much money left to invest in ordinary Canadian communities.

Big urban centres and small communities across Canada are suffering a great deal. Every one of them is struggling to balance the budget, as they have to do. There are massive property tax increases all across Canada because the municipalities cannot handle the kind of debt load they have. They are looking to cut vital services in local communities.

In my area the library just up the street from where I live has always been open seven days a week. However, this coming month the library will not be open on Sundays. Why? Because it has no money to open on Sundays. The city of Toronto does not have the kind of funding to continue to keep that library open on Sundays. That is really unfortunate, because a lot of families and children count on the library to be open on a Sunday so they can do their homework, read, borrow books or videos. It is a place where a lot of the community gathers.

Speaking about gathering places, community centres are the lifeline in local areas, especially for the at risk youth. They have no other place to go other than the local community centre. However, the community centres are also facing trimming because there is just not enough funding.

Because of smog a lot of people suffer asthma attacks. We would think that the budget would have invested in public transit in a massive way. It does not. In municipalities all across Canada there is hardly any funding for public transit. We are seeing fare increases, service cuts or the inability to increase the service. People are standing out in the cold waiting for buses to come. The subways are jam-packed. More people want to leave their cars at home but unfortunately that is not possible because there is not enough investment in public transit across Canada.

We are looking also at a massive deficit in infrastructure funding. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has said that there is a $123 billion deficit in infrastructure. This budget has not increased funding in infrastructure for different cities. Whether it is highways, housing or potholes, none of that work is going to be done because there is no investment for it.

Because there is no investment in communities, cities and municipalities, many municipalities are having difficulty investing in their water treatment plants and sewage plants. In Toronto, for example, the water rate is going up because the capacity is just not there to retrofit the pipes, which needs to be done because the pipes are very old.

There is really nothing to support immigrant families in the mini-budget. We have recently found out that the user fees that are being charged by the immigration department in fact are going into the general revenue stream. The department actually makes $100 million per year from immigrants who apply to bring their families, fathers and mothers into the country. Refugees have to pay hefty fees to bring their families to Canada. None of that money, the $100 million in application fees, is invested in dealing with the backlog which is now at 800,000 people. If one is sponsoring a family, it might take three, five, eight years. In fact we have heard of cases where the parents of immigrants have died waiting to come to Canada to be reunited with their families.

There is no investment, whether it is the $100 million or new investment, in terms of settlement services. We recently heard that a lot of agencies are waiting for immigrant services funding from ISAP, the immigration settlement and adaptation program. They have not received their funding so they are beginning to give out notices to many of their agencies. That means many new immigrants will not get the services that they desperately need.

In Ontario the minister recently sent out a notice saying that Ontario is missing $100 million that was promised by the federal government to the province of Ontario for settlement services. That money has not arrived.

While there is a lot of funding for tax cuts from the surplus, there is nothing for cities, for communities and for ordinary Canadians.

We have noticed that as greenhouse gas emissions rise, the ecoEnergy program is renewed in the mini-budget but there is no expansion of the criteria. Affordable housing is not included. Seniors who barely can afford to pay rent now have to pay hefty hydro bills. Some of them I have heard are not turning up their heat this winter because they cannot afford to pay their hydro bills. We would think that the government would immediately invest in retrofitting affordable housing buildings so that the buildings would be the most efficient and state of the art so that the tenants would use less hydro and therefore pay less on their hydro bills.

Unfortunately, the ecoEnergy program that is mentioned in the bill does not include affordable housing. The $100 million program which the NDP pushed the former Liberal government into establishing is also gone.

On top of that, the ecoEnergy program does not include condominiums. In my riding, there are condominium owners who would love to retrofit their buildings. They would like to find some way to make the buildings green and energy efficient, but they cannot receive $1 from the ecoEnergy program.

This legislation is not fair for people who are earning very low income. Neither is it fair for people who are living in multi-residential buildings such as condominiums.

There is nothing in this bill for unemployed people who are seeking to get some money from employment insurance. A recent United Way report said very clearly that one of the reasons people remain poor is that they cannot access employment insurance. The national average in terms of the number of workers who can access their own employment insurance funding is only 40%. In big urban centres sometimes only 22% or 30% of workers who find themselves unemployed can access their own funding through the employment insurance program. No wonder they are stuck in a cycle of poverty.

A few days ago Campaign 2000 said that we must deal with the tragedy of child poverty. Eighteen years ago, on November 24, 1989 in this House, former NDP leader Ed Broadbent said that we have to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. Here it is 18 years later, in 2007, and there has been no improvement in the number of kids who lead a life of poverty.

There is really not a lot of funding in this legislation. There is no increase in the child tax benefit which means that there are children who go to school who cannot afford to pay $1 to buy a hot dog or a slice of pizza. They will be excluded. Because kids' feet grow fast, families do not have the money to buy their kids new running shoes and those kids will be excluded from gym classes. The cycle of poverty will continue. That is a national shame. There is funding for the biggest, most profitable oil companies and the biggest, most profitable banks, and yet there is no funding available to help kids in Canada.

Bill C-28 also breaks the Atlantic accord. It betrays the people who live in the Atlantic provinces. No doubt my colleague, the member of Parliament for Halifax, will address this in detail later on.

The bill in front of us does not do anything for aboriginal people. One-third of aboriginal communities do not have safe drinking water. For the second straight year the Conservatives have announced that they will ensure there is safe drinking water but there is no money included in this budget to accomplish this.

There is hardly any money in this legislation to support the arts. There is no new funding for the CBC, the Canada Council, or to promote our artists. This unfortunately is a missed opportunity.

There is no increased funding in Bill C-28 for foreign aid even though the House has continually said that we have to increase foreign aid to .7% of our GDP. The mini-budget actually decreased our foreign aid as a percentage of our GDP from .34% to .31%. It is hard for Canada to talk about our international relationships and our standing in the world when we do not contribute much to foreign aid.

December 1 is World AIDS Day, and we have seen a 30% cut in funding to community groups that assist groups that deal with the prevention of AIDS. In fact, organizations in my riding have come to me and have said that they are laying off staff. All the good work they do will stop because of cuts in their funding.

There is no funding for a national home care program. Many seniors desperately need a home care program so they can stay at home. It is more economic if there is affordable, high quality home care for our seniors, which allows them to live in dignity. There is nothing in the bill for pharmacare, home care or long term care, nothing new for our seniors.

Again, there is no new funding for housing. We have a national housing crisis. When the cold weather arrives, people will still be on the streets. There are no new co-ops being built. Housing does not seem to be a priority whatsoever.

The bill mentions nothing about student loans or student debt. We know the average price of tuition for Canadian undergraduate students has tripled since 1991. The minister's mini budget does not make post-secondary education any more affordable. The provinces are not accountable for the funds transferred to them. Therefore, we do not know how those transfers will be used.

Sadly, when we talk about seniors, not only do they not get the kind of home care or nursing care hey desperately need, they also do not get an increase in their guaranteed income supplement. This means many seniors will continue to live in poverty. We already know that 25% of seniors live in poverty. For women, that figure climbs to 36%. We know there is $14 billion for the most powerful companies, but nothing for seniors.

There is hardly any mention about the minimum wage. Nor is there any commitment by the government to increase the minimum wage to $10 an hour.

There is also hardly anything for the Status of Women. I know our critic and advocate for women has been saying that we need $100 million a year. The mini budget gives $10 million a year for two years. That is hardly enough funding for the women's organizations that are struggling.

Unfortunately, the budget does not invest in our communities. It does not make our country a better place to live. In fact, if we look at this, there is a photo accompanying the economic statement recently released by the government. In the photo we see a little child looking out into the world. If we look closely at the picture, the child is standing on high ground and it looks as though this child could fall off the cliff. We are doing nothing to invest in our children and our young people. This is truly a missed opportunity for Canada.

We should be following other countries such as Ireland. It has mapped out a plan to invest in children and to reduce child poverty. It is delivering on and meeting its targets. However, Canada does not have a commissioner for children. It has no plan for children and no targets have been set to reduce child poverty. Yet there is money for very big companies. This is a sad statement on how we deal with our communities.

Sadly, the Liberals, when we finish the debate, will abstain from the vote. They will not make a statement. They will do nothing to say no to this terrible plan, and that is a missed opportunity.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague from the NDP and her comments about Bill C-28.

It is difficult to understand how the hon. member can say that there is nothing in all of these tax measures. We have reduced personal income taxes. All the supportive measures, in what has been lauded by many Canadians as a very forward thinking and positive move, have been wrapped into one in the second implementation act of our budget.

The economic statement was filed by the finance minister in the House, but because of the NDP members, he was unable to speak to it. They refused to allow the finance minister to make a public statement in the House about the fall economic update. I am still amazed that they refused to allow him to speak in the House of Commons. He could have told Canadians that we were giving back some of their hard-earned tax money.

It is interesting that the hon. member suggests the Liberals may abstain. The NDP will vote against this. This morning the Bloc said that it would vote against it. I have more respect for the Liberals abstaining and not blocking this than I have for some other members of the House, who will deny benefits of $190 billion over 22 months. That is what we have provided in the economic statement, when it all comes together, in reduced taxes for Canadians. The NDP is going to vote against that.

I wish the hon. member luck when she goes back to her riding and says that she opposed $12 billion in cuts to GST. How will she face her constituents when she tells them that she does not think they are worthy of a cut in taxes?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the Liberals would not want to comment on this budget. The not so new government, the North Star government, is following the Liberal tradition of not investing in municipalities, cities, communities and ordinary Canadians.

A tax cut does not build affordable housing. A tax cut does not mean that buses come more frequently. A tax cut does nothing to ensure libraries open on Sunday. It does not build community centres or libraries. A tax cut does nothing to help farmers. A tax cut does nothing to help people who are desperately in need of affordable child care, whether it is in rural communities across Canada or in big cities.

In fact, an OECD report came out yesterday. It said that families could not afford child care and that there was not enough decent, high quality child care out there. Therefore, what do families do? They either have to stop working or they stop having babies. No wonder the birth rate in Canada is so low. Only in the province in Quebec has the birth rate stabilized, because it is investing $7 a day child care. Outside of Quebec ordinary families cannot afford to have babies. Why? Because they do not have affordable child care.

How does a tax cut deal with the problems families face? It does not. We have seen report after report which say that among OECD countries, Canada is dead last in its investment in affordable child care.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we all know the economic plans of NDP can be defined by high spending, high taxes, the hoary, woolly-headed socialist economic plans that were so destructive in northern Europe. We saw what happened there.

The problem with the plans of the NDP is it does not understand that we need to have a competitive private sector to provide the taxes, to support the social programs that we all want. If we are to help those who are the least privileged in our society, we cannot hammer the private sector. It is the one that pays the taxes as do all individual citizens. It is a matter of balance.

The problem is the NDP does not understand that word. Historically it has always stood for spending without any possible rational economic plan that would allow us to have a competitive economy.

Could my colleague from the other side tell us when, if ever, a federal New Democratic Party has ever put forward a rational, cogent economic plan that would produce a surplus or balanced budget?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member were to ask the Library of Parliament which party ran the most fiscally responsible budget in government, he would be surprised. It is in fact the NDP.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Sure wasn't Bob Rae.

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

Mr. Rae turns out to be a Liberal, so I am not surprised he had difficulty.

However, we have seen it over and over. Look at Manitoba and how many balanced budgets it has had. Look at the government of Tommy Douglas. Through the years there were balanced budgets.

In terms of the number of years, the member should look at the facts and the figures. He will find that when the NDP runs a government, by and large it has balanced budgets, unlike some other governments that have had huge debts. Look at the promises federal governments have made to children, that they would invest in them and make poverty history. We have had the Conservative government, the Liberal government and then a Conservative government again. After 18 years of promises, what has happened?

Another promise was made to lower greenhouse gas emissions 20% by 2000. I remember that red book promise. Guess what? It has gone up. Why? There was no investment in anything green, not in public transit, green technology or retrofit programs. How does that help the community?

For us to have a prosperous Canada with a high productivity rate, we have to invest in things like child care and post-secondary education. How did Ireland, for example, come from not doing very well to a place where it is now dealing with child poverty? What did it do? It invested in post-secondary education and in people. We do not do that. We give big corporate tax cuts, and guess what? No wonder we lag behind in our productivity. No wonder we have trouble with our place in the world.

I understand the Liberal Party likes to make big promises. I heard a recent promise on dealing with poverty, something about 30:50 or whatever. Yet where is the money to do all that? From 2001 to 2007, we saw $53 billion in corporate tax cuts. That money should have gone to deal with poverty and to investments in communities, cities, people and families. That is what we should have done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for York West.

In a time of surplus, any responsible government has a duty to strike a balance and to plan for a country not for the next five years but for the next 50 years. In a time of surplus, when it does not have to deal with the crushing burden of an economic catastrophe or with deficits because of economic circumstances within or outside its control, government has an opportunity to plan for our nation and our people over that time.

Doing so requires, in my view, a balance between debt reduction, enabling us to have a strong economy that is productive, nimble and competitive, and investing in those things that help the most underprivileged of our citizens.

In these areas, what could the government have done that it failed to do? We know that the government reduced taxes both in the corporate world and for private citizens and we are fully supportive of that. To be fair, the tax reduction, particularly the lowering of the lowest tax rate, came after the government actually increased the lowest tax rate, so really, it is neutral. The government had reversed a change that happened when the previous Liberal government reduced the lowest tax rate.

The GST cut, as we have heard before, is the stupidest tax cut one could possibly make, unlike the Minister of Finance's suggestion that this is sensible. It is not sensible, because primarily it affects those who spend a lot of money, i.e., those who are rich. If we want to help those who are least privileged, we should reduce personal income taxes, because that gives individuals in the low income and middle income brackets the chance to do what they want with the money, such as invest it or spend it on food, education and basic necessities. If the GST is reduced, they do not have that option.

The government in fact is directing what the option is because people receive this only when they spend money on high ticket items. Those who are poorest generally struggle to put food on the table or pay rent for a roof over their heads, and there is no GST on those things, so it does not apply to them.

What could the government have done on the issues of infrastructure and education?

Education is critically important. What the government should do is reduce the economic burden on students by lowering tuition fees. It could lower tuition fees or, for example, turn the millennium scholarship program, which is coming to its end, into a needs based program for students who are of modest means. That would enable students to have access to education, which is a critically important pillar for our economy.

I could not have gone to medical school if the tuition fees were what they are today, because to go to school I had to earn my own money through summer jobs. Today, tuition fees for medical school can be easily in excess of $18,000 a year, which would have been completely impossible for me. I, for one, like many others, would not have been able to go to medical school.

That is the situation today with qualified students who cannot access the facilities they want for the post-secondary education they need. They do not have the money. We should not have an education system that is based on the money in their pockets. It must be based on their ability to access it.

On the issue of infrastructure, we Liberals introduced a plan that would put real money in the hands of the municipalities. It is where the rubber hits the road for the infrastructure that Canadians need. What the government should do is double the gas tax that the municipalities are receiving and give them a three year stable funding base in order for them to plan for the programs they want in the future.

With the price of gas being what it is today compared to what it was when we introduced that program, it makes umpteen amounts of sense for the government to say that since it is getting a lot of money from gas taxes because of the price of gas, it should double the gas tax revenue, give it to the municipalities for infrastructure and do it so that there is a three year stable base funding so they can plan for the future.

On the issue of research and development, we Liberals made the largest increases in research and development for organizations such as the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Innovation Canada. Innovation is a cornerstone of a competitive economy. We need to continue to make increases in this area. It is smart for Canada and smart for Canadians.

On the issue of the environment, there are many intelligent solutions that we can apply today rather than having this continual quagmire of debate on Kyoto. I think it is important to have that, but the government should also make investments into things such as hydrogen fuel cells and operationalizing hydrogen fuel cells, electric cars, wind power and tidal power, the last which we can use because we have such a large coast. Let us get those projects on the ground and operationalized. We Liberals had a plan when we were in government in excess of $600 million for these kinds of projects. The government does not support this and it should.

For those who are least privileged in our society, I introduced a private member's bill called the Canadian low income supplement bill. That bill would put $2,000 into the hands of every Canadian who makes less than $20,000 a year. The supplement declines to zero at $40,000. It is real money, not $25 or $35 but $2,000 in the hands of the neediest Canadians. It is real money for those in real need. In effect, my Canadian low income supplement bill would obliterate any kind of federal or provincial tax on those who make less than $20,000 a year.

We also need to address the issue of housing. Housing is in crisis. In my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, it is a huge problem. Housing is unaffordable for most Canadians. How do we address that?

The federal government must stop its ideological approach and continually must say to the provinces that provinces will deal with something and it will deal with something else. There is no reason why the federal government cannot exercise leadership in these areas. Yes, they are a provincial responsibility, but the federal government can bring the provincial premiers and the other ministers together and say that this is for Canada, that we are all in the same boat and we all have the same problem, so let us share the practices that we need to implement to address these problems.

One such solution would be to have a tax rollover provision, which the Minister of Finance could introduce and which would enable individuals to sell assets and roll over those profits into purchasing and upgrading other real estate.

On the issue of seniors, many seniors live lives of quiet desperation. They cannot get access to housing. They cannot get access to health care. Again, the federal Minister of Health should work with his counterparts to address this.

I have some solutions. Right up front, there needs to be a strategic investment in assisted housing and extended care in Canada. We have an aging population. The numbers of people who are going to be over the age of 65 and who will be retired are going to increase geometrically over the next 20 years. We are ill able to deal with this. It is the largest unspoken, unheralded and unattended issue and the House is not dealing with it. We have to deal with it and we have to deal with it now while we have a surplus.

On the issue of health care, there is a simple winning solution. The government should work with its provincial counterparts and medical and nursing associations across Canada to have a national medical manpower strategy to know what kinds of doctors, nurses and technicians we need, how many we need, and where we need them.

I cannot emphasize enough how critically important this is. Regardless of how many MRIs, CT scans, hospitals or clinics we have, if we do not have the health care workers to provide care, if we do not have a competent health care person to do the history, the physical, the diagnostics and the treatment plan we require when we fall ill, we have a crisis.

As we get older, so too do our caregivers. This is a problem among nurses and physicians and it is a crisis among those who are specialists. We can go to a general practitioner and get competent diagnostics done in a number of areas, but there is only one type of person who can actually fix a knee, repair a broken leg, operate on a brain or manage a patient's dialysis. Those are specialists' responsibilities. The specialist cadre in Canada is shrinking dramatically. This is a greatly limiting step that cannot be addressed overnight and must be addressed with urgency today.

In closing, on the issue of child care, which has been mentioned, the government promised child care spaces. They are not there. This is a huge issue for Canadians. We say to the government that it does not need to reinvent the wheel. It just needs to adopt what the Liberal Party introduced by negotiating with the provinces for a national child care strategy. It works for the public. It works for the children. It works for families. It reduces crime. It saves the taxpayer money. It is healthy for our lovely country.

Those are some solutions the government can introduce. We implore the government to do so and to do it now in the interests of our country.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say in listening to the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca that one has the sense he and his party are still fighting the last election instead of addressing this issue, the current bill that is before us, Bill C-28, which effectively combines the budget in the spring with the mini budget that was brought in this fall. I am not sure how that serves Canadians.

I listened very carefully when he conducted what was a fairly vicious attack, actually, on my colleague, the member for Trinity—Spadina, around the issue of balance. His criticism of her speech on the budget before us, and also on the NDP's decision to oppose this budget, was that budgets need to be about balance.

Speaking of balance, I am sure the member is well aware that the government's corporate tax cuts alone will cost $50.5 billion, phased in over six years, and will keep costing the treasury $14.8 billion every year. If this member has done his homework, and he usually does, then he will also know that this budget actually will benefit the average hard-working Canadian by about $1.50 a day.

I want to ask the member whether this is his idea of balance. If it is not, why is it that not only this member but his entire caucus have decided that instead of taking a stand against the lack of balance contained in this budget, they are actually going to sit in their seats, as they have already done, and are not prepared to commit themselves or vote one way or the other?

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

Mr. Speaker, we actually do support the tax cuts that are in this bill. We support the personal income tax cuts because that puts money into the pockets of Canadians. We think a cut to the GST is not wise. We do support the corporate tax cuts. The member from the NDP does not support that.

We believe that in order for us to be responsible to Canadians, Canadians need to have jobs and the Canadian private sector must be competitive. Also, a competitive private sector enables us to generate the tax base upon which to pay for the very programs that the hon. member and all of us support: things such as child care, health care and education, the myriad social programs that Canadians need and want and that in fact enable us to help the underprivileged.

In my speech, I have offered, as have my colleagues, constructive solutions that the government could adopt to have more balance in its budget and to address problems it is neglecting, such as, and the hon. member is quite correct, day care, early learning programs, tax reductions for the poor, more money in the hands of the poor, the disabled and seniors, and health care.

There is a lot more. I could go on. I would be happy to answer another question if she would like to respond.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

By way of a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca just made my point. He knows perfectly well that the very things which not just he alone but every one of his members is standing up and calling for the government to support, the very things that he is criticizing the government for not having done with this budget, cost money.

If we give away over $50 billion in tax cuts to the corporations--and let us be clear, the single biggest beneficiaries of these tax cuts are the banks that are gouging people with service fees and the oil companies that are gouging people at the pumps--then there will be no money to support the projects that he is talking about and that his members are criticizing the government for not funding.

Where is the sense in that? Is this just an act of hypocrisy? Or is this the case of an entire Liberal caucus that has not done the math and has not done its homework in analyzing the negative impact of this budget that is taking us in the wrong direction?

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

Mr. Speaker, we, obviously, have a different view of the economy.

I would draw the member's attention to the socialist economic interventions that took place in northern Europe in the eighties where taxes were raised quite high. The private sector was constricted which meant people lost their jobs. The loss of jobs meant people were more dependent on social programs. There was less money for those social programs because, in the contraction of the private sector that occurs, when we raise taxes and make our country's economy non-competitive, ironically, we actually damage the people we want to help. We damage the ability of the tax base to fund research and development, health care, education, social programs and all the things Canadians need. It is a matter of balance.

We have some criticisms of some of the tax cuts, specifically the GST. The government should lower the tax burden on the poor and middle class, which it has not done, in a way that is broad based. Our colleagues have put forth solutions to enable the government to do that.

We will be hearing from the member for York West, who will be giving an absolute barnburner of a speech.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when talking about budget bills, a ways and means motion is something I think all of us have a real interest in. When we have an opportunity, whether it is a last minute opportunity or not, to stand and speak in the House on things that matter to us, I am glad to have that opportunity.

Bill C-28, which we are talking about today, is not something with which we are 100% happy but, at the same time, do Canadians want an election? No. We have had plenty of them. The next election will be my fifth in eight years and I am not anxious to go on the hustings again. In fact, the $500 million that an election costs, which is the last number that I heard, I would much rather see it being invested in our children, our seniors or helping to lower the tax rates, a variety of things.

A far better idea for us is to keep the government going and move it forward for all of us.

As my colleague said, we are supportive of a variety of things in the bill but there are other issues that we are not. The economic policies of the current Conservative government are different in some ways from the policies of the Liberals. They are much more designed to be focused on the next election, which the Conservatives have been most anxious to have. I am not sure they are as anxious today to have it as they were previously, but they were quite anxious to have one. Our party and our leader were quite clear in not taking the bait and falling into that trap of going back into an election that, at this particular time, is unwarranted and could quite possibly bring us back into the same situation, except we could be on the other side of the House rather than on the opposition side.

However, I for one am not interested in going down that road at this particularly moment. I want to go down that road when we have clear, decisive issues on which the public can make a decision.

Even though we support some of the measures in Bill C-28, the idea of reinstating our Liberal personal income tax cuts was quite interesting. We had reduced it to 15% but in the Conservatives' very first budget, which, to me, indicates who they really care about, they increased the very lowest rate up to 15.5%. That rate is not one that the corporations or the rich worry about but it is certainly one that affects thousands of low income Canadians.

Again, that, as with many other issues, has indicated to me where the Conservatives' priorities lie and they do not lie with many people in Canada who need that helping hand up, which many of us support.

We also oppose the Conservatives' economic vision. I do not think they have one. I think they have a vision strictly on the next election and on how to get there and how to get a majority government, which is not why Canadians sent us here. They sent us here to effect a positive Parliament and to work on behalf of all Canadians, not to have an eye on how soon we can have an election campaign so we can get a majority. Our job is to come here every day and to work in the best interest of Canadians, period, for those who are rich and well off and for those who are not as wealthy as they might like to be.

The GST cut is ridiculous. I know it was a political move by the government but I look at all of the things in which we could be investing that $5 billion GST cut, whether we are talking about investing it in our seniors, in child care or in learning opportunities. We could be doing so much with that $5 billion.

I am sure the Canadian public could think of what we should do with the $5 billion rather than cutting the GST. We only need to look at our cities and the campaign in Toronto, which is the city I represent, for the 1¢ now out of the GST. We could take that $5 billion and reinvest it in our communities or even target it to our major cities.

This week, campaign 2000 released a huge report about how much poverty there is in Canada. A lot of people like to think that the poverty level is quite low. It has been a very difficult issue to deal with and as much as we try to move forward and reduce it, we are reducing it very slowly.

Far more investment needs to be made in education so we can ensure people get an education because, as far as I am concerned, education is the key to ending poverty. A good education reduces poverty because education opens the door to many opportunities. However, education for some people is way beyond their means. Refocusing some of the $5 billion on those opportunities would have been a good thing to do.

Early learning and child care would probably have been this century's newest and best social program. It would have provided help for a lot of struggling single parents. One area in my riding is quite affluent but I also have areas that are very high need areas. Many women in my riding who are single moms went back to school to get a job but now they cannot afford to put their children into child care where it is safe for their children or the waiting list for subsidies is huge.

As much as we say that we want to get people into a healthy economic stream, if we do not provide learning opportunities for them and safe environments for their children, then we are wasting our time. We can spin our wheels as much as we want talking about how we will end poverty, but if we are not providing the opportunities for those people who are at the minimal level, then we will never succeed.

The Liberal Party made a commitment to early learning and child care, although it did take us a while to get it because when we came into government in 1993 we had a $43 billion deficit. Canada was almost at the point of bankruptcy. It took six or seven years for us to deal with that issue and to get the country's finances in order. From that point, we were able to start reinvesting and working on achieving the goals that we all wanted to see go forward.

Unfortunately, that did not happen. We did not end up with the support of the NDP and the government was defeated. I expect that it will be a very long time before there will be a desire to have that new social program here in Canada again.

It took a long time to get the provinces on board and to do all of the work that is required for these kinds of agreements. They do not happen overnight. A lot of great work was done by my colleague and it is unfortunate that we were not able to see that program come to fruition. It was just one more casualty, but I do not think the people who voted thought that would happen.

Politics being what it is, governments come and governments go, as the Conservative government will. We will continue to ensure we move rapidly forward so that when an election does come, we will have plenty of opportunity to lay out our platform showing where we will go to ensure we have a richer, fairer, greener Canada.

If we want to have enough money to invest in our children, in low income seniors and so on and so forth, we need to ensure we also have a strong economy. Our manufacturing sector and our auto industry are suffering tremendously as a result of the rising loonie and we need to deal with that issue. We need to find a way to protect jobs.

When we talk about jobs we are not talking about $7 an hour jobs. For people to feed their family and pay the mortgage, they need to earn more than $7 an hour. The comment about how the number of jobs has increased is not a valid comment. As a result of various issues, we are losing the good quality jobs that Canadians had but we do not hear the Conservative government telling us how it will offset this problem.

An important issue for all of us is to ensure that Canadians are employed. We do not want our country to go into a recession. Many of us remember how difficult that was for many people. We want to have a strong Canada and we need to ensure we are moving forward in a positive way.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I know the Liberal member who has just spoken is not from Atlantic Canada, but hopefully we are all here in this place continuing ongoing nation-building.

The member will be very aware of the fact that what was originally labelled the Atlantic accord has become a major source of Atlantic discord. I am sure that the member will be aware that her members, together with all other opposition members, were represented in a briefing that finally came about. It was like a Keystone Cops routine, three times scheduled, three times cancelled.

It finally took place and what became most clear of all is that there is enormous discord between the federal government's interpretation of what the new provisions contained in the bill that is before us mean and what the Nova Scotia government interprets it to mean, and in fact was set out in a householder that went out to every single Nova Scotian.

I wonder if the member could comment on whether she thinks it is not really a cop-out for the Liberal opposition members to sit in their seats rather than take a stand against the budget for a number of reasons. Among them, there is the fact that the Atlantic accord, in its original form, a signed, sealed, legal document, no longer exists, and actually it exists in a form that is so wide open to interpretation that it actually is the same thing as shredding the Atlantic accord.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the hon. member is from Nova Scotia but I would like to remind her, in case she forgot, that I was born in the Maritimes, in Moncton, New Brunswick. There is a piece of one's heart, I believe, that is always where one is born, so the issues in and around the Maritimes are always things I am pretty sensitive to and am always concerned about, as I am for all of Canada, but I think all of us carry that little special part in our hearts about where we were born.

I would like to remind the hon. member, referring to Tom Flanagan's book on our current Prime Minister, that on page 230 there is a quote in regard to our last election. It says, “No matter how well-designed our campaign had been, it would have been hard for us to win if the NDP had not held up its end.”

Therefore regrettably, when the accord was dismantled and put together again in what the Conservatives think is an acceptable way, which clearly is unacceptable to me or to the member, we would not be dealing with this issue had the NDP not supported the bringing down of the government.

However, in addition to dealing with the accord, there is the issue of $39 million being cut from the regional economic development agencies. That is just one of the many cuts that the Conservatives made in the last budget.

I am sure that $39 million would have been very helpful in the Maritimes in dealing with many of those challenges. They have to make sure that jobs are created, that money is reinvested in manufacturing and all of the other issues and the pressure areas that they deal with in the Maritimes, as they deal with other issues in the west and in central Canada.

There was an $18 million cut from the literacy skills program. Again, there are areas of our country that use these programs intensely and welcome them. That was cut again. We have also called for that to be reinstated. Those continue to be just a variety of some of the many cuts that have been the Conservatives' priorities, rather than reinvesting in Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the budget implementation bill that is currently before us.

The Bloc Québécois will not support this bill to implement, among other things, the economic statement and the Atlantic equalization accord. The major sticking point is the fall economic statement that we opposed both because of what it contained and because of what it did not.

Throughout Canada, in Quebec and in our communities, people are experiencing a range of serious socio-economic problems. Even though the government has recorded significant surpluses despite tax cuts and all kinds of breaks for oil companies, it has refused to act. For a government that prides itself on taking action and keeping its promises, the mini-budget, the economic statement, was pretty pathetic.

I want to start by talking about the crisis in the manufacturing and forestry sectors. We keep hearing about more and more forestry and manufacturing businesses closing their doors and going through tough times. These are not just numbers we are talking about; these are lives and this is reality. These workers, their families and everyone around them are going through very difficult times. This kind of economic upheaval affects communities in cities where factories can improve quality of life, boost prosperity and keep them from becoming ghost towns.

The Bloc Québécois proposed a number of solutions to help the manufacturing industry, but the government has refused to take action and always hands us the same line. The optimist party of Canada's Minister of Finance says that everything is just fine. The optimist party of Canada says that employment has never been as low as it is now, that the growth rate is good, that profits in Canada are high and that companies are making lots of money. But the optimist party of Canada's minister is out of touch with reality. In both Quebec and Ontario, where manufacturing and forestry industries are major parts of the economy, things are not looking so good.

The figures from the optimist party of Canada do not take into account that reality is being obscured by the oil boom in Alberta. Here is a simple example. If you go to a bar in a small town where people have just lost their jobs, and twenty or so unemployed people are there when Bill Gates, the president of Microsoft, walks in, statistically everyone in the bar is a millionaire. Obviously, it is just statistics. Once Bill Gates leaves, everyone is still unemployed and facing the same problems.

The same thing is happening in Canada. While statistically there is an economic boom in Alberta, the situations are extremely difficult in Quebec and Ontario and economists are predicting a downturn because of the high dollar. Such is the economic reality and the effects and after-effects will not be felt until one, two, even three years down the road. If we do nothing about it right now, we will end up with even bigger problems in a few years. We need to take action right now.

Everyone who has come to see us in the Standing Committee on Finance lately, from employers, to unions, to representatives from society in general, has told us it is imperative to take immediate action in light of the high Canadian dollar and other problems the manufacturing and forestry sectors are experiencing.

In this context, it is rather sad to see that the government has preferred to push ahead with measures that have so little, if any, value added in terms of economic development. One need only think, for example, of the reduction of the GST. We will agree that it is certainly a popular measure. Of course, everyone is happy to pay less tax. In reality, however, all the economists who have spoken on this issue have said that reducing the GST will produce very little in economic terms.

The same goes for lowering corporate taxes for the big oil companies. They are already making exorbitant profits. The fact that they will now make even bigger profits will not help the manufacturing and forest industries because those companies are in trouble and are not making any profits. If they do not make a profit; they do not pay taxes. A drop in the tax rate is no help and does not improve their position.

However, they are starting to talk about it. The Bloc Québécois has been talking about this for a long time. Recently, we heard the minister say he recognizes that the manufacturing industry is having difficulties and that, perhaps, it may be necessary to act. Let us hope this change of heart will continue. The Bloc Québécois will continue to apply pressure.

That gets me thinking about the fiscal imbalance. At first, the Bloc Québécois was the only party talking about it. The other parties said there was no fiscal imbalance, it did not exist and we were inventing it. Finally, we succeeded in obtaining a significant amount in the 2007 budget for the fiscal imbalance, although the situation is not completely sorted out yet. There has been a transfer of money but still no transfers of tax fields. Yet, this was a situation that people thought was a fabrication by the Bloc Québécois. Now, we are getting some solid results.

We are in the process of doing the same work on behalf of the manufacturing industry. Only a few months ago, in fact, only a few weeks ago, the government was still saying here in this House that everything was fine, that there was no problem and the economy was doing very well. Now, we see that they are starting to change their position a little. We will continue to apply pressure to obtain measures for the manufacturing industry as quickly as possible.

One important measure that could have positive results, despite its rather technical nature, is refundable tax credits to companies for research and development. To offset the strength of our dollar, which makes our companies less competitive in the United States and elsewhere in the world, we need to encourage companies to invest in research and development, as well as new equipment to increase productivity.

Traditionally, in most advanced countries with strong economies, companies receive tax credits to encourage this. This is currently the case in Canada, except that these tax credits are non-refundable. So, companies that do not turn a profit cannot claim them. They bank them and when they do turn a profit, they can claim the tax credits. For the government, that is a future tax expense. In a few years, when a company turns a profit, it can claim those tax credits.

The Bloc Québécois wants these tax credits to be immediately refundable for a company that does not turn a profit, but that decides to invest in order to increase productivity, become economically viable and then make a profit. In fact, when a company is not turning a profit and is experiencing difficulties is when it needs that money, that cash, to compete and to invest in equipment and research and development. Later, when it turns a profit, it will pay the taxes.

The government argued that this measure would be too costly. Obviously, if tomorrow morning companies started claiming all these tax credits, even if they are not generating a profit, there would be an increase in claims. They say it would cost billions of dollars. However, the government's calculations are incorrect, because they were done on an annual basis. But if they are managing a country and claim to be running it, they need a more long-term vision.

If we look over time, what is going to happen? In terms of the tax credits and refunds that the companies are calling for now, even if they are incurring losses, they would claimed those tax credits in the future. So it is a measure that has virtually no effect. I will come back to this. There are costs, certainly. However, we have to take into account costs that will have to be covered in any event, in terms of tax revenue and tax spending in future.

Perhaps the example that is best known among the public and even members here is RRSPs. RRSPs are not income tax exemptions. They are deferred taxes. The money is deducted from the tax payable during our working years. When we reach retirement and withdraw the money from our RRSP, then we pay taxes.

That means the tax is simply moved to a later time. It is the same thing for converting these research and development tax credits into a refundable tax credit. You are doing the same thing, but you could really say it is the opposite. The principle is the same, however: giving an immediate tax refund that might have to be paid back later.

If we take a model over 10 years, or over a longer period of time, and exclude cases where companies go bankrupt, and compare the two systems, non-refundable tax credits versus refundable tax credits, the cost should be zero, because over time, for the taxes we are refunding now, they would have to be paid back later in any event. Obviously, the cost is not zero, because inflation is going to eat up some of the difference. That is because a 2007 dollar is worth a little more in 2008, a little more in 2009, and a little more in 2010. But it is a cost that is ultimately marginal, in terms of the measure as a whole.

The second case where there would be a cost is obviously if a company that did not make a profit went bankrupt. In the existing system, a company that does not make a profit accumulates non-refundable tax credits, never claims them, builds them up, but when it goes bankrupt, it loses that bank of tax credits, and that represents a tax savings for the government.

If we had a system of refundable tax credits, as the Bloc Québécois is proposing, obviously, the government would have to pay back the refundable portion to the companies, as they incurred research and development expenses, and that would mean that this system would cost slightly more.

We are not saying there is no cost involved in this measure. Obviously there is a cost, but it has to be assessed in comparison with the benefits to society. When the manufacturing industry representatives and research and development people appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance, I was struck by the testimony of one person in particular.

We were told that manufacturing industries can be divided into three broad categories based on their position in this crisis. The first involves companies that are doing well, that are strong and that will get through the crisis no matter what, regardless of whether we help them or not. At the other extreme, obviously, there are companies that are in serious difficulty, that have major structural problems. Whether we help them or not, those companies are not going to get through the crisis. In the middle, obviously, is a category of companies that are promising, that are having problems at this point in time, and that could get through the crisis if the government took the trouble to give them the hand they need.

Let us take a closer look at the effects of the measure proposed by the Bloc Québécois, namely, to make the research and development tax credit a refundable credit for these three categories of businesses.

As for the companies that are doing well, that are making huge profits and getting through the crisis, our measure would have absolutely no effect, no impact, and would change nothing. It would be business as usual. In other words, they are already making a profit and claiming their tax credits. Whether they are refundable or not, this would not change anything; they would get them immediately.

This is an interesting point. Indeed, a general tax cut, like the one brought in by the Conservatives, helps businesses that are making a lot of money, but does not help those that are not turning a profit. Our measure does the opposite: it does not help those that have lots of money—it is status quo for them—but it helps those that need a hand to make it through this crisis.

Consider the second category of businesses, those that are having difficulty, but can make it through the crisis. It is precisely this kind of measure that can give them the boost they need to get through this crisis, because, among other things, this would give them cash assets by making the tax credits refundable. This would then give them the money they need to get through the crisis, while, under the current system, they will not get the money they need until later, although they need it now. How ridiculous.

In this case, as I mentioned earlier, this would not cost the government very much. It would basically mean the cost of inflation, since the tax credit would be postponed. If we take into account the fact that the boost will allow businesses to remain open, to pay taxes, to pay their employees who will also pay taxes, one can see how this measure would be beneficial for the entire Canadian tax system.

Take finally the last category of businesses, those that will probably not survive the crisis. If these tax credits are immediately refunded to them and they end up going bankrupt, the costs will be greater than what we have under the current system. If a company goes bankrupt now, these accumulated unused tax credits are just lost, which means more income for the Canadian tax system.

We certainly hope that this category of businesses that do not make it through the crisis in manufacturing will be as small as possible. In the view of the Minister of Finance from the optimist party of Canada, which has a very positive view of our economy, not many businesses are likely to fall into this category. As a matter of fact, the more we help them, the fewer there actually will be.

All this is to say that the proposed measure to make research and development tax credits refundable is much less costly than the government claims. It would simply move up in time tax credits that in most cases would otherwise constitute an expense for the tax system if the companies earned a profit.

I have not mentioned accelerated depreciation yet for structuring investments, such as investments in machinery and equipment. The principle is the same. When accelerated depreciation is allowed at some point in time, there is a tax saving. However, as soon as the company has finished amortizing the equipment, it starts paying taxes. Once again, therefore, tax that is payable now is simply postponed until later. There is a cost to the government because inflation has to be taken into account, but the cost does not match the actual expense. The expense has to be spread out over a number of years and its total impact calculated.

As I said, we are opposed to this mini-budget because there is not much in it for our manufacturing industries. Other things are missing as well, but I did not have time to talk about them. I wanted instead to go into detail to explain our proposal on the refunding of research and development credits. There was no money to make the guaranteed income supplement fully retroactive, a promise that the Conservatives broke. There was no money for a program to help older workers. The government promised this in its first Speech from the Throne, but we have not seen the money yet. I also could have told the House about equalization, which is turning to Quebec’s disadvantage. I will certainly have other opportunities, though, to talk about these things.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the member that the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology submitted recommendations that received unanimous approval. Clearly, the government has failed to incorporate those recommendations. Now that the Minister of Finance is supporting just one of the recommendations that were adopted, we are having a hard time seeing how all 22 can be implemented.

Would the member elaborate on these issues, specifically as they relate to the manufacturing sector crisis in his province, Quebec, and in Ontario? Would he also discuss the impact of energy costs, the value of the Canadian dollar, and emerging problems in the service sector that we have to take into account?

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

Mr. Speaker, over a year ago, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology unanimously adopted a report in which all parties, including the Conservatives, made 22 recommendations. In the last economic statement, just one of those recommendations was implemented, and only halfway at that.

Yesterday, the Standing Committee on Finance passed a motion asking the Minister of Finance to implement those of the industry committee's 22 recommendations that relate to fiscal measures. Once again, I do not know whether this is unanimous or not because the Conservatives did not vote. It is strange that the Conservatives are hesitating to implement recommendations that were unanimous.

The crisis is a major concern in Quebec and Ontario. The finance committee was impressed to see such rare unanimity among unions, management, industry and cities. Everyone is saying that something must be done right now.

This is especially important because we heard repeatedly about the problem of the time lag between the rise in the Canadian dollar and energy costs and the economic consequences in terms of plant closures and job losses. People said that one, two or even three years can go by between the two. For example, the plant closures that are happening at present are due to the strength of the dollar perhaps a year ago, when it was worth $.80 American. In one, two or three years, when we see the impacts on our economy because the dollar is at $1, $1.01, $1.02, $1.03, $1.04, $1.05 and so on compared to the U.S. dollar, it will be too late. The situation will already have deteriorated.

It was unanimous. Everyone said that action was urgently needed. No allies of the Conservative government came to tell the Standing Committee on Finance that the situation was not that pressing, that manufacturers could wait until the next budget and that the minister had been right not to include any measures in his economic statement. Everyone said that the government needed to take action right away. That is why we could not support this economic statement. These measures absolutely must be included in the next budget. They should even be implemented as soon as possible.

I can guarantee the Minister of Finance that if he wants to put forward measures to help the manufacturing and forest industries in Quebec earlier than planned and he needs our cooperation in this House, we will give it to him so that we can take care of this quickly, if that is what he wants, of course.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when talking about the budget and the economic statement, the important thing to do is to start with context and how we came to be where we are today.

I can recall the year 1993. It is a good place to start. I had just graduated high school at the beginning of that year. I had the idea that I would get involved in my first federal election. I decided I would get very involved. I recall the state of the economy at that point in time. I recall the then prime minister was Brian Mulroney. I think he is currently being spoken of in another room at this particular moment. One of the things I remember is what a bad place Canada was in.

At that point in time we were going into debt some $40 billion a year. That was our annual deficit. Our inflation rate was 14%. The unemployment rate was 12%. In fact, our situation was so dire that the Wall Street Journal at that time said Canada was an honorary member of the third world. Our position within the G-7 was hardly strong. In fact, it could be argued by many that we were losing any sort of relevance within the G-7. We were losing our way as an economic middle power.

In that environment, everyone can imagine, for those who were like me, who were getting ready to enter university or college, to begin a trade or to start off their careers, they were bleak times. They were times without a lot of hope or opportunity for the future of the nation.

We move forward to 2006. What a different story it was at that time. Canada had gone from having the worst debt to GDP ratio in the G-7 to having the best, from having the worst record on job creation in the G-7 to having the best, and from having record inflation that was crippling the economy to having record lows in both inflation and interest rates, allowing Canadians to buy their homes more cheaply and be able to afford their lives more easily.

We know that the economy was on fire. Instead of running huge deficits, we were running surpluses. Instead of running up more debt, we were paying our debt down. It was through sound economic policies and decisions between the period of 1993 to 2006 that were employed by the Liberal government which allowed our economy to get on its feet, to move from the bottom of the pack of the G-7 on almost every single economic indicator to the top of the pack.

With all of that prosperity, the decision is how to continue it. How do we make sure that we continue with the advances that we have made? Now that we were at the head of the G-7 how would we continue that position? We could continue the prosperity. We could ensure that Canadians continued to see an augmentation in their quality of life and we could address many of the issues that we could not address when we did not have the financial resources to do so.

Naturally, one would assume when we are in a position of such strength, when we are able to turn in the kind of revenues that we are turning in, when our economy continues to move forward in the way it does, that it is time to take action on things like poverty, on access to post-secondary education, on the climate change crisis that grips most of our attention, and on things like infrastructure. Instead what we have gotten through two consecutive budgets, mini-budgets and economic statements is gimmicks. Probably the best example of this is the cut to the GST.

Probably the best way to assess the impact of the cut to the GST is to look at a single mother struggling to get by, struggling to pay her rent and struggling to afford groceries. Conversely, we can look at a Canadian who has been blessed with a lot of wealth, somebody who is maybe fortunate enough to buy a luxury car, a luxury yacht and take luxury vacations in luxury hotels. How are those two individuals impacted by the GST cut?

The first 1% cut cost us over $5 billion and now there is another 1% cut that will cost us over another $5 billion. The single mother who is buying her groceries will not see any benefit. For the rent that she pays, there is nothing. In point of fact, the GST cut did nearly nothing to improve her lot or give her the opportunity to make a difference for her children. Conversely, the individual who is fortunate enough to afford items of luxury is enjoying a massive windfall, incredible amounts of money coming back from luxury items that he or she would have purchased with that reduction now in the GST.

Instead of getting Canadians targeted relief to those who need it the most, making a difference for people who are struggling to get by and working so hard, there is a disproportionate tax cut that most advantages those who need it the least.

I will read two quotes on this decision. One was made by Marc Lee, senior economist for the Canadian Centre of Policy Alternatives, who said, “I think”--this tax cut--“also shows they're really out of touch with the reality that most Canadians are facing”. I could not agree more. Don Drummond, chief economist at TD Bank, said, “The federal surpluses have offered a golden opportunity to move forward in a very decisive manner. The GST cuts don't move that agenda forward at all”.

Let us delve deeper into the government's approach to tax cuts. Virtually all economists, perhaps with the exception of those who are under the employ of the Prime Minister or the Conservative Party, are united against the GST cut. Even a report by the Department of Finance agreed that cutting the GST was the worst strategy for Canada in reducing income taxes or reducing taxes generally. It does nothing to improve the fairness of our tax system and the money that goes back into the pockets of Canadians is for the most part marginal, unless they are earning very large sums of money.

In point of fact, the finance minister once called cutting the GST a “relatively useless measure”, because it only advances spending “that would happen in any event”. The finance minister said he preferred cutting personal income taxes because it provides a “direct stimulus”. It seems that the finance minister once had the wisdom of trying to apply the Liberal vision of how tax cuts should be implemented. When he was the finance minister of Ontario, in fact, he was quoted as saying that he agrees with the member for LaSalle—Émard. He went on to say, “With respect to reducing the GST federally and the RST provincially, I also agree with the federal minister, and we've talked about this. All you get is a short-term hit, quite frankly”. And this is my favourite part, “It has no long-term gain for the economy”. That is from the Ontario legislature Hansard of November 5, 2001.

The finance minister himself felt that a cut to the GST had no long term gain for the Canadian economy, but he chose to cut this tax, which has cost the government billions and yet gives Canadians nothing.

It would seem to me that this money should have, logically, gone to a couple of different areas. To continue on tax cuts, it should have gone where it would have made a real difference, such as helping Canadians who are struggling to get by and those who are in the middle class to reduce their burden, but instead of reducing income taxes in the last budget, the government increased them from 15% to 15.5%. To go back to the example of a single mother or someone earning a marginal income, that individual actually saw, on a net basis, his or her income tax burden rise. It is an utterly shameful thing, but it is the truth.

Now the government has said that it has reduced income taxes. The reality is it has simply brought them back to where they were in the beginning. We have seen the government raise the income tax rate from 15% to 15.5% and now, in a much heralded fashion, the government has reduced it back to 15% again. The bottom line is the government has not done anything in that area that would make the biggest difference to Canadians, the biggest difference on a real basis of allowing people to have more money in their pockets to improve their quality of life.

We in the Liberal Party believe that income tax cuts need to be targeted, that they need to focus first on those who need the help the most. We also believe firmly that a plan to reduce income taxes must include a reduction in the corporate income tax rate. When the Liberal government came to power, corporate income taxes were at 28%. There was legislation passed that took that down to 19% and would be implemented for the year 2010. The Conservatives, again in a much heralded way and with a lot of spin, announced that they were taking it down to 18.5% for the year 2011, a difference of .5%. That is it.

I know some in the NDP caucus would fight and rail against a reduction in income taxes saying that it is part of a right-wing agenda. The reality is it is part of an intelligent, middle of the road approach that has worked very successfully for other nations.

We can take a look, for example, at Ireland or Sweden which have made large reductions in their corporate income tax rates and at the same time have seen much progress on social issues and on social programs. They recognized that as smaller nations they could have lower corporate tax rates, attract businesses to their jurisdictions, create more economic activity and that larger jurisdictions like the United States or other large European countries could not match those reductions simply because their scale was so much larger. The net result of it was more money and more resources to be able to move forward on progressive programs on social issues. Clearly, our position is that the .5% reduction, which is hardly a very visionary or meaningful reduction, is something that needs to be looked at further, and that further cuts are still desired.

When we take a look at some of the gimmicks that have been put in place and the rather backward strategy that is nearly impossible to find any economist to agree with, it will not be very hard to understand why or where this came from. I also happened to be a municipal councillor during the period of time that Ontario had a Conservative government provincially and the provincial finance minister then is the federal finance minister today.

What we do know is that Ontario was left with a deficit of $5 billion. There were decisions like the selling off of highway 407, an impact that has had major ramifications in my own riding where the 407 ends at Brock Road. We look at that decision which in the very short term may have rounded the figures and made it look as though the deficit was not as bad as it was. What it has done in the long term is given a foreign company a massive amount of annual revenue and left taxpayers with an extremely expensive route when almost no options are available to get in and out of the city. People are forced to pay extremely high prices, the profit of which is not going back to improving infrastructure or making lives better or more accessible, but instead it is leaving Canada in profits to a foreign company.

Then too we saw tax cuts that most benefited those who needed it the least. When we talk to the average Ontarian about the difference those tax cuts made, it was marginal at best. At the same time, if we ask them how they noticed reductions in service levels, how they noticed the difference when they walked into a hospital or when their son or daughter went to school, those differences were big. They saw massive reductions in services. They saw big increases in property taxes because there was a downloading from the province onto the municipalities, but in terms of money in their pockets and increased quality of life, at the end of the day it simply was not there.

I am going to continue on the theme of municipalities. As I mentioned, I was fortunate enough to serve for nearly seven years as a councillor for the city of Pickering in the region of Durham before I came to this place. I witnessed how some of these strategies that are employed by the now finance minister impacted our municipality at that point in time.

I can recall vividly things like housing stock, where we were downloaded all kinds of housing responsibilities from the province. We were told that we had to bring those up to code, that we had to do all kinds of work to make sure that the housing stock was up to speed and yet we were given no resources to do it. We were left with no recourse but to either increase taxes or cut services to handle the downloading that had been given to us.

Ambulance services were handed down to us and again we were given no resources, no money. Yet we were told that we had to increase service, that we had to decrease response time. Again we were left with no choice but to either pass tax increases or to cut services. This is part of the shell game that is played. Announcements are made, proclamations, big cheques, a lot of spin but underneath it all, it is just things being moved around, no substance, just gimmicks.

What we are left with in the municipalities is a government that is showing nothing but contempt. Municipalities and mayors are saying that they need money to fight critical issues like infrastructure, to deal with things like housing within their boundaries. What the Conservatives are saying to them is, “Be quiet. Stop whining. Go back and figure it out yourselves. It is not our problem”.

In terms of the amount Canada gives to municipalities, in terms of the relationship of the federal government to the municipalities, it is one of the most backward anywhere in the modern world. The problems that are being faced by municipalities only started to be dealt with under the last government in a new deal for cities and communities in a recognition that municipalities needed to be treated as equals, in recognition of the fact that often municipalities are the engines of our economy.

They are the places that make the biggest difference in things like quality of life and often can make a huge difference in terms of the quality of our economy by making sure that they have the conditions right to hold, retain and allow businesses to grow.

Today, in a riding like mine, we face massive infrastructure challenges. Individuals who want to go to work in the morning, and I have a large population of people who commute, are faced with incredible gridlock. Options on transit are nearly non-existent.

Some of the measures brought in by the government, like this tax measure where people would get a bit of money back at tax time if they bought a transit pass, are utterly meaningless. Why would people buy a transit pass that does not take them anywhere?

If I were to leave from my house in Pickering and try to get to the GO station, that unto itself would be about a 30-minute or a 40-minute exercise. By the time I do get to the GO train, it is then another 40 minutes or 45 minutes to get into the city. It would take people almost an hour and a half when by car that same ride would only take perhaps 30 or 40 minutes, and that is if they are lucky enough to be working in downtown Toronto.

If people work in Scarborough or in Markham, transit can take two or three hours to get there. So, who is going to buy a bus pass that does not really take them anywhere? It does not make any sense. What we should be doing is investing in the infrastructure required to make transit meaningful and real as an option for individuals who want it.

Municipalities today are struggling under the crippling responsibility of aging infrastructure, but they are also fighting a real battle that we need to be seized with here; that is, sustainable development.

We can talk about the environment, but how communities are structured, how they are built, what resources they have available to them, things like transit, how dense a core they have and what kind of cultural and recreational infrastructure they have within their boundaries so people can actually spend a day or an afternoon within their own municipality, becomes very relevant as well.

However, in the fight against climate change, municipalities have to be partners, not somebody we scold and boss around and pretend is not there but partners, people we invest in, people we work with on things like sustainable development. That is why the money that was flowed through, through the new deal, said that those projects had to go to improve sustainable development.

So, too, should money that flows to the municipalities as we assist them, whether it is in addressing the payment in lieu of property tax problem that leaves so many municipalities shortchanged or whether or it is as an additional revenue. This should go to say that that money that flows to the municipalities should result in meaningful changes, such as reducing the consumption of carbon-based fuels and reducing greenhouse gases, so that municipalities are making a contribution to reducing greenhouse gases and climate change emitting products.

On the environment, more broadly, what we have seen from this government is complete contempt for the issue of the environment and climate change. In fact, last January, almost a year ago, the Prime Minister was calling greenhouse gases “so-called greenhouse gases”. The government websites systematically, after the last election, eradicated any reference to climate change. It deleted them. It got rid of them.

We were getting calls from teachers who were using government websites to help teach their students how they could reduce their emissions and how they could make a difference to the planet. They were asking what happened to these aids on the Internet that they were using to help teach students how to create reductions. They were completely deleted.

We saw more than $5 billion in cuts to climate change programs and instead replaced with only $2 billion later with much fanfare when the Conservatives were pretending to do something.

We are the only member of the Commonwealth standing in the way of ensuring that we are a major partner in fighting climate change. We are blocking the rest of our Commonwealth partners, as example, at the conference that just happened, from joining together as a unit, setting mandatory targets and leading the world.

In short, what we are seeing in this and in so many other areas is a government that is focused on spin and gimmicks, and nothing on substance, that is so focused and preoccupied with trying to get to 41% or 42% that it is doing nothing on the real issues.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague across the way discussing Bill C-28 and some other issues surrounding that and how it does not help some of the less privileged Canadians, I think were some of his words, or lower income people, especially those who may be single and raising a family.

I think the member forgot that Bill C-28 has the working income tax benefit. This is concrete action to help low income Canadians with various measures, not the least of which is WITB, as the finance minister calls it. I suppose we could say that it would be our spin that it is a good idea because it is a good idea and we are saying it is. However, there are other folks who are saying it is a good idea.

The United Way of greater Toronto has said that it is a positive change that will help improve the situation of low income families. The Rotman School of Management sings its praises. The Ontario Liberal finance minister said, “It's a positive move. I think it will help those at the lower end of the income ladder and I think the federal government has taken a good step”.

Indeed, the NDP member for Winnipeg North has said that WITB is an important program that goes in the right direction.

When the hon. member says that there is no help for lower income families, he is exaggerating profoundly the great benefits of Bill C-28. He says it is full of gimmicks. I see no gimmick when it does not take out of the pockets of the Canadian people some $190 billion over the next five years and brings taxes to their lowest levels in about 50 years. There is some great amount of exaggeration going on here.

If I could enlighten those folks who might be listening, the member said the GST reduction to a family of limited income does not do anything. When this family goes to the grocery store, or the young mother who has young children, they are buying products that have a tax on them. The young mother may not even be paying any income tax. People who do not pay any income tax at all are receiving a tax break through the GST rebate.

I ask the hon. member: Has he really read Bill C-28? Has he really thought through all the comments he has made?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would begin by saying, and it may come as a surprise to the member, that most groceries are in fact actually not taxed. Things such as everyday grocery items do not have the GST applied to them. If we take rent as an example, it does not have the GST applied either.

Someone of limited means and with most of their income going toward groceries and rent is deriving no benefit, or extremely little benefit. Maybe when they buy some Hubba Bubba gum or something, then they are going to get a cent off.

The member has mentioned one program and that is well and good. The reality is that the GST cut represents more than $10 billion in the 2% that is being removed. Imagine what the government could do to help a single mother with something like early childhood development by having a national early childhood development strategy that places creating nurturing advanced environments for those children to make sure that they get an edge on life, particularly when we know that those three years are so critical.

Imagine what some of that $10 billion could have done for students. In many cases, students do not find post-secondary education something that they can access. Imagine what could have done with accessibility.

Imagine what could have been done with that $10 billion to help in a targeted way those who are in the middle income bracket, those who really need the break, and those who really need the change. Instead, what we got was a gimmick. The problem was that it cost us $10 billion of other opportunities.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada's productivity has dropped to 16th place, the U.S. dropped to 6th and Ireland has gone down to 21st in ranking, whereas the high taxing countries, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden and Denmark have gone up. They are always at the top in their productivity. They put a lot of money into innovation and research and development.

The hon. member talked a lot about investing in municipalities and investing in the social good, yet he would not say how much the investment would be, where would the money come from? Is it coming from an increase in income tax? Is it hiking the GST?

The Liberal Party talked about reducing the corporate tax rate of 18.5%. After the speech by the Leader of the Liberal Party, the Conservatives did reduce it. It announced the corporate tax rate would go from 18.5% to 15%. I cannot tell the difference between the two parties because they say to bring it down further.

Where would the money come from and what is in this mini-budget? Is the corporate tax rate 18.5% or is it 15%?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not in a place today to launch the Liberal Party platform for the next election and to speak about the specifics of exactly how we will implement all the things that we are talking about. I thank the hon. member for her enthusiasm to see the Liberal platform. I just ask her to hold on a little bit. Depending on how things roll out here, she will get ample opportunity to see just how we are going to implement this ambition for Canada.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I actually want to agree although I have a question. For single moms, particularly working single moms, like the one who I saw at our food bank who was there with her little girl, who was about seven, and she tugged on her mother's sleeve and said, “Don't worry mommy, I will try not to eat so much”, this budget makes absolutely no difference.

For the parent who has to pay $1,400 a month for licensed infant care, this budget has made no difference whatsoever. There is no support, there is no education, there is no child care, and it makes no difference for the single mom.

I am wondering, for that single mom who the member describes in his riding and who I see in mine, what does that mean when the Liberal caucus refused to stand up, take a position, and say that it cares about those single mothers who are not able to make ends meet without the food bank, who are not able to get child care? When they see the entire Liberal caucus sitting there, and abstention is really a yes, what is the message that goes to that parent?

Let me tell you, the parents who have talked to me have said that means they will talk about it, but they will not stand up for it.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I remind the hon. member for Surrey North to address her questions and comments through the Chair and not directly at members. The hon. member for Ajax—Pickering.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we will do precisely that. The difference is we are not going to do it when the NDP tells us to do it.

We have a responsibility as the official opposition to choose when we are going to go into an election, to choose what issues we are going to go on, how we are going to fight that, and what is the best way to ensure that Canadians have all of the choices presented for them so that they can choose the best direction for this country.

When the time is right, we will stand up, and we will fight against what is a regressive, backward budget that puts the priorities of Canadians way down and instead focuses on gimmicks and tricks.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just a short period ago the member said that $10 billion could go a long way to helping people meet their family needs. That is precisely why the government reduced the GST and intends to reduce the GST further. It is because it is $10 billion that stays in the pockets of Canadians and specifically those Canadians who do not pay any taxes.

The member might be shocked to learn that I in my previous occupation happened to do the shopping for my family for about 30 years. Therefore, I am very much aware of what is taxed and what is not.

What is taxed are a lot of the necessities, like keeping our clothes clean, like keeping ourselves clean, and like those personal products that everyone buys. That is $10 billion that are in the pockets of Canadians and allows them to meet additional needs of their families. Perhaps the member needs to rethink that amount.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if they want to give $10 billion back to Canadians, then they should do it in an intelligent way. They should have targeted at those who need it the most and make a difference for students, those who are in low income situations and those who are in the middle class. Instead of giving 2% off a million dollar yacht or a $100,000 car, luxury items that most individuals could never dream of affording, they should focus that money on individuals who really need it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-28. In the view of New Democrats, this was an unprecedented opportunity to invest in Canadians. Instead we see a Conservative government that continues to take Canada in the wrong direction.

It was not a balanced approach. It could have provided targeted tax relief for those who needed it most, instead of providing billions of dollars in tax relief to the friends of the Conservatives, the oil and gas companies. It was an opportunity to close that ever increasing prosperity gap. However, as we have seen in many of the programs and legislation that comes from the Conservative government, it has not invested in working class and middle class families, in ordinary Canadians.

With regard to the wrong direction, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, in a 2007 paper called “Why Inequality Matters: The Canadian Case”, talks about that growing prosperity gap. It see income distribution deteriorating.

The rich and poor gap is at a 30 year high, in after tax terms, the fastest growth in the past 10 years under economic conditions that traditionally lead to it falling. There is a far greater polarization of incomes. The bottom half has been shut out of economic gains of the last 30 years, despite working more hours. As a cohort, these families raising children are better educated and working more than those 30 years ago. On average, those families are working 200 hours more a year. That truly is a prosperity gap.

In the economic statement, the government talks about delivering broad based tax relief for individuals, families and businesses. Let us do a bit of a reality check around that.

The government's own document says that families earning between $15,000 and $30,000 will pay on average almost $180 less in tax in 2008. My question has always been this. Exactly how many child care spaces, how many child care days, does $180 in tax relief pay for?

Social Planning Cowichan recently issued a report in October. It talks about quality child care. I will read briefly from that because my community is in a crisis around child care. It says:

Quality, affordable child care is crucial to the social and economic welfare of the Cowichan Region. The successful development of our children, especially in the early years, has a long term impact on our region....

Currently, there is a critical lack of licensed child care spaces in the Cowichan Region, with enough spaces to serve only 48 percent of the estimated 4,862 children under the age of 12 who need child care. For the estimated 1,047 aged three and under who need child care, there are only 165 licensed spaces, or 16 percent of the number needed.

This situation continues to worsen due to the current labour shortage and increasing cost of housing which requires that most families need two incomes to afford a home which is resulting in an estimated 70 to 75 percent of mothers entering the workforce.

Three significant barriers to providing quality child care are consistently identified by information gathered from interviews with local informants as well as the websites of many provincial, national and international organizations involved in promoting quality, affordable child care: lack of child care spaces; funding for child care services and programs; staffing, training, recruitment and retention in birth to three year services.

The economic statement would have been an opportunity to take meaningful action around child care. The Conservatives will talk about choice in child care when they talk about the $100 a month, but that $100 a month simply does not create new child care spaces.

The New Democrats have put forward Bill C-303, which calls for meaningful attention to early learning and child care. One would hope, with the kind of support this bill has garnered, that the Conservatives would have seen fit to take the opportunity in the economic statement to invest in the creation of child care spaces and in early learning. Instead, we have seen tax relief of $180 a year for people earning between $15,000 and $30,000 a year. This kind of tax relief will not create child care spaces.

In my province of British Columbia, and I know in other provinces, many industries are facing severe labour shortages. We could have encouraged people to join the labour force by ensuring there would be affordable, quality, regulated child care. This was a missed opportunity to invest in working and middle class families. This was a missed opportunity to close that prosperity gap.

Another element that is of critical importance to Canadians, certainly to those living in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, is housing. On October 22, the United Nations special rapporteur on adequate housing, Miloon Kothari, took a preliminary look at the Canadian housing situation. I will quote from his report because he says it far better than I could. He says:

Everywhere that I visited in Canada, I met people who are homeless and living in adequate and insecure housing conditions. On this mission I heard of hundreds of people who have died, as a direct result of Canada's nation-wide housing crisis. In its most recent periodic review of Canada's compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the United Nations used strong language to label housing and homelessness and inadequate housing as a “national emergency”.

This is an international overview of what is happening in Canada. People are saying that the housing situation is in a crisis.

Mr. Kothari goes on in his report to talk about why there has been a significant erosion of housing policy rights over the past two decades. Not only is the current Conservative government not taking the kind of action that is required in terms of a national housing strategy, but when the Liberals were in government, they directly contributed to the crisis that we are in today.

Mr. Kothari says:

—Even more dramatic housing cuts in the coming years as the federal government “steps out” of its financial commitments under the 1973 to 1993 national housing programme.

--Reductions in income support programs at the federal level, and in every province, that have left many Canadians with little money to pay for ever-increasing housing costs, and

--A shift in housing policy to provide support for homeownership, mainly through the tax system, while eroding support for social and rental housing.

It is clearly a failure of leadership, both under the Conservatives and under the previous Liberal government.

The Cowichan Valley fall 2006 report talks about the crisis that has emerged in Nanaimo—Cowichan. It talks about the fact that no new rental units have been built in the Cowichan region during the last 20 years, therefore the supply is scarce. Vacancy rates in private rental buildings in the city of Duncan and in North Cowichan have declined in recent years from 8.4% in October 2002 to 1.6% in October 2005.

Under rents and incomes in the same report, in 2001 more than 6% of households in the CVRD had incomes of less than $10,000, and an additional 14% had incomes of between $10,000 and $19,999 and a further additional 12.9% had incomes between $20,000 and $29,999, in total, 35% of the households. Clearly, the ability to afford rent is a significant issue for many people in the region. The proportion of households spending more than 30% of their gross income on rent was higher in the CVRD than for B.C. as a whole. Thirty-five per cent of the households in my riding are making under $30,000. The $180 tax relief is in the pockets of 35% of the households in my riding. How will $180 help someone rent an apartment when rents are rising because of the severe shortage in supply?

A national housing strategy looked at a continuum housing, from homelessness, transitional shelters, accommodation for singles and families, up to aging in place. We need a continuum. We need that national strategy. That was in the Cowichan Valley. It is no different in the city of Nanaimo.

Another report talked about the market rental and row housing vacancy. It was 3.4% in 2002 and down to 1.4% in 2005. They are turning away people from emergency shelters. Transition houses that responded cited the increasing cost of housing, both owned and rental. They also cited the increasing incidence of homelessness and raised concerns about the declining stock of rental and market housing.

A number of suggestions have been made on actions that can be taken to deal with it. It is no surprise that people in Nanaimo are calling for a range of housing types catering to different ages, family types and income levels, including smaller unit sizes to low income single adults and seniors.

Back in March, a panel, sponsored by the Nanaimo Canadian Federation of University Women, talked about the fact that there were a significant number of women in Nanaimo living on the streets. The Haven Society's Willow WAI for Women have said that 99% of homeless women generally have addiction or mental health issues, are undereducated, lack employment life skills and many commit crimes to support an addiction. They become homeless because of estrangement from their families due to violence or drug use, or marital breakdown or incarceration, or they have been evicted and lack affordable housing.

Affordable and adequate safe housing is only one part of dealing with homelessness in a community. We certainly see that very visible face of homelessness in many of our communities. The economic statement and the throne speech were an opportunity to take leadership both in Canada and internationally in a meaningful national housing strategy. It was a failure in dealing with some of these very serious issues confronting our communities.

Again, the economic statement talked about the fact that people who worked on our shop floors and assemble lines or in our forests and mills were struggling, that the manufacturing and forestry sectors were bearing the brunt of a strong Canadian dollar, that they were facing increased competition from emerging economies and that this is a difficult situation.

I argue the fact that a difficult situation is probably an understatement. In many of communities in Nanaimo—Cowichan our forestry sector reeling. Another one of the pulp and paper mills in my riding has applied for bankruptcy protection, and those are important jobs in our community. Forestry is not a sunset industry. Forestry is a vibrant and vital industry in the province of British Columbia and in other provinces across the country. We are not seeing a strategic investment and national leadership in forestry.

In my province and in my riding, raw log exports continue to be a source of aggravation. Our raw resources are being shipped elsewhere for processing as our sawmills close down. The closure of those sawmills is having repercussions for the pulp and paper mills. When the Bloc put forward a motion calling for some attention to manufacturing and forestry, the Conservatives voted against it and the Liberals abstained, instead of taking a strong stand for our forestry communities across the country.

Our critic for industry, the member for Parkdale—High Park, has compiled some good statistics. She talks about the fact that we have seen significant job loss. She said that there were job losses resulting in 8% of wood products. In British Columbia the manufacturing and forestry sector has lost 13,700 jobs. That is partly to do with the softwood lumber agreement. It did not take into consideration the downturn in the housing sector in the United States. This means the price per board foot has now dropped below that threshold, so we are now paying a 15% tax.

The economic statement acknowledged that forestry was struggling, that these were difficult times, yet there was no commitment in either the throne speech or the economic statement to develop a national strategy to ensure that our forestry sector would remain as a vibrant and vital part of our economy.

When we are talking about closing the prosperity gap, let us just turn for one moment to first nations.

First nations, Inuit and Métis across this country continue to be the poorest of the poor. One of the pillars that we know will contribute to raising people out of poverty is education. The throne speech did mention education. The minister said that there needed to be investment in skills training and development with regard to industries emerging in the north. I would argue that there needs to be a far broader plan for education in this country.

We are seeing discrepancies throughout the first nations education system from coast to coast to coast. In an article today in the Winnipeg Free Press, there is an editorial on education on reserves. The numbers here highlight the difference. On one hand, we hear the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development talking about the importance of standards and looking at provincial standards, curriculum and those kinds of things, and yet, on the other hand, he is telling first nations schools on reserve that he wants them to meet the standards but that he does not actually want to give them the same amount of money.

We have provincial standards on a per capita basis that talk about how much provincial governments say is necessary to provide an adequate education in the K to 12 system, but then we have the federal government telling first nations on reserve schools that it wants to deliver the same standards of education but that it does not want to give the money needed to do it.

Let us talk about some of these numbers. In this editorial it states:

The base funding--per student grants--from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada for on-reserve schools across Canada is lower than provincial grants, and that extends to grants that cover special education. As an example, in Manitoba the Opaskwayak Education Authority receives total federal funding that works out to $6,400 per student.

Contrast that to the Wapanohk Community School in Thompson--whose student body is almost entirely aboriginal--which is under a public school board that spends an average $9,384 per student. On average, Manitoba school boards spent $8,900 per pupil. Across the western provinces, the average was $8,386, according to a report compiled by the Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education.

There is roughly a $3,000 difference between what the province of Manitoba is spending and what is funded for, in this case, one on reserve school. This is not atypical. This is happening in provinces across this country.

In 2004, the Auditor General said that the department did not have a good handle on the funds that were required for education and did know whether or not it was actually getting results for the money it was spending.

Right now the first nations educational renewal is up in 2008 and there is something called a band operating funding formula. Here we are, at the end of November, and there still has not been agreement on this band operating funding formula. We know there are huge discrepancies. At a meeting with the department and the minister this morning, they said that it was difficult and that there were different things happening in different provinces.

We talk about a prosperity gap. First nations are certainly in the middle of that prosperity gap. One in four first nations children live in poverty, which means their families live in poverty. We know that one of the elements to raising people out of poverty is adequate education so why are we not investing in education?

The same thing is happening with the building of schools. We have schools in Manitoba that have been on wait lists forever. We have schools in Saskatchewan where, from the department's own records, there is a serious problem with the funding. We heard from the department today that it is juggling funding around when there is an emergency.

If we truly mean that we are committed to education, we need to put the money into the education system for first nations, Métis and Inuit so they have access to an adequate education.

The economic update and the throne speech are missed opportunities to close that prosperity gap and it clearly takes Canada in the wrong direction. Therefore, we will not be supporting that.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while I obviously disagree with some of the comments made by my NDP colleague to my right, I do appreciate her passion in wanting to help Canadians, and that is to be commended.

I want to go back to something that was said earlier today. I am not sure whether my colleague was in the House but I know some of her other colleagues were. The member for Halton stood and talked about the things he wanted to see in the bill.

My question for the member goes back to the credibility of the member for Halton on commenting on this. We must remember that the member for Halton was a so-called professional financial advisor who advised all the people he worked for and his clients to put all their money into Nortel. We know the record on that and how good that was. He was also a member who deliberately wrote statements in his blog that were not true and he lied about other members of Parliament.

From that standpoint, does the member think that member has the right to have that kind of opinion on a budget like this that we would all like to see pass?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to comment on the performance of another member of the House. The most logical people to comment on someone's performance and veracity would be his or her constituents.

What is important is that we take the opportunity that is before the House to invest in working and middle class families, to ensure that working and middle class families have adequate, affordable housing and access to education. We know post-secondary student loan debt is through the roof. We should ensure that working and middle class families have access to quality, good paying jobs. This is a missed opportunity.

The member talked about members of the House supporting this legislation. I can assure him that the New Democrats do not support this legislation. We see this as taking Canada in the wrong direction. The Conservatives chose to put this forward and the Liberals chose to abstain.

I am proud to stand and talk about these issues that are very important to working and middle class families. I would encourage members of the House to get together and talk about how we can invest in our communities in a meaningful way.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member across. I concur with what the member said in regard to the government's direction. The government certainly seems to be going in the wrong direction.

A number of groups have been on the Hill over the last couple of weeks and I am sure the member opposite has met with them. There have been mayors of the municipalities, cities, towns and communities; the students; people from aboriginal communities; and farmers from certain sectors that are really experiencing difficulties. All we are hearing is that there are some tax cuts.

The Prime Minister has introduced legislation dealing with restrictions to the federal spending power which was used to develop medicare, the old age security, the Canada pension plan, et cetera. Again, he answers all the groups that have come here, especially the students.The script from the Prime Minister's Office talks about tax cuts.

Does the member agree with this concept of limiting and restricting the federal spending power, which ties the hands of the federal government, a federal government that is supposed to speak for all Canadians from coast to coast with a pan-Canadian vision?

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

Mr. Speaker, over the last number of weeks we have been meeting with groups that are being impacted by the throne speech and the economic update. One of the groups that the member talked about was the municipalities. I was a former municipal councillor and what we know is that trouble rolls downhill.

We are seeing, whatever it is called, the offloading, downloading or softloading to the municipalities. In my municipality we are looking at transportation as a critical element. For example, we have a rail line that runs through my community but there are not enough dollars to help smaller communities. People keep talking about infrastructure and investment in transportation. Our rural communities, which are not part of the big cities, simply do not have enough dollars to invest in the kind of transportation that is needed.

The rail line is a good example. It crosses different regional boundaries and provincial boundaries. When we are talking about roles and responsibilities, we need to listen to people like the Canadian Federation of Municipalities to ensure the people on the ground are included in decision making and in the allocation of funds in a meaningful kind of way.

The Canadian Federation of Students and the Canadian Federation of Municipalities are really important groups that should have some inclusion in the process when we are making decisions on how money is allocated.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my constituents of Don Valley East and represent them in this debate of Bill C-28, an omnibus bill that would implement certain portions of budget 2007 and the recent economic statement.

In particular, the bill covers personal income tax rates, corporate tax rates, interest deductibility, and the GST. Therefore, I would like to begin with the so-called personal income tax cuts announced in the October 2007 economic statement.

These cuts are no surprise to my colleagues in the Liberal caucus because they were contained in the last Liberal budget in 2005. The Liberal budget proposed to lower the personal income tax rate for those who earned the least in society from 15.5% to 15%. The effect would be to take 20,000 low income Canadians off the tax rolls and deliver tax relief where it is needed most.

Lo and behold, when the Conservatives assumed office, their first budget eliminated these tax measures. What did the government do instead? It increased the personal income tax rate from 15% to 15.5% and claimed it was reducing income tax.

Canadians are not foolish. They understood this.

Instead of giving a personal income tax cut, the government cut the GST by 1%.

Let us look at what effect this Conservative budget had on average Canadians in 2006.

For a single-income taxpayer earning $35,000 a year, the Conservatives increased his or her personal income tax by $122, so that the same person could then save a penny on a cup of coffee by the GST cut. But the devastating impact is that if the personal tax rate is increased so that a person is paying $122 more, that person would need to earn $12,200 more in order to get the same benefit in a GST cut.

The Conservatives were making no sense. They were not helping the people that we are here to help, the very low income earners.

This GST cut makes absolutely no sense. Most economists at that time agreed that the first Conservative budget suffered from a certain lack of fiscal sense.

Now, after almost two years, the Conservatives still suffer from confused priorities. The October economic statement effectively restores the Liberal tax cuts announced in 2005, yet the finance minister again refused the advice of leading economists and once again implemented a 1% reduction in the GST.

Let us be clear on this. The reason why a personal income tax cut makes more sense than a reduction in GST is quite simple. Canadians would far prefer a larger paycheque over a minuscule cut to the GST.

The GST is a consumption tax. I have already given one example. Another is that a Canadian who earns $300,000 and buys goods valued at that amount would benefit from probably a $3,000 saving. However, a person who does not earn that amount of money and wants to have a $300 benefit from a GST cut actually would have to spend $30,000, and that does not even guarantee anything. This really impacts low income earners.

The Conservatives could have gone a lot further with personal income tax cuts, yet they have chosen to squander another opportunity. Canadians would benefit if the Conservatives reduced personal income taxes.

There have been a lot of deputations by economists, poverty groups, community groups and tax groups. They all state that the consumption tax is not a good economic strategy. As well, the GST rate reduction represents a significant loss of federal tax income, which will have an impact on our fiscal future.

Therefore, the question is very simple: why not reinvest the approximately $12 billion in lost GST revenue in municipal infrastructure?

I recently met with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which is warning us that our crumbling infrastructure, most of it constructed in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, must be addressed now. The FCM estimates that we currently face a $123 billion infrastructure deficit across the whole country.

Without a significant federal investment, we will face a catastrophic loss of critical infrastructure at a significant cost to the taxpayer. As my mother always used to say, a stitch in time saves nine, and this is why it is very important to have a strategy now rather than wait to replace the whole of our capital works.

The FCM recommends that we adopt a national strategy to address this deficit. We in the Liberal Party were in the forefront of the cities and communities agenda and we believe that cities and communities must have stable and predictable long term funding.

The cities and communities agenda put forth by the Liberal government had municipalities at the table with the federal government and the provinces in order to address this problem. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are choosing to ignore this advice at the expense of our future.

Let us now turn to corporate taxes. The previous Liberal government reduced the federal corporate tax rate from 28% to 19%. The Conservatives are now talking about taking a bold step by further reducing the tax rate to 18.5% by 2011.

It is clear that Canadian firms need a corporate advantage on the international stage. That is why the Liberals argue for significantly lower corporate tax rates in order to compete at the global level.

That therefore brings me to another curious misstep by the Conservatives with respect to interest deductibility. Budget 2007, the second Conservative budget, contained what the former chairman of the Canadian Tax Foundation, Allan Lanthier, called “the single most misguided policy” to come “out of Ottawa in 35 years”.

I am not referring to the disaster caused by the Conservatives in the income trust sector in October 2006. Rather, I am referring to the tax measure tucked away on page 242 of budget 2007 regarding interest deductibility and foreign affiliates. It would have essentially thrown a major hurdle in front of Canadian firms that want to make foreign acquisitions by removing the interest deductibility from money borrowed to carry out those transactions.

While the Conservatives may fancy themselves as the party of free enterprise, the fact is that the finance minister is no longer a welcome face on Bay Street, nor is he any longer considered a friend of industry in Canada.

Tom d'Aquino of the Canadian Council of Chief Executive Officers commented that the proposed policy “may seriously undermine the competitiveness of Canada's homegrown champions--the companies that are most active and most successful in building global businesses from head offices” in Canada.

What the finance minister called a tax loophole is actually a competitive edge for Canadian firms to compete globally on an even playing field with firms enjoying similar tax measures in the United States, Japan and Europe.

Therefore, it was beyond belief why the minister was so determined to hobble the Canadian economy. According to tax specialist Neal Armstrong: “it is typical for a Canadian parent company to arrange most of its borrowing in Canada, then use the funds to invest in foreign acquisitions”.

Yet the Conservatives wanted to take this tool away from business. This policy proposal made no sense whatsoever. As Mr. Armstrong pointed out, the result is that “Canadian banks will lose the income from those loans, and the government in turn will lose the tax benefit from that income”.

Mr. Armstrong went on to say “that doesn't do us any good, because the bank in a foreign country isn't paying any [Canadian] tax”.

Tax specialist Karen Atkinson predicted that many companies would have had to “jump through hoops” to create financing structures, calling the finance minister's proposal a “make-work project” for lawyers and accountants.

Fortunately, thanks to a determined effort by the Liberal caucus, and especially the work done by my colleague, the hon. member for Markham—Unionville, the finance minister was forced to flip-flop on this issue and order a full retreat last May.

The finance minister was compelled to announce that interest deductibility would be preserved for Canadian companies investing abroad and that the policy would now target so-called double-dippers, or those companies that claim the same deduction in multiple jurisdictions.

Again, this confused leadership at the Department of Finance is not appreciated by the business community in this country. This is the same minister that brought on the income trust debacle and Canadians have had enough.

In conclusion, one has to wonder why the Conservatives so desperately lack an economic vision for the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, on Bill C-28, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007 and to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on October 30, 2007. Other economic statements have also been included in this bill.

I will explain the Bloc Québécois position. But I will start by saying that this bill implements the economic statement tabled in October 2007, which does not meet the five priorities of the Bloc Québécois. That is why we will vote against Bill C-28. As the House will recall, the Bloc Québécois strongly defended the interests of Quebeckers and expected that, with the 2007 budget, the federal government would eliminate the federal spending power in provincial jurisdictions. We were expecting direct assistance to resolve the manufacturing crisis, and that was not announced. We also wanted to see the necessary investments to help the most disadvantaged. Once again, there was nothing in this regard.

What we saw in the economic statement was that the oil companies obtained the lion's share and benefited from corporate tax reductions included in the bill, while Quebec manufacturing firms, which are not turning a profit, did not. It is quite something to see the Conservative members, even those from Quebec, rise in this House to say that they have helped the manufacturing and forestry industries by lowering taxes. To take advantage of tax cuts, you have to make a profit. When you do not make money there are no tax reductions and you do not benefit from the measures announced by the government.

The government often claims that it is creating conditions that are favourable to the development of industry. In the manufacturing and forestry sectors, whatever favourable conditions that the federal government may create will never be able to stem the crisis, which has been catastrophic for Quebec as well as Ontario, among others. There is a good reason why the premiers of Quebec and Ontario asked to meet with the Prime Minister, which they did yesterday.

Once again, the Conservative government is trying to buy time for there to be more closures and consolidations, so that when it comes time to help businesses, the government will have to help as few businesses as possible. This Conservative approach to governing, giving the market free rein, is killing a big part of Quebec's economy in the forestry and manufacturing sectors, among others.

This bill does not include any measures to help the manufacturing sector, which is in full crisis, as I was saying, nor the forestry sector. Furthermore, it abandons the least fortunate seniors and does not include any provisions for full retroactivity of the guaranteed income supplement. It is unbelievable. As hon. members know, to receive the guaranteed income supplement, seniors have to apply for it. It is not automatic. Even though the government has our tax return and is aware of all our income and of our financial situation, it still has not understood that those who do not reach a certain level of income should automatically receive the guaranteed income supplement. Again, why require seniors to apply for it? Because some of them do not even realize it exists. They are being kept in the dark. In Quebec, there are still 40,000 people who are entitled to it who did not receive it because they did not apply.

Year after year, the Bloc Québécois has been working hard to try to make members of the government understand that. All they have to do is listen. There is nothing hard about it. It is time for them to stop saying they have the power. It is time for them to use that power.

I am very glad I am part of a political party that will never be in power in this House. That way I can defend the interests of my constituents without having to defend the interests of my party. Such is the reality for Bloc Québécois members of Parliament. We are here to defend the interests of the people of Quebec. I stand up every day in this House knowing that I am defending the interests of Quebeckers, which is not the case for my colleagues in the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party or the NDP.

They have to defend the interest of their party because they are in power or might be some day, because they are hoping to join cabinet some day or because they are look forward to getting a position and pursuing a career in politics. Therein lies the problem. That is why they do not listen to their constituents.

That is why, once again, in this House, they failed or refused to understand that there is simply no need to have seniors fill out forms to get the guaranteed income supplement. Anyone 65 and over who files an income tax return and whose income is lower than the prescribed level should automatically qualify for the guaranteed income supplement. Then, we would not have to denounce the fact that 40,000 Quebeckers are still not receiving it.

There is worse. The Bloc Québécois launched an operation to locate those who were entitled to the GIS but were not receiving it. More than half of them have been located. That is one of the efforts made by the Bloc Québécois for all these people among the most disadvantaged. When they apply for the supplement, retroactive payment is limited to 12 months. That is the harsh reality.

Cases have come to our attention. For example, CBC/Radio-Canada reported the case of a Toronto woman who explained that, having reached a ripe old age, she should have been receiving the guaranteed income supplement for a number of years. Had full retroactivity been applied, she would have received $12,000. Unfortunately, she did not get it. She only got what was allowed by law. But whenever the federal government is owed money, we can be certain that it will go back much farther, all the way back to the origin of the debt, and will not limit itself to a 12 month period. There is a double standard. If the government owes us money, it goes back 12 months, but if we owe the government money, it will go back to the day when we made a mistake. That is the Conservatives' policy.

What is surprising is that when the Conservative Party was in opposition and aspiring to power, it supported a Bloc Québécois motion calling for full retroactivity. When it came to power, however, it decided to do the opposite. That is hard. I hope that the Quebeckers who are watching understand that there is a difference between a member who wants to take action and a member who takes action. We in the Bloc Québécois always act in the interests of Quebeckers, every time we rise in this House.

In addition, Bill C-28 does not include any measures or any older worker assistance program like the famous POWA, for those who remember it. In 1996, the Liberal government put an end to that program. This was also when the government decided that the employment insurance fund would be made up solely of employer and employee contributions. Consequently, in 1996, after the Liberals put an end to the POWA and other programs, a major decision was made in this House that employers and employees would pay the whole shot when it came to employment insurance and that the government would contribute nothing.

Since that decision was made, the federal government has pocketed $54 billion. That is what actually happened. The government decided that the employment insurance fund did not exist, but was part of the government's consolidated revenue fund. The government decided that surplus employer and employee contributions, which have amounted to $54 billion since 1996, would be applied to other expenses. The government has paid down the debt and done lots of things, except reinvest this money where workers need it. Once again, this is the way the Liberals and Conservatives govern: they take money from the poor so that they can give tax credits and tax breaks to big businesses like the oil companies, as they have done in this budget. That is how things work.

The program for older worker adjustment targeted men and women over 55 who were losing their jobs and gave them a decent income until they reached retirement age.

It is a program that might have cost about $700 million, that had been evaluated and that could have been paid for from the employment insurance fund; a fund that year in and year out has a surplus of between $1.5 and $2 billion. The Conservative government lowered premiums and got themselves some good press with that. Every week, every two weeks or month, they give back pennies, peanuts, on the salaries of workers. No employee has even noticed this reduction in employment insurance premiums announced by the Conservatives.

However, one thing is certain. The people who lost their jobs in the forestry and manufacturing sectors, and who were 55 or older, know how much a support program for older workers could have helped them toward a decent retirement. They devoted 25, 30, or 35 years of their lives to the companies that were forced to close their doors.

The rise of the Canadian dollar is a support program or a nuisance program that nobody ever asked for. The workers are suffering from it and, once again, the government talks about the free market. Well, the free market is causing the loss of jobs in Quebec—a great many jobs in the forestry and manufacturing sectors. The government could have helped workers who are 55 or older and who lost their jobs. They could have benefited from a support program until age 65 but the government said “No.” Even though surpluses are piling up in the employment insurance fund, they tell us there are none. People are making profits because the Conservatives understand profit and loss better. The Conservatives give assistance to companies that are making profits and they take the profits from the employment insurance fund to pay down the national debt; but they do not help those who need help most. That is the outcome of Bill C-28 and it is another reason why we are against it.

What is more, the bill enhances a special agreement that unfairly benefits Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. That agreement cuts the heart out of the equalization program and puts Quebec at a disadvantage. The Quebeckers, and even the Canadians, who are listening to us must understand that this program had been promised to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador in relation to oil royalties. Because of the Hibernia project, the Liberal government had promised an amount of money in compensation related to oil production. That compensation should never have existed at the time when that was decided. Once again, it was a matter of election promises.

What do people do to get into power? They do things that they should never do; because the Hibernia debt was not paid off. It should never be forgotten, and I could tell the whole story, but the fact is that Hibernia was paid for with money from Quebeckers and Canadians. More or less, Quebeckers paid 25% of the total cost of Hibernia. That is the reality.

On the other hand, in Quebec, the cost of developing hydroelectricity was paid for in full by Quebeckers through the various taxes, income tax and royalties and charges paid to Hydro-Québec. Yet, there has never been any compensation for Quebec. It is always a double standard when it comes to Quebec, and not just once. That is one reason why many people see Quebec sovereignty as the solution. However, as long as we are still in this country, we must all play by the rules.

Equalization is guaranteed under their Canadian Constitution and takes into account the provinces' relative wealth and poverty. Under the accord with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, oil revenues will not be counted as wealth and will not be part of the equalization formula. This bill would implement the accord, thereby letting provinces that benefited from federal investment—25% of which came from Quebec—benefit from Hibernia as well. They want to have their cake and eat it too, and they want it à la mode to boot.

Not taking oil revenues into account skews the numbers used to determine equalization payments, restore fiscal balance and calculate the amount of money that Nova Scotia and Newfoundland will collect. These provinces are considered to be less wealthy than they really are, which results in lower equalization payments for those provinces that are poor. The very nature of the federal government means that Quebec benefits from equalization.

When I witnessed the closing of the only automobile assembly plant in Boisbriand, Quebec, I understood.

Because of our hydroelectric development—which, I repeat, was paid for entirely by Quebeckers—Quebec is one of the world's largest producers of aluminum and magnesium. About 65% of these resources are used in automobile manufacturing. Yet despite the fact that Quebec is a major mineral producer, there are no automobile manufacturing plants in the province. Everything is concentrated in Ontario. That is the reality of the situation.

When I entered politics in 2000, I was in Mirabel and Prime Minister Chrétien was in power. During the election campaign, he said that Ontario had the auto industry and Quebec had the aerospace industry. When I came to Parliament, Quebec had 60% of Canada's aerospace industry. This year, just 51% of Canada's aerospace manufacturing happened in Quebec.

The Conservatives are always trying to make Quebec smaller. It is even more surprising to see MPs from Quebec take part in these decisions. They do it unknowingly and innocently, but they nonetheless participate every day in these decisions to try to chip away at Quebec. We see that in the manufacturing and forestry industries. Help? Conservatives do not help. Conservatives allow the free market to reign. They allow companies to merge. They allow plants to close in our villages. That is what Conservative MPs do every day in this House. Now they are politely asking the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Finance if there will be an aid program. The Minister of Industry then stands up in this House and says they have just provided one and that they created the economic environment that will make industry flourish in Canada.

The dollar has never been so high. It has never been so difficult for our exporters to sell abroad. The softwood lumber crisis still has not been resolved. We end up with this forestry crisis on the heels of the softwood lumber crisis that affects the two biggest provinces in Canada, Quebec and Ontario. Again, according to the Conservatives, we should let the market reign, let our constituents lose their jobs in their regions and we should definitely not create an aid program for older workers or help them get to retirement with dignity. That is the Conservative philosophy.

Is that how MPs from Quebec get elected under the Conservative banner? I am not here to judge what they do and how they do it. They probably want to advance their careers and that is up to them. But that is not the choice I made. I could have made a career in a party in power, but that is not what I was interested in. I was interested in standing up in this House every day to defend the interests of my constituents. That is the only goal of every Bloc Québécois MP in this House, to stand up every day to defend the interests of Quebeckers.

That is why since 1993 there has been a Bloc Québécois majority of members in this House. Quebeckers have understood. In the next election campaign, the same thing will happen again. Everyone is trying to understand why. It is because Quebec is probably the only province that understands they have to elect members to stand up for their interests, and not members to defend their party’s interests to the public. This reflects how Quebec has developed, having always been in the forefront in Canada when it comes to everything having to do with assistance programs or anything else.

Quebec is the place in North America that does the best job of sharing the wealth among the people who live there. We are happy about that, we are proud of it, but we are not proud to see what the rest of Canada is doing in many areas. We are even less proud that there are Quebec members who belong to the Conservative Party and who rise to vote against Bloc Québécois proposals, when all the Bloc Québécois wants to do, every day, is help their fellow citizens. Obvious examples can be seen here in this House. We have never shied away from this work.

That is why we oppose Bill C-28. As long as the bills introduced by the Conservative government are of no benefit to people who are unemployed and workers in the forestry and manufacturing industries, we will oppose them.

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

Mr. Speaker, no wonder Canada's productivity has dropped and keeps dropping. It is not going anywhere fast. In 1983-84, post-secondary education funding, in terms of investment, was about .56% of all the funding given in all of the grant areas. By 1993-94 it was .41% of GDP and in 2007 has dropped to .22% of GDP. No wonder our productivity is not going anywhere fast.

In terms of the environment, I noticed that this budget actually continues to promote the government's failed clean air act targets and includes the inadequate 2050 target. This works out to be a 31% reduction below 1990 levels when the House has been talking about an 80% reduction. Is that something the member can support?

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

Mr. Speaker, the question gives me an opportunity to explain the following to my NDP colleague. She was talking about the environment. We must not forget that from 1970 to 1999, with the consent of the NDP, the federal government spent $66 billion on fossil fuels. The federal government, which is as centralist as the NDP could wish for, spent money on Hibernia, 25% of which belonged to Quebeckers. That is the reality.

We all support that. But no one has ever recognized that in Quebec, the energy industry has been developed without any contribution from the federal government: zero, zilch, nada. It does not make us happy to say that. On the contrary, it hurts, for the good and simple reason that it was the efforts of Quebeckers that once again went into developing our own energy, while the rest of Canada, with the support of the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party, decided to spend $66 billion on fossil fuel and nuclear energy.

When it comes to oil, once again, the oil companies are getting tax credits while poor people are dying of hunger. In reality, it is being done with the support of all of the parties that hope to take power in this house one day: the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and especially the New Democratic Party.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke at length about the employment insurance fund. I remember the election of 1997 when a certain prime minister, Mr. Chrétien, gave a speech in front of a crowd of supporters who had paid $250 a plate for their lunch. The business elite of the day were applauded by the then prime minister for all of their sacrifices in terms of wrestling that deficit down.

We found out that it was done by taking a great deal of money out of the employment insurance fund, to the point where two-thirds of all contributors to that fund can no longer collect benefits when they are unemployed and in difficulty. We see the same thing now, despite the fact that the current minister disputes it--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have to stop the hon. member there because I have to let the hon. member respond before question period.

The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is entirely correct.

This is particularly true in that, with respect to the surpluses in the employment insurance fund, the Conservative government is always telling us that there are none. It is part of the revenue and expenditures. And there is more revenue in the employment insurance fund than there are expenditures. So to the government’s mind, that is the way it goes; the money stays in the vault.

The problem, and the tragedy for workers and the unemployed, is that the Conservative government and the Liberals have retained surpluses of $54 billion to spend on other things rather than to help people in need, the unemployed or older people who lose their jobs. That is the hard reality.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel shall have five more minutes to comment after oral question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-28, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007 and to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on October 30, 2007, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Before oral question period, the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel had the floor to respond to questions and comments after his speech. He has five minutes remaining.

The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question. For a long time now, the Bloc Québécois has been recommending that tax credits for research and development be refundable, especially during the current crisis in the manufacturing sector. The government claims that this represents an extremely significant tax expenditure. What the government is not saying is that unused tax credits will represent a tax expenditure one day or another. When the business in question makes a profit, it will then use these credits.

The purpose of the Bloc Québécois proposal is to allow this tax credit to be advanced and applied now, without necessarily creating a new gift for businesses, as is the case in the tax reductions for the oil companies. The last budget granted a general tax reduction.

Can my hon. colleague explain how this refundable tax credit we are proposing, instead of a general tax reduction, would be more beneficial to the industries that really need it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber, who does such a fine job on the Standing Committee on Finance. He is quite right. The Bloc’s suggestion of a refundable tax credit is easy to understand. The tax credits proposed by the government will not do anything for the forestry and manufacturing businesses that are not profitable in these difficult times. On the other hand, a refundable tax credit would produce some income for them. If the government issues them a cheque in the amount of their tax credit for the current year, they can use it to modernize, even though they do not have any income or profits.

Once again we are faced with this Conservative trait of not understanding the real needs. It is hard, especially when the Conservative members from Quebec are incapable of rising in the House to defend the interests of their constituents and the working people who have lost their jobs or are on the verge of losing them. The crisis in the forestry and manufacturing sectors means that companies are being merged and taken over. Sawmills and other forestry operations are being shut down in our villages. We are very much aware of this.

My colleague’s proposal of a refundable tax credit rather a tax credit for future use when companies have returned to profitability would be much more effective. It would be of direct assistance to companies and would help them modernize, create added-value products and expand, rather than remaining mired in losses and penury.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will follow up with a question on manufacturing. When the Minister of Finance answered a question in the House, he talked about the capital cost reduction allowance. The government has only moved on two years of the recommendation of the industry committee, of which I was a part. This is a very grievous situation. It should have been five years. Many companies have already made decisions about their original capital purchasing. They will benefit from that, which is fine.

We wanted to get the third, fourth and fifth year investments. After that, there was to be a review for a potential extension of five years. This would send a strong message. An important distinction is the equipment would get on the plant floors in the manufacturing sector of Ontario and Quebec and the rest of the country because of the capital stay, as opposed to a general corporate tax cut where that money could move offshore, as it has been doing historically.

What does my colleague think of the fact that the minister has completely disregarded this aspect, which hurts the investment strategies that need to be made today to protect jobs?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees with the NDP's position on this and defended it in committee. Capital cost allowance is still an expense. It is all very well to make it possible to amortize a purchase more quickly, but once again, only for companies that are profitable because the item is still an expense. When companies are losing money, even if they can write things off more quickly, the losses are already there and losses cannot be amortized. The losses mount even higher and nothing comes in.

That is the part the NDP forgets. It is like the Conservatives and Liberals and always thinks of profitable companies. Some of them need it too, of course, because they are on the verge of no longer being profitable. But in manufacturing and especially forestry now, we have companies that are already losing money. This requires prompt assistance programs and fresh money to invest in the company. Once again, if a company is not making any money, its problems cannot be solved by increasing its expenses.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to say a few words on Bill C-28, an act respecting the March budget and the October economic update. I want to say a few things about the general direction of both these documents, or I should say, the lack of direction and the lack of vision.

We have heard a lot of talk in the House over the last number of weeks and from any group that comes to Ottawa, and any questions that are put to the Minister of Finance. Basically it is talk about tax cuts and some numbers. I want to point out to the House and to all Canadians, that I do not represent numbers. I represent people, real people who have real jobs and real families, and those people do not like what is coming out of the government.

There were certain tax cuts in the last economic statement. They should be part of what I would classify as a productivity agenda but we do not hear anything about that. The right tax cuts are very much a vital part of this productivity agenda, as is skills training, as is funding for post-secondary education, as are initiatives that reduce any constraints on the mobility of capital, labour or goods, as are innovation, science and technology. The tax cuts can be put into four classifications.

We had the corporate tax cuts, and in my opinion these were good tax cuts. The minister is to be congratulated. These tax cuts will be beneficial to Canadian companies and will help the productivity of this nation.

On the individual tax cuts there was an increase in the basic personal exemption. In my opinion, that was a good move. The $10,000 which was announced originally by the Liberal government was decreased and now it is gradually going back up. It is a step in the right direction. This move certainly benefits lower income families as opposed to higher income families.

The individual tax rate cut from 15.5% to 15% was basically a removal of a tax increase which occurred one year ago when the tax rate was increased from 15% to 15.5%. Now it is being decreased from 15.5% to 15%, so really, it is an insignificant event.

Most of the money in the tax cuts came from cuts to the GST. I believe that every living, breathing economist in Canada would suggest that this is absolutely the wrong direction. It does absolutely nothing for productivity. It is inflationary. It is certainly geared toward the higher income Canadian. Again, it is something I do not think should have happened at all and I believe history will bear me out.

People expect more from a federal government. The situation in Canada is the agenda of the government of the day is to allow each of the 13 provincial or territorial jurisdictions to erect a firewall or a moat around their particular jurisdiction and have their programs and policies geared to the particular ideology of the government of the day. As such, the federal government has no role, other than in aboriginal affairs, fisheries and immigration. It has no role in the lives of Canadians. That is not my vision of Canada at all. That is not the vision of the people that I represent.

Over the last three or four weeks, we MPs have met a lot of people visiting Ottawa. A lot of sectors have come to Ottawa to meet with us, to talk to us and to plead with us for more assistance.

The manufacturing sector has been to Ottawa. We have lost 90,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector this year alone as a result of the Canadian dollar and the movement of jobs to other jurisdictions. The answer we get from the Minister of Finance is that we have tax cuts.

Well tax cuts just do not cut it for those 90,000 people who have lost their jobs, or for those who think they may lose their jobs, or a mayor or city councillor who represents a city or town that has lost a lot of jobs in the manufacturing sector.

Last week many representatives from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities were here. This is a very important component of Canadian society, especially the large capital regions. They actually drive the economy. They are looking for assistance in immigrant settlement, in skills training, in research, in post-secondary education, in early childhood development. Most important though, they are looking for assistance in infrastructure. We have heard their pleas. There is a $123 billion infrastructure deficit.

I am pleased to be part of a previous government that did respond. It was not a total response to the plight of cities and municipalities, but it was a very good response with the gas tax rebate, the GST rebate, the municipal and rural infrastructure program and the strategic infrastructure program. These were starting to make a big difference.

There is a new package coming out. I call it re-gifting. The government has taken the bundle and put it in a much smaller box and put a big bow on it. Instead of being over three years it is over seven years, and it is approximately 50% of the previous programs.

No one should think that the mayors and city councillors are being fooled as a result of this announcement. These people have to go back to their constituents and they have to get re-elected. They know exactly what is going on.

These people were in Ottawa last week and they met with the Minister of Finance. They were told three things. The first thing they were told was that the government is not in the pothole business. The second thing they were told is that they should stop their whining. The third thing they were told is that they should go home. They are going home, but I do not think they are going to be quiet.

Over the last three weeks we have met with two separate pan-Canadian organizations representing students at our post-secondary institutions. They pleaded with politicians to do something about their plight. A country is only as strong as its educational system. We know the debt crisis that some of these students are facing. They did meet with the politicians and they did meet with the government, but they went home empty-handed. They were told about these tax cuts.

The week before last, several of the agricultural sectors were in Ottawa. Not in all, but in certain sectors, farmers across Canada are having a very difficult time, especially the beef and pork producers. In fact, in my career here, I have never seen the pork industry in worse shape. It is facing a perfect storm. There is the high Canadian dollar, feed costs are going through the roof, and other import costs are increasing dramatically. Also, the price of their final product is at an all time low. The primary producers are shutting down in record numbers.

I want to quote one of the leading producers from my province, Mr. Eddie Dykerman, a Prince Edward Island farmer from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture:

At a time when the federal government is basically embarrassed by its surplus...it's a big disappointment that something couldn't be done for agriculture when people are actually walking off their farms and losing their houses and their way of living and everything else...

A lot of farmers who are closing their farms, especially in the pork sector, have been third, fourth and fifth generation farmers. They are very efficient farmers but they are caught in this perfect storm, and again, we have a government that is doing absolutely nothing.

I recall three or four years ago, when the Conservatives were in opposition they were talking about agriculture. Now that they are in government, we are seeing absolutely nothing. I, like most Canadians, especially the Canadians in these sectors, am extremely disappointed.

The list goes on and on. What did the aboriginal people see in Bill C-28? What did they see in the previous budget? Did the people who are concerned about climate change and about the environment see anything in either of these two documents? Students and poor people saw nothing. The list goes on and on.

That is the direction in which we are heading. The Prime Minister announced that he intends to introduce legislation in the House putting constraints on the federal government's spending power. This power was used by successive governments of various political stripes to develop, to maintain and to enhance social programs, such as medicare, employment insurance, the Canada pension plan, the child tax credit, the old age pension, the old age security, et cetera. Those programs responded to the needs, the hopes and the dreams of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

However, we have a government now that is prepared to put a moat or a wall around each jurisdiction and that is prepared to introduce legislation in the House that would restrict the power of any future government to develop any programs like medicare, like the Canada pension plan and like old age security. Let me say right here and now that is not my vision of a strong federal government.

In Canada, we need a federal government that speaks for every Canadian, regardless of where they live or in which sector they are involved, but as a pan-Canadian vision. I do not see that in the policies, the programs and the initiatives that are coming forward in either Bill C-28 or in any other legislation that has been introduced in the House.

I will get questions at the end of my speech and I hope I do because it will give me an opportunity to expand on some of the points I raised.

In the House, the Prime Minister issues talking points and the Conservatives will be talking about 13 years. I will address that right here and now.

I was a member of Parliament on that side of the House for the last five years of that government and that government has a tremendous record. When it came to power, the annual deficit was $43 billion.

We had a Conservative government in power for nine years. Interest rates were at 12% and unemployment was at 11%. The debt to GDP ratio was at 73%. The world monetary bank had an active file monitoring this country. We were basically under active engagement with that world organization. We were down to days before this country would have been broke. I say that the country would have been broke, not the prime minister, Mr. Brian Mulroney. He was not going broke, according to the media reports and what I am hearing in the House right now. It was the country. We need to make that distinction before we go any further. It was not Brian Mulroney.

We did respond to the needs of Canadians. We developed a lot of assistance for the cities, the towns and the communities. We had the gas tax agreement, the municipal rural infrastructure program, the strategic program and other programs that assisted the cities, because there was in Canada a real imbalance developing between the cities, that level of government, and the other levels of government.

There were dramatic increases in the amount of research moneys going to not only post-secondary institutions but other foundations. We developed a program of early childhood development. We substantially increased maternity benefits for families. We developed the child tax benefit, which, in my opinion, was probably one of the greatest social programs ever developed in this country. We also increased the guaranteed income supplement.

I could go on and on. However, I do want to clarify that the Liberal government did have problems at first. When we were left with a $43 billion deficit from the Mulroney years, we had to make tough decisions. Yes, we made tough decisions but we did respond to the needs of Canadians. That will answer any questions that members on the opposite side have.

We also introduced $100 billion in tax cuts that again responded to the productivity agenda of this country.

I am disappointed in the direction the government is taking.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, while listening to my hon. colleague, it was interesting to hear him refer to some of the challenges faced by cities. I would point out that our government has provided record amounts of infrastructure funding for provinces and cities. I would also point out that we have provided record increases in federal funding for post-secondary education, an issue that he raised. It is an interesting contrast, particularly to the Liberals, who, as he mentioned, cut $25 billion in transfer payments to the provinces.

However, the Liberals did have priorities. They did find millions of dollars to run Liberal campaigns during that same time. It was good to know that they at least had some priorities back then. Right now they apparently have a little difficulty with priorities and decisions, as evidenced by their lack of ability to make decisions on which way to vote, for example, on important issues facing the country right now.

I have a couple of questions. First, now that the hon. member has had time to think about how to vote on this fall economic update, will he vote yes or no?

Second, his leader and several other key Liberal members have mused openly about raising the GST from 5% to 7%. I would be curious to hear, again, in a yes or no answer, with no dancing around, what he is feeling on this. Is he in favour of raising the GST from 5% to 7%?

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

He could have just asked me over here, Mr. Speaker. He did not need to get up on his feet.

I have a couple of points on that. On the infrastructure, I want to point out that the package announced by the Conservative government is a re-gifting. It has taken all the Liberal programs and put them in a package that adds a bit of money. The original programs were over three years but it has extended it over seven years. It is re-gifting but it is re-gifting in a much smaller box with a bigger bow.

Some people in this chamber might be fooled but I would suggest that they go back to their ridings this weekend and talk to their mayors and city council and I assure everyone that they are not fooled. They have to stand for re-election so they know exactly what they are being presented with. They know that there is a $123 billion infrastructure deficit in this country and that the government is not responding to it.

I would repeat the comment the Minister of Finance made to municipal leaders. He said, “we're not in the pothole business”, stop “whining” and go home.

On the issue of voting, we will decide when and at what time the Canadian people want an election. We are certainly talking to Canadians and we will let the hon. member know in the fullness of time.

As to the point on the GST, there is absolutely no indication from my party that we would be raising the GST.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised that the member is disappointed in these financial statements. His lack of a vote would have led me to believe that he was not so disappointed with where the government was going on this measure.

I also find it a little strange that he is disappointed in the corporate tax cuts that the Conservatives proposed since his own leader proposed exactly the same tax cuts. In fact, a lot of people think that the challenge from the Leader of the Opposition led the government to the lengths that it went in the budget, to go even lower in terms of the corporate rate, and that he in fact gave them permission to do so.

I am really concerned about the gutting of the fiscal capacity of the government by these massive corporate giveaways to big oil, to the big banks and to the wealthy in Canada. It is undermining our ability to address program needs, like the ones he talked about, like students, the need for post-secondary education, the infrastructure needs that are very serious all across the country and like the agriculture programs that he seemed so concerned about.

I am also concerned about the financial planning that the government is doing that eliminates the surplus from any reasonable consideration of the needs of Canadian society. It is always a big surprise and it is always automatically turned right over to the debt. We agree, money should go to pay down the debt, but not all of the surplus should go to that and it should be involved in the financial planning process in this place and in government. It seems that the Conservatives have adopted the same policy with regard to that as the Liberals did.

Why would the member be so disappointed in the economic statements when they follow the exact same planning path that the Liberals adopted? Why would he not adopt his party's own policies?

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I may not have made myself absolutely clear but on the corporate tax cuts I am not disappointed. In fact, I congratulate the government. I think the cuts are very much a part of the productivity agenda and I think they are good. I said that in my opening remarks and I thought I had been clear.

These corporate tax cuts are not a major part of the overall tax cut package. The most significant part is the cut in the GST. As I explained in my remarks, that cut is inflationary, it is the wrong way to go and it is much more beneficial to higher income Canadians versus lower income Canadians.

Under the capacity of the federal government, I agree with what the member said. People from across Canada are looking to the federal government to respond to some of their concerns in the sectors, whether it is the manufacturing, agriculture or farming sectors or students. Certain sectors in Canada right now are suffering and it is incumbent upon the federal government to at least talk with them and, if there is a legitimate case, to respond to their concerns.

On that very point, this is something that will be debated in the House, but the announcement by the Prime Minister that he intends to introduce legislation to constrain federal spending powers, which governs successive political stripes used to develop medicare and the Canada pension plan, that will be gone if the legislation passes, and that would be very regrettable.

As people watch this, I have one comment. What would Sir John A. Macdonald, Lester Pearson or Tommy Douglas think if we were to do that?

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have always had a great deal of respect for the hon. member. His comments are interesting but he did provide a lot of revisionist history today that simply is not accurate.

For example, he talked about our $160 billion in tax reductions and criticized it in so many different ways. He talked about the $100 billion that his government, he claimed, put in place, but he forgot to talk about the fact that it increased taxes in other areas and the net tax reduction was very minimal indeed.

However, I want to ask the member for his comments on the hog and beef sectors of agriculture being hard hit by so many things going wrong at once. Our government fully recognizes that. With most of the members of the Conservative Party being from rural areas, of course we understand that fully. Our agriculture minister and our party are doing everything we can to deal with what is an extremely difficult issue and not one that can be effectively dealt with, quite frankly, to be completely honest about it. The high dollar simply makes it far more difficult for hog and beef producers to compete. The dollar increasing so rapidly is the biggest part of the problem, that along with increased import costs.

I acknowledge that the member is absolutely right on that issue but not when he says that our government is not doing anything about it because we are doing more than any government in the past has.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member across that it cannot be dealt with. I am not going to suggest for a minute that I am blaming the government for the rise in the Canadian dollar. We all know that is basically outside the control of one government. However, there are programs that should be looked at for the hog industry. It is a perfect storm; I have never seen it worse.

I have seen sectors go through very difficult times, but this is probably the worst I have ever seen. These people are walking away from their farms. They are losing their farms. Time is very much of the essence and I plead with the government to provide assistance to this sector immediately.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to discuss Bill C-28, which has three important parts: the implementation of last spring's budget, the economic statement issued a few weeks ago, which is commonly referred to as the mini-budget, and the Atlantic accord.

For the members of the New Democratic Party, it is also an opportunity to take stock of the differences between the various parties here in the House of Commons.

If there is one observation we can make in light of the most recent budget statement, it is that the Conservative Party, which is now in power, simply does not believe in the role of government in the economy. That is a purely ideological stance, and it prevents the Conservatives from seeing that, in an economy as diversified as Canada's, the government absolutely must be aware that it has to rebalance things when they get out of balance.

What caused the current economic imbalance? The overheated oil economy in western Canada, which affected the value of our dollar. In turn, the rise in the value of the Canadian dollar led to higher export prices, naturally. What sector has been affected? The manufacturing and farming sectors have been particularly hard hit, as the member for Charlottetown just said. It would be a bit easier to believe the Liberals' hand-wringing over these sectors if they had had the courage to vote against the government's budget. Still, we believe the member was talking in good faith when he said he wanted to do something for farmers.

The third sector that is feeling the effects of the rising Canadian dollar is forestry. Mill and plant closures in Quebec and the rest of Canada are the direct result of our loonie, our Canadian dollar, increasing in value by over 50% over the past five years. Despite extraordinary gains in productivity, plants that have been around for ages have been closing one after the other in Quebec, particularly in regions such as Montmagny and Beauce. Around Sherbrooke, we were all very sad when Baronet, a high quality furniture maker that has been around for over 60 years, closed its doors. It is one thing to say that a factory has closed its doors—that is kind of cold and unemotional. It is another thing to watch very skilled workers lose their pride and their ability to support their families.

How does the Minister of Finance respond when we tell him about these things? He stands up and says that according to them, they are cutting taxes for businesses, which is good news for productivity. Our poor unfortunate Minister of Finance does not seem to understand a thing even though, apparently, he is an educated man. It is hard to believe that he can be so completely unaware of how ridiculous his position is. He needs to understand that if a company, such as a sawmill on the lower North Shore in Quebec or a furniture factory in Beauce, did not make a profit last year, it cannot benefit one iota from a so-called tax cut because it did not pay any taxes last year.

Now for a rhetorical question: which companies did rake in huge profits last year? Oil companies in western Canada. Who will get the lion's share of these tax cuts? Oil companies. Who else recorded huge profits? The banks, which cleared $18 billion.

Let us examine what is going on in these two sectors so that we can better understand our Conservative government's priorities—or lack thereof.

It is primarily the Liberals who are to blame with the oil sector, since they did nothing for 10 years, although they were supposed to reduce greenhouse gases. They had the largest increase in greenhouse gases out of all the Kyoto signatories. It is a disgrace. The Liberals are responsible for this.

Now that the Conservatives are in power, what have they done? They have made it worse. They are busy denouncing the Kyoto protocol. They have no intention of respecting it. They have no regard for future generations. Their political base is in oil sands country, which is responsible for producing massive amounts of greenhouse gases. They have no intention of finding a solution to the problem.

Furthermore, they are giving bonuses for environmental misconduct in the form of tax cuts, without the slightest effort being made—in terms of sustainable development—to internalize the cost of adding these greenhouse gases to our atmosphere.

Now let us look at our Minister of Finance's absolutely classic bad track record with banks. Many people have their paycheques deposited automatically at the bank. It is not even their choice. Why should a worker whose pay is automatically deposited have to give a tip to the bank president to have access to his own money? Our tireless Minister of Finance, cap in hand, visited the bank presidents last year and was told to get lost. He got nothing at all, but that is no big deal. At least he made an effort.

Then, at Halloween, he decided to give the banks a little present. He gave them more tax cuts and benefits, with the result that the banks, which are already raking in huge profits and do nothing to reduce ATM fees, will get even more money. There is absolutely no vision.

Let us take a look at what is happening in the manufacturing sector, in Ontario and in Quebec, in the industrial heartland built up after the second world war, part of a balanced economy. Yes, we do have a lot of natural resources, yes, we need a manufacturing sector; yes, we need a resource sector like the one out west; and yes, we need a service sector. However, we are sacrificing our manufacturing sector on the altar of dogma, of far right ideology, which states that governments play no role in the economy. This is the narrow-minded vision that has taken hold of Canada.

Next week, Mark Carney will appear before a parliamentary committee. He will eventually take over for David Dodge who, unfortunately, remains in his position as somewhat of a lame duck. In fact, his successor was announced more than one month ago, and since then the value of the loonie has swung wildly, as never before.

Some companies have benefited a great deal, particularly companies such as Goldman Sachs, Mark Carney's previous employer. We can hardly wait until next week to ask Mr. Carney some questions about his work at Goldman Sachs because many economies in the world today are guided by former Goldman Sachs employees. It will be interesting to hear the vision of Mark Carney, the man who sold the public's share in Petro-Canada. Is that the best way to go about things? He was the one who pointed out the tax leakage arising from income trusts. I will quickly add right away that we never supported income trusts, but unlike the Conservatives, we would never have lied.

The outcome of all this is quite interesting. Certain companies that paid taxes in Canada now no longer pay any because they are registered elsewhere in the world. Is that the vision that Mark Carney will present to the Conservative government if he becomes the Governor of the Bank of Canada for seven years? These are some of the very interesting questions that Mr. Carney will be asked next week by a parliamentary committee.

It is because of the New Democratic Party that Mr. Carney will appear before a parliamentary committee. I suggested it to my colleagues and they unanimously passed a resolution to that effect.

This discussion around Bill C-28 is an appropriate opportunity to look at, analyze, and compare the different philosophies that exist in this House.

Just as in the matter of greenhouse gas production, Canadians now realize that they have a choice amongst a government that refuses to act, a Liberal official opposition that never did anything when it could act, and the Bloc Québécois that will never be in a position to do anything because it cannot act. The only real option right now on these issues is the New Democratic Party of Canada. We are the ones who are leading the charge on these important issues, such as greenhouse gas production.

When we look at the differences between our different parties, there is nothing clearer than the fact that for ideological and dogmatic reasons, the Conservatives are completely destroying the manufacturing sector of our economy. They are sacrificing it on the altar of their dogma and their ideology. They simply do not believe that governments can play a role in the economy. They have this idealism that somehow there is a pristine free market that works out the best solutions.

We have, geographically speaking, the second largest country in the world populated by fewer than 35 million people. We have, especially since the second world war, built a modern, solid and balanced economy.

Our country's beginnings were in the resource sector and it remains an important part of our economy. But we have also built hundreds of billions of dollars of infrastructure in manufacturing that is now being ruined by the Conservatives' inability to comprehend that the government can and should be acting on behalf of those sectors that are suffering from the sudden flight of our loonie.

What has been driving that increase in the value of the Canadian dollar? A very strong petroleum sector in the west that, of course, is producing greenhouse gases that the government refuses to understand is driving global warming. But that sector is also warming up the Canadian economy and destabilizing what was a relatively balanced economy.

As the Canadian dollar increases of course, it becomes more and more difficult for manufacturing and forestry firms to export their products because, the Canadian dollar being worth more, those exports cost more for people in other countries to buy. So it has been having a serious effect on them.

Instead of intervening in those sectors of the economy and trying to help maintain a balanced economy in Canada, the Conservative government announces with great fanfare, in the documents that are before us, that it is providing across the board tax decreases for all businesses.

What does that mean for a manufacturing company that made no profit last year? It means absolutely nothing because that company paid no taxes. What does it mean for a forestry firm that is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and made no profit last year? It means absolutely nothing because that company did not pay any taxes.

Who is getting the lion's share of these supposed tax decreases? Lo and behold, it is the energy sector out west because it is making huge profits. It is also the banks that are making huge profits. Anybody who looks at these things understands that a solid banking structure is indeed the backbone of a sound economy. But is it necessary to have strong banks in Canada to gouge the little guy? What about someone whose paycheque is deposited directly in a bank? Why should that person have to give a $3 tip to the bank president to have access to his own money?

Our Minister of Finance went cap in hand last year to the banks and was sent packing. He received nothing except their contempt. He came back here to the House and said he had at least tried. He does not seem to understand that he is the Minister of Finance and the banks answer to him, not the other way around. But then again he is a Conservative so he cannot understand that. He thinks that all these structures are the boss and he is the underling.

We in the NDP understand that the government can and should play a constructive role in helping manage a modern economy like Canada's economy. We know that if in Europe people had the same approach as the Conservatives, they would never have something like the train à grande vitesse that now criss-crosses Europe at 300 kilometres an hour. It took vision. It took government involvement. It took the best brains. It took long term planning, something the Conservatives simply do not understand because they do not believe in it. They do not think that governments can play that sort of proactive role. That is why they are always coming up short on Kyoto. They are always embarrassing us internationally on climate change.

Canada once had a proud reputation around the world as being an environmental leader. After 12 years of inaction by the Liberals, and now the embarrassment of the Conservatives, we have lost a lot of that credibility. We can hardly look anyone in the eye internationally any more on these environmental issues, and it is a tragedy.

It is the same thing for the profound changes that we have undergone in Canada's role as a peacekeeper. We were once a proud country, with a role that goes back 60 years. The rest of the world has looked us and said that we are the country they can count on to help build peace when the time comes. If we look at what John de Chastelain did to build peace in Northern Ireland, we will see the archetype of what Canada can do when it works at its best.

What is the worst example? Our current involvement in a combat mission in southern Afghanistan, which has nothing to do with us, nothing to do with our traditional role in the world as a peacekeeper and a peace builder.

That is the Tory record. That is the tragedy of the current Tory government.

However, there is one saving grace in all of this. The Conservatives have decided to move forward and make it increasingly clear that is their agenda, that is who they are. As we say in French, “Le chat sort du sac”. It is becoming increasingly clear, and more and more Canadians are seeing the Conservatives in their true face.

They are great emulators of the George W. Bush White House. They are more comfortable with American foreign policy. They are like the current American administration, tragically, blissfully unaware of the right of future generations to have us think about the effect on them of the decisions we take today. That is the essence of sustainable development. It is the obligation of every government in every action that it takes to weigh and to consider the effect on future generations.

I love it when I see senior members of the Conservative government, including the Prime Minister, pose with young people, the future generation, during campaign ads. It would really be nice to see them actually do something for those future generations instead of just posing with them during their campaign ads. One of the favourite things is to pose with kids skating. Pretty soon there will be no outdoor skating left in southern Canada for one good and simple reason. There will not be enough winter.

Some people might not lament the fact that our temperatures are starting to rise. However, we have to realize that it will have a profound effect not only on our future, but on the future of the planet. This is why it is such a tragedy to listen to the bumbling facile answers of our Minister of the Environment as he continues to embarrass us and goes off to Bali to spout the same animismes that come out of his mouth every day here in the House of Commons.

On our side, the New Democratic Party firmly believes the government can and should play an active role in maintaining a stable and balanced economy. We should look out for the interests of average Canadians in their daily lives. Modern families require a government that understands its obligations toward future generations and it obligations toward them on issues like day care, housing and overtaxation.

We understand the average family needs a break from government, but what we also believe firmly is governments have to play a role in the modern economy. That is something the Conservatives have completely let down. That is why the forestry, the agriculture and the manufacturing sectors are in such a dire crisis right now, and the fault for that rests squarely on the shoulders of the Conservatives. They are going to be judged very severely for it in the next general election.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was not going to rise to speak on this, but toward the end of his speech the member started talking about how our government is failing young Canadians.

The Speaker, I believe, was elected at the age of 26. I was elected at the age of 24. I am frankly quite proud of the record of the Conservative government when it comes to standing up for young Canadians. We are delivering for young Canadians.

One thing young Canadians are sick and tired of, quite frankly, are politicians who spend money that they do not have on promises they cannot keep, driving the futures of young of Canadians into the ground, with high taxes due to high debt that we cannot maintain. The NDP is a political party throughout the country, federally and provincially—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Check the record.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not heckle the member when he spoke. He can offer me the same courtesy.

The federal NDP and the provincial NDP, whenever they have been in government, have driven every one of those provinces to high taxes, high debt, less opportunity. The NDP in British Columbia took British Columbia from the fastest growing have province in Canada to the worst economic record in all of North America . That is the New Democratic Party record.

Our party, this government, stands up for young Canadians. We pay down our debt so young Canadians are not burdened by the failed promises of failed politicians. Our government is being responsible for families. We are being responsible by lowering taxes.

The New Democratic Party has an unbroken record of failure on economic policy in the country in every province where it has been tried, especially in B.C. and in Ontario. Our government will not listen to a political party that has failed in every election to get elected because the Canadian people have more common sense not to elect failed socialists to ruin the economy.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can only thank my Conservative colleague for proving my point in shopworn cliches. What a pathetic attempt coming from someone who is a member of the only federal party that does not have youth wing. It scrapped it last year.

The other thing that is not true in what he has said is that there has been anything other than balanced budgets, with one exception, and I will deal with that in a second. Look at the fact that in Manitoba right now has the third consecutive majority NDP government with consistent balanced budgets from day one, an admirable record of competent, first class public administration serving the public interest. Although a new group has come in, we finished five consecutive mandates in Saskatchewan, with nothing but balanced budgets.

Those are the facts about the NDP, good competent public administration with a heart. Yes, we wear our hearts in the right place, which is on the left.

I said I would talk about the one exception. I have to agree with my colleague on one thing. There was an unfortunate exception and it was in Ontario under Bob Rae. Look where Bob Rae is now.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one part of the spectrum that the NDP has always etched out and defended is the reinvestment in human capital, people who come to our country looking to take part in the economy, aboriginal people who have fallen outside economic opportunities, people who require literacy programs, skills upgrading programs, apprenticeship programs, whether they are employer initiated or labour partnerships.

I may be wrong in my history, but I think the previous Liberal government, with the support of the NDP, had $3.5 billion in such programs that invested in people. Out of those investments were partnership programs with the provinces under labour market agreements. I did not hear the member talk about that part at all.

Would he like the opportunity to address what I think is extremely part of that productivity equation, and that is investment in people so they can become full partners in the economy, which in many sectors is threatened but there are opportunities?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased but somewhat surprised that a Liberal member of the House would afford me that opportunity. It gives me the occasion to remind people that under the member for LaSalle—Émard, who was prime minister of Canada for a very brief period, the New Democratic Party held the Liberals' feet to the fire. Instead of giving a $4.5 billion tax break to their corporate buddies, we managed to take that money and spread it out among three main categories of public spending.

One was for post-secondary education. It was a shot in the arm, well needed and well deserved, for a sector that had suffered a great deal in recent years because of a lot of inaction and lack of attention on the part of successive governments.

Another very important area that got attention with the NDP budget was public transit, which received a similar $1.5 billion. I know the member has a long and respected history as a senior manager in the field of public transit, so it is another area about which I am sure he knows.

The final $1.5 billion went to public housing.

Also, it is interesting to note that, in areas like public transit, post-secondary education or housing, we have managed to come to an agreement with all the provinces over the years.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by congratulating my hon. colleague from Outremont on his election, because we had not had the chance to do so. I think this was his first full speech in the House on a matter as important as this one.

A Liberal member just questioned him on the reinvestment in human capital. This concern is to the credit of the NDP, and the Bloc Québécois as well, because we are pretty consistent in that respect. The same can hardly be said of the Liberals and the Conservatives.

I would like to hear my hon. colleague from Outremont on the position taken yesterday on Bill C-357, providing for the establishment of an independent employment insurance account to ensure that only those paying into it—that is, employers and employees—be allowed to manage this account and that it no longer be used for other purposes. We know that $54 billion has been diverted from that account. The bill was designed to put an end to such misappropriation and ensure that the funds are managed in accordance with the account's mission, which is to pay out EI benefits.

Yesterday, both the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against that bill. I would like to hear my colleague on that.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the NDP supports this initiative. I would also like to recognize the outstanding job my friend and colleague, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, has done over the years. He has always taken the lead across Canada on these employment insurance issues. He has worked tirelessly. This is an issue he understands. In addition, he has the utmost respect for people who need employment insurance, and he completely understands what they are going through.

Yes, surpluses are currently being used for other purposes. This is unacceptable and must stop. A dedicated fund will be part of the answer.

We have to say that, as usual, the Liberals are talking out of both sides of their mouths. Yesterday, we had a stunning example of this when a Liberal member from New Brunswick stood up during question period and dealt a blow to the Conservative government with a stinging question designed to defend employment insurance recipients. That same evening, when it came time to support or reject the motion calling for real action to help people in this situation, the NDP and the Bloc were there, but the Liberals spoke in favour of the motion but voted against it. That is the truth about the Liberal Party of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, in June 2005 the Prime Minister, who at the time was the opposition leader, wrote a letter to a widow of a veteran saying that if his party were in government, it would immediately extend VIP services to all widows and veterans. The budget does not address that aspect—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am not sure a question on veterans issues is related to the bill before the House. We will have to move on to the next speaker because the time for questions and comments has expired.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Markham—Unionville.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on this bill. I am only disappointed that I did not get a chance to reply to my colleague from Outremont, but I guess we will have to save that for another day. I might mention a few words about him, however, and I think his basic problem is that he is new to the NDP. Until recently he was a Liberal and I do not think he really quite understands the party into which he has entered.

It is irrelevant when the NDP refers to the achievements of provincial New Democratic governments because those governments have to meet a payroll. I admire some of those governments for balancing their budgets over history, in Saskatchewan and elsewhere, but that has no connection to the federal NDP, which has never been a government and never will be a government, and whose basic problem is that it may have a heart, as it knows how to redistribute income, but it does not have a brain.

It has to have a heart and a brain. Redistribution of income is a good thing, and we Liberals believe in that, but we also must have a brain to create wealth, to grow income, because if we do not grow the pie we will not have much to distribute. The problem with the federal New Democrats is that while they can talk up a good show on sharing income, they have absolutely nothing to say and no credibility on growing income and creating the wealth to share.

The reason for that is that the federal New Democrats are an unreconstructed and antediluvian Labour Party. They have not followed in the footsteps of progressive leaders such as Tony Blair. Tony Blair should be a model for that party because Tony Blair escaped from old Labour, which did not know how to grow a bigger economic pie, if I can quote one of my colleagues in an earlier life. Tony Blair transformed that party.

If the member for Outremont had understood that, he would have tried to follow in the footsteps of not only Tony Blair but also his Labour colleagues in Sweden, Denmark and Norway, because they have escaped from the antediluvian old Labour past in which that party is still mired. They have moved forward, much in the manner of the Liberal Party. We are very close to Tony Blair and have learned not only how to have a heart, that is to say redistribute, but also how to have a brain, that is to say, grow wealth.

That is the difference between the Liberals and Conservatives and the NDP. Maybe the NDP has a heart, but it has no brain. The Conservatives definitely have no heart and I wonder whether they have a brain. Perhaps they do, more than the NDP, but if Canadians want a party with a brain and a heart, then they have one natural destination and that is the Liberal Party of Canada.

Now let me come more specifically to the question of the budget bill. We certainly are opposed to this, for two reasons. First of all, it is dishonest. Second, it is incompetent.

Let me deal with the dishonesty first.

Certainly there is a huge broken promise on the Atlantic accord and on promises made to the province of Saskatchewan. I will not go into detail on that. My colleagues from those parts of the country have no doubt dealt with it. However, there is a second gross dishonesty, and that has to do with personal income so-called tax cuts.

Let me explain what the Conservatives did. In the previous budget, they took the tax rate from 15% to 15.5% and called that a tax cut, even though the rate went up. Then, in the latest economic statement, which is a part of this bill before the House, they took it from 15.5% back to 15% and called it a tax cut. In that case, they were right, but this was Conservative arithmetic, and how is it possible to have two tax cuts and end up in the same place?

We are at 15% now, which is where we were under the Liberals, and the Conservatives had two tax cuts to take us back to where we were before they came into office. Obviously the first one was a tax hike, not a tax cut, and Canadians should understand that all the Conservatives have done is raise their taxes in order to bring them back down again to where they were under the Liberal government.

The Conservatives simply failed to come clean and acknowledge the truth, which all Canadians understand, that when you take the tax rate from 15% to 15.5% it is called a tax increase. It is not called a tax cut.

Let me now come to the question of incompetence. As exhibit A for incompetence, there is this interest deductibility measure that the Conservatives put into their budget. What they said was that Canadian companies would no longer be able to tax-deduct the interest on money they borrowed in order to make foreign acquisitions.

The trouble with this is that every other major country allows such deductions, so Canadian companies in this highly competitive world were forced to compete with one hand tied behind their back. This had a huge negative effect on the competitiveness of our companies and it made them much more vulnerable to foreign takeovers.

A well-known tax expert, Allan Lanthier, characterized this move as the worst tax move “to come out of Ottawa in 35 years”. It was clear that the finance minister had no idea what he was doing. As in so many cases, he was totally out of his depth.

The whole weight of Canadian industry came crashing down on him. We in the Liberal Party denounced this move and told him to remove it from the budget. In the end, he did. He retreated. He ripped it out of the budget. He ripped out this interest deductibility provision, thereby acknowledging that he was incompetent, thereby acknowledging he did not know what he was doing, and thereby acknowledging that he was out of his depth. Of course he tried to hide that, but it was there for all to see.

Then it came back in another form, not quite so damaging but equally stupid. It has come back in the form where he says that double-dipping will not be allowed. But we had seven or eight experts in front of the finance committee who were unanimous in saying that the issue is not double-dipping. The issue is something called debt dumping. Again, even though he ripped out the first version, which was a good thing, and he acknowledged that he did not know what he was doing, he came back with something even dumber, and that is the thing that is in this bill. That is the first charge of incompetence.

The second charge of incompetence, at least at the level of economics if not at the level of politics, is that he took $12 billion per year of government revenue, of fiscal space, to devote to a lower GST. That is a huge amount of money. Economists, commentators and even Conservative economists, from the OECD or the IMF, it does not matter who is asked, are unanimous that the last thing Canada needs is lower consumption taxes.

What we need is lower income taxes, which give people the ability to save those things, to invest them, to give them to their children or their parents, not just a tax cut that they get only as and when they consume. We have an aging population. We have a need for more saving, not a need for more consuming. This was an extremely costly and unfortunate move by the government.

There is a third element with which we certainly disagree. We have always been the party of broad based tax cuts. We had a $100 billion income tax cut in the 2000 budget, as some members in the chamber may recall. The thing about an income tax cut that is broadly based is that it goes to every Canadian and every Canadian can do what he or she wants with that money depending on their circumstances. People can consume it. They can save it. They can give it to their aging parents or their young children, whatever they want to do with it, as opposed to a GST cut, where they get nothing unless they consume.

The other advantage of a broad based income tax cut that goes to everybody is that it is fairer and it leaves families to decide how to spend their money, whereas this social engineering Conservative government prefers to give just narrowly targeted tax credits targeted to electoral groups that it believes might vote Conservative. So we have special tax credits for young hockey players, but we have nothing at all for young violin players.

Why is it incumbent on the government, unless it is a social engineering government, to arbitrate between hockey playing and violin playing or piano playing? Is that not best left in the hands of the families? That would certainly be our approach.

This government does not let those decisions be left to families. In their social engineering fashion, the Conservatives say that hockey players deserve a break and piano players do not. This is the edict of the government. I think that is inappropriate. It is up to the families to decide how to allocate their funds in this way. It is not up to the government.

The last point I would like to mention is a huge missed opportunity. I am referring to the Canadian dollar being in the stratosphere around par--and it has been over par--and the fact that the layoffs we have seen so far as a consequence of that high dollar, particularly in forestry and in the auto sector, are just the tip of the iceberg if the dollar stays high, which most economists believe it will.

If we look forward a year, we will see far more layoffs. The layoffs we have seen are just the beginning in manufacturing, tourism, forestry and other sectors that are exchange rate sensitive, unless something is done about it. The government had the opportunity in its economic statement, its last budget and its previous budget to do something. It has not done anything.

It is true that the government has cut the corporate tax rate. We agree with that. If the NDP members were of the Tony Blair type of new Labour instead of the antediluvian old Labour of the NDP and if they were in agreement with their Swedish and their British colleagues, they would agree too, because that is a good move. That is central to competitiveness. It is central to attracting capital and investment into this country as opposed to elsewhere, so that is good.

But the government does not seem to understand that it is not enough. The corporate tax cut only takes effect some time down the road and it does not deal with the immediate crises facing forestry, manufacturing and other industries.

Much of the forestry industry is on life support today and the government does nothing except cancel our $600 million plan, which would have invested in that industry to help workers adjust and to help modernize the industry. The Conservatives scrapped that.

The Conservatives are doing nothing for the auto sector, except that they have put not a penny into it. We put in $300 million. They put in nothing. They are foolish. This is another example of incompetence. The whole industry has dumped on the stupid feebate program. It takes a lot and is very difficult to give a subsidy to an industry and have the whole industry criticize one for it. Normally if we give industry money, it thanks us, but the whole industry is up in arms against this ill-considered government feebate, which benefits largely just one make of car, which is imported.

The Conservatives have not put any money into the car industry. They have a hugely damaging and silly feebate program and they are pursuing free trade with South Korea, notwithstanding huge non-tariff barriers. They are hurting the car industry. They are hurting the auto sector. They hurt the tourist industry by taking away the visitors' GST rebate. They are wounding industries that are already bleeding instead of making positive moves to help them.

I think this budget, this economic statement, is a total failure. One thing the Conservatives did was the accelerated capital cost allowance, but they only allowed two years. The industry committee members unanimously said it had to be five. Those in the industry said unanimously it had to be five. The government was not listening or did not understand. The government made it two years and that is totally inadequate.

To conclude, it is a dishonest budget because it breaks its promise on the Atlantic accord and its promise to Saskatchewan. It has an ill-considered and totally dumb feebate program. It has interest deductibility, which was so stupid the Conservatives had to rip it out of the budget. It is also incompetent on interest deductibility.

It is incompetent on GST cuts versus income tax cuts and on boutique versus broad based tax cuts. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, looking forward it has missed a huge opportunity for all those vulnerable industries that are exchange rate sensitive, such as forestry, manufacturing and tourism. Instead of doing something positive to help them, the government kicks them when they are down. It adds salt to their wounds when what is needed is a positive program to help jobs and to help the economy grow this year, next year and in coming years.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Markham—Unionville in his talk. Pardon me for the hesitation; I was not too sure how to describe it.

There were several things that piqued my interest. The hon. member mentioned that it would be good to allow families to allocate their funds where they wish. Is that not what this government did in its child care program? If I am not mistaken, I think the Liberals voted against that. The national day care program was the only way to go as far as the Liberals were concerned. That would certainly be one question. Maybe we misinterpreted why the Liberals voted against parents actually being able to have the choice to decide how they look after their children.

There was much discussion by the hon. member about double dipping. I will quote the hon. member for Markham—Unionville, who stated, “When the finance minister says that we should go after abuses by tax havens and double dipping, we agree. We welcome the finance minister to go after abuses like tax havens and double dipping”. Unfortunately, I got a different message today.

Does the hon. member support his leader's position that the Liberals would raise the GST if they were back in office?

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

Mr. Speaker, child care and early childhood learning is a fundamental need for Canadians, a fundamental social program which Liberals believe in and which a large majority of Canadians believe in.

I would remind the hon. member that no one is forced to use these facilities. I would remind the hon. member that we are not objecting to the transfer of cash to families. I would remind the hon. member that his government promised to create day care spaces and yet zero have been created. It has failed in that commitment.

He did not answer my fundamental point about social engineering and family choice, which is, why does the member favour one kind of activity for young Canadians, like hockey, and gives nothing at all for other kinds of activities, like music, dance and things of that nature? That is where he deprives Canadians of choice and that is where he puts that choice inappropriately into the hands of the government.

Yes, of course, I believe that government should go after abuses. As I have said many times, and perhaps more important, as seven out of seven witnesses before the finance committee said, what we should go after is not double dipping--that is a figment of the finance minister's imagination--it is something called debt dumping. The finance minister does not seem to know the difference between those two expressions. All of the experts, to a person, told us in the finance committee that the abuse is to be found in debt dumping, not in double dipping, and yet the minister goes after double dipping.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it takes a lot of nerve to come into the chamber as a Liberal, cast aspersions on the budget, claim that Liberals have all the solutions which they are willing to follow through on, but they will not vote to stop what is happening.

To an auto worker who is out of a job right now, to someone in the tourism sector who is out of a job right now, or to someone who cannot get the proper child care right now, none of that matters because the member and his party refuse to vote in the chamber.

What is really interesting about this situation is that before we even started to debate the issue, the Liberal Party ran up the white flag and did not even negotiate some changes to this budget, which historically has been done. The Liberals rolled over on their own behalf and against the issues they said they were going to support.

The Liberals finally came forward in support of an analysis of and to take a close look at the South Korea trade deal, something the member who crossed over to the Liberals is bringing forward right now, but at the same time they are not going to stand up today.

I would ask the member directly, why will you not vote? If you really believe you have the solution for the automotive industry and all the different things that you are claiming, why do you not vote now?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I just want to remind the hon. member for Windsor West to direct comments to the Chair. I of course will not be claiming anything. I will let the hon. member for Markham—Unionville answer the question.

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

Mr. Speaker, the more interesting question is not why we did not vote, but why the NDP did vote to bring down the Liberal government in 2005. As a consequence of that vote, we do not have child care. As a consequence of that vote causing the election, we do not have the Kelowna accord. The NDP members do not even have a heart. We know the NDP members have no brain. If they had a heart, they would have voted not to get rid of child care, not to go down with Kelowna, not to go down with Kyoto. Those failures are the responsibility of the NDP members because of that misguided vote they took in 2005.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member asked a question and then seemed to try to help the hon. member to answer the question, so if hon. members have a question to ask, they should let the member for Markham—Unionville answer the question, not provide him with help along the way.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as usual the Liberal member is speaking before his light is on.

I want to comment on his comment about the member for Outremont. I would point out that if one has a brain, it is only good if it is actually used when it is time to vote in this place. It does no good to have a brain if one is not going to actually stand and use it to make a decision.

What I am really curious about is that the leader of the member's party has publicly stated his intention, or at least a direction that he would like to raise the GST from 5% to 7%. In fact another member went on television and reasserted the same thing. I do not want to see any dancing around as Liberal members have done previously. I would just like a yes or no answer.

Does the member support the stated Liberal intention to raise the GST from 5% to 7%?

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

Mr. Speaker, my response is very simple. There is no such stated intention, so there is nothing with which I can agree. Our leader has never said that he would raise the GST from 5% to 7%. The premise is incorrect so there is no question to answer.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the hon. member about the raising of the GST or actually about the GST itself. He stated that most economists do not agree with that.

I wonder what his reply would be to the service industry. The Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association has told us that sector has about one million employees, that 4% of the GDP is contributed by restaurants and the detrimental effect the GST has had on their economy.

In a riding like Chatham-Kent—Essex with 110,000 people, if we do the math, it would distribute another $12 million within our riding. Does that not make an effect on our economy? Is that not a good thing? Are we not moving in the right direction by reducing taxes and giving more money especially to those people that the NDP rightfully point out are the ones in the groups who need it most?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of whether we lower taxes or not. It is a matter of which taxes we lower. We are the party that lowered personal income tax by $100 billion in the 2000 budget. Our point is not that Canadians should not pay lower taxes. Let us say there is $1 billion or $10 billion or whatever to spend. Our point is that it is far better to put those billions of dollars into the pockets of Canadians through an income tax cut and they can decide for themselves how to spend it, rather than to put that same amount of money into the pockets of Canadians through a GST cut.

The economists all agree. The economists say that personal saving is good for the country and investment. That is how we grow a bigger pie. I believe Canadians prefer it too. I believe the average Canadian would far rather see a fatter paycheque through an income tax cut than a penny or two off the price of a cup of coffee.

Let us get our debate straight. It is not about cut tax or not to cut tax. It is about if there is a certain amount of money to spend on cutting taxes, should the GST be cut or should personal income tax be cut? What I am saying is to cut the personal income tax.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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 Don Valley East, The Environment.

The hon. member for Chambly—Borduas.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before my distinguished Liberal colleague leaves the House and before I begin my speech on the implementation of part of the March 2007 budget and the economic statement of October 30, 2007, I have a few words to say to him.

We sometimes hear the Conservatives ask us what the point of the opposition is, and tell us that it is only good for criticizing things.

However, the Liberals said the same thing when they were in power. They must now realize that it takes courage to be in opposition, at least enough courage to be able to vote. Votes are sometimes very significant. For example, the budget implementation vote is important. Yet, they did not have the courage to stand up.

This clearly tells the governing party to be very careful when it comes to how it views the role played by the opposition, a decisive role in a democracy.

The Bloc Québécois is against this bill to implement part of the March budget and the October economic statement. We will therefore rise and vote against this bill, because it does not meet the five conditions or priorities put forward by the Bloc Québécois. Once again, it underscores the Conservative bias for the oil and gas economy. Indeed, for them, everything revolves around the oil and gas companies.

Even though they say that their measures apply to all manufacturers and businesses, it is clear that only oil companies will really benefit. These tax breaks will save the oil companies over $520 million, while businesses in the manufacturing and forestry sectors, which are in crisis right now, will get nothing.

Other groups are being left to fend for themselves, including seniors who are being denied the guaranteed income supplement. Once again, there will be no guaranteed income supplement retroactivity, nor will there be any help for older workers. The economic statement ignored older people. It offered them nothing even though we know that the government owes them a lot of money, especially to the poorest of them who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. The amount of money they can receive is based on how low their income is.

This bill gives Nova Scotia and Newfoundland an unfair advantage because of their agreement with the Canadian government, and it cheats Quebec out of transfers and equalization payments. The government also ignored the environment, and we know why.

Let us examine each of these concerns. I will start with employment insurance. When we talk about helping manufacturing companies and businesses in general, we are also talking about measures to help workers. The previous Liberal member said that the NDP has a heart but no brain and that they, the Liberals, have a brain. What good is a brain without a heart?

The economic statement does not have a heart. One might think one has a brain if one subscribes to a particular philosophy or doctrine, but what good is that if the philosophy or doctrine does not include compassion and concern for those we need to look after because that is our calling and our duty? We have to look after human beings, the people we represent.

We know that unemployment is one of the most serious issues before us. Yet the previous government, even though it is now the opposition, is siding with the Conservatives to keep workers and the unemployed in a deplorable economic state.

The government is continuing to misappropriate money from the employment insurance fund, which has had a surplus of more than $54 billion over the past 12 years as a result of savings made by depriving people of benefits when they lose their jobs.

Employment insurance eligibility requirements have been tightened so much that the number of eligible individuals has been minimized. Only 42% of unemployed men and women qualify for employment insurance. I inadvertently said “unemployed men and women”. This is not entirely true. When you break down the figures, you see that only 32% of women who have lost their jobs qualify for benefits. This is quite dramatic and quite scandalous for a country that says it is fighting elsewhere for women's rights when here at home, it is depriving women of some of their rights. Similarly, only 17% of young people qualify for employment insurance.

One has to wonder where the surplus comes from. The answer is simple. If all the workers who lost their jobs received the benefits they were entitled to, there would be no surplus. One rule prevents people from receiving employment insurance benefits. The legislation refers to people who received too much money the previous time or who tried to get around the rules. These people represent between 10% and 12% of unemployed workers. Consequently, 88% of unemployed workers should ordinarily receive employment insurance benefits. Yet the actual figure is only half that, which is why there is a surplus.

The Bloc Québécois has introduced a bill in each parliament. This time, we have introduced Bill C-269, which seeks to improve employment insurance eligibility requirements. For example, a person's best 12 weeks of work would be taken into account. The maximum benefit period would increase from 45 to 50 weeks. The eligibility threshold would be 360 hours, and the coverage rate would go up from 55% to 60%. All these measures would cost approximately $1.4 billion dollars at the current unemployment rate.

This amount is less than the sum that was taken, again this year, from the employment insurance fund surplus. What is happening? Why is the government not voting with us on Bill C-269? We will debate it again tomorrow in the second hour of third reading. We have asked the government to give the royal recommendation, in accordance with the Speaker's ruling. It is cabinet that must give that recommendation. The NDP has also requested it. We are still waiting for the Liberals to follow suit and for the government to respond to our request. Why? For the House of Commons to finally vote, in a fully democratic manner, on employment insurance reform. Much to our dismay, and to the dismay of the people concerned, there is no sign of this happening so far.

When the unemployed are denied their benefits, it is not just one person who is penalized. That individual's family is penalized as well. This prevents the region's economy and the province's economy from benefiting from the economic boost that comes from a person receiving employment insurance benefits.

In each of our ridings, year after year, at least $30 million is kept out of the riding's economy because people who lose their employment are denied their employment insurance benefits.

I call that an economic crime. We here in the House of Commons are accomplices in that crime. Those who do not vote are not supporting this bill.

I am again asking our Liberal friends, the official opposition in this House, to join us in calling on the Prime Minister of Canada to give the royal recommendation so that tomorrow, in the second hour of third reading, the Speaker can announce that there will be a vote and so that we can vote on this bill soon.

Not to do so would be an act of extreme cowardice toward people who have lost their employment. Not making a concerted effort to come and vote would be worse than remaining seated. It would show a lack of courage to the people who elected us.

There is another bill dealing with employment insurance. Incidentally, I salute our friends from the NDP, who have always remained steadfast with us regarding, among other things, the need for an analysis of the precarious situation of those who find themselves without employment, despite the fact that the oil economy is flourishing. We know, however, that it is on EPO, because every other sector is collapsing.

We have kept rising in this House again and again to speak up for those who have lost their jobs. For instance, we introduced Bill C-257, to establish an independent employment insurance account, thereby putting an end to the misappropriation of funds, and make sure that the account is managed by those who are paying into it, namely the employees and the employers, and that a majority of representatives of employees and employers compose the commission administering the account. Of course, these people equally representing employees and employers could be seconded by a chief actuary. The government would also be represented. Money should also be taken every year from wherever it was diverted to and put back into the account.

All that I am relaying to the House right now is not a figment of the imagination of the member for Chambly—Borduas. It stems from the work of a parliamentary committee, namely the Standing Committee on Human Resources and Social Development. The principle of an independent EI account has been unanimously accepted and recommended to the House of Commons by the members of that committee, that is to say representatives of the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois. They were unanimous.

Yesterday, this bill was voted on at second reading stage so that it could simply be referred to committee, so that the committee could complete its work. To our surprise, and I would even say our dismay, the Liberal Party voted against. We are totally bewildered and we are trying to understand. How can that be? They were on board. What made them change their minds? Is it the same thing that kept them from standing up and voting on the budget? Is it cowardice? This is quite shocking.

Last night, I spoke with representatives of the main unions, the FTQ, the CSN and the CSQ, and unemployed workers' representatives. Everyone is dumbfounded by the Liberals' behaviour. They do not understand. They are dumbfounded. They were promised that the Liberals would vote like us. This morning, during the FTQ convention attended by nearly 4,000 people, there was a unanimous vote to give Bill C-269 royal recommendation.

There is something completely illogical, and I would even say illegitimate, about how votes are held here. Indeed, it is not representative of the will of the majority of the citizens of the country and, of course of Quebec, whom we represent.

I would like to revisit another concern of ours: social housing. What does it have for social housing? Nothing.

I would remind the House that the Liberal Party stopped all subsidies for social housing, as it is called in Quebec. At the federal level, it is called affordable housing. There were two programs, one provincial and one federal. The provinces, the federal government and the municipalities all worked together to develop social housing. However, from 1992 to 2001-02, not a single cent was put into it.

Yet, the established standard to ensure sufficient social housing to house low-income people states that there must be a housing vacancy rate of at least 3%. Many towns and cities do not even have that. In my riding, out of 12 municipalities, 10 are below that, five are below 1% and in one municipality, there is a 0% vacancy rate. What happens in such a situation? Naturally, this increases the cost of housing. This also causes people with low incomes to relocate. They move to towns or cities where there are slums, since slums are the only housing they can afford.

It makes no sense for 17% of people with low incomes to have to spend 80% of their income on housing alone. They only have 20% of a meagre income to feed and clothe themselves and to live on. It is unacceptable that, in Canada, which they say has a prosperous economy, people with low incomes are put in such a position.

What should be done? We must re-establish the rule we had in the early 1980s whereby about 1% of the national budget was allocated to social housing. That is what we are asking for in order to jump-start the construction of social housing, to provide more decent housing to low income citizens.

The fourth point I would like to discuss is how we treat our seniors. It is unbelievable that last spring's budget and the recent economic statement do not contain measures to correct the monumental injustice to seniors. They are owed more than $3 billion in retroactive benefits. That is not a gift.

These individuals with very low incomes were entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. They were not informed about that. Heaven knows that individuals with a low income are, for the most part, very isolated, and not likely to be attuned to the communication networks that provide all this information. Seniors and aboriginals are some of these people. We could go sector by sector. For years, these people were deprived of the guaranteed income supplement.

What answers are we given today? They are always technical and evasive. In the past, the Liberal government played that game and nothing has changed with the present government.

A Quebec statesman said that a society is judged by how it treats its children and its seniors. I can say that the Conservative and the Liberal Parties will be judged harshly by history not only because of the horrible economic crime committed against seniors, but also because of the equally appalling injustice. These people are not asking for much; they are merely asking for their due.

I realize that my time is running out and therefore I will wrap it up. We, the Bloc Québécois, will definitely vote against this bill to implement the spring budget and the fall economic statement because this budget makes no provision for the most disadvantaged, making it unworthy of a so-called prosperous Canada.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, my questions is about Darfur, but I have people to thank first.

We need lots of support to make this House work and sometimes we forget to thank that support. We should get on the record the tremendous job that the translators do hidden in their little houses and of course the table clerks, the pages and the Speaker. These people work hard every day without the profile that we get. Without these people working hard every day the House would not run so smoothly. They all do a very professional and excellent job for us.

My question is about Darfur and the lack of action by the Conservative government. This has been called the greatest humanitarian crisis. From the moment this crisis started, Canada was in the lead, providing foreign aid and support for the African Union. Until very recently it looked like things were going well. The UN passed a motion allowing troops to go in and a peace process in Libya. A week or two ago it all started to fall apart. The peace process was not working and no one was providing troops or support.

We were astonished by the answers that we received yesterday in question period from the minister and today from the parliamentary secretary. They said that Canada was not going to add anything new to the new world effort for Darfur. The Canadian government is not going to participate in the effort.

My constituents are terribly upset about the crisis in Darfur, which as I said, is perhaps the world's greatest humanitarian crisis.

I would like to know if the member thinks there should be more attention paid to that. Does he agree that we should not get a nil answer from the minister and the parliamentary secretary, but rather we should get an answer indicating that Canada will provide more support for the people in Darfur? These people are being murdered or raped or exiled from their country.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague in taking this opportunity to underline the great work done by the all the support staff of the House of Commons. I am not sure what prompted such a comment on his part, but I think it is a good thing to do regardless. We have to show our appreciation from time to time.

With respect to Darfur, it is a source of concern, particularly in Quebec. I am not really in a position to speak for the other provinces, even though I keep informed about them and visit them occasionally, but in Quebec, where I am from, I perceive this very strong desire to get involved, but always with peace in mind, by taking part in peace operations. We have this yearning to provide relief to people dealing with war crimes and conflict situations, by playing first and foremost a peacemaking role.

Granted, one might argue that this is not always possible, that it is sometimes necessary to fight. Nowadays, operations do not always require the use of conventional weapons however. It is much to the credit of my hon. colleague that he brought forward this concern about Darfur, a concern which is shared. This is a very complex issue. The interests at stake in Darfur are not only those of that particular country. I think that foreign interests are creating much more tension and conflict than the internal conflicts.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about our manufacturing sector and to get his party's input on it.

The auto parts association has made a desperate call for assistance and funding on account of the high Canadian dollar. The dollar's rapid rise has affected the manufacturing base, not only in terms of autos but also the lumber industry and other types of manufacturing in Quebec and Ontario.

There used to be a technology partnership program to assist the auto industry and the aerospace industry. The aerospace program has been reinstated, but to date the auto industry program has not been reinstated. Our party is calling for that program to be brought back again, especially as a result of the appeal from the auto parts sector. There are thousands of jobs that are on the line today. We want to see this happen. I hope my colleague's party will support our call.

My colleague and his party have been strong advocates on the industry committee with myself and others for an industrial strategy supporting the manufacturing base in general. Would the member tell us more about his party's plans? The NDP has been calling for the five year capital cost reduction allowance that was proposed with the possible five year extension.

Will his party support the call of the auto parts manufacturers because of their current problem with the rising dollar? What other measures does he suggest to protect manufacturing jobs in Quebec, Ontario and the rest of Canada?

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in a debate like this one, that seems like a key question. We think it is a very dangerous strategy for a country to concentrate its efforts on a single industry or sector—as is currently the case with the oil sector. When the sector collapses, there is no other sector available to keep the economy running.

This means that we need to find a balance. For example, the defence and armament industry received more than $25 billion over two years. Last year, in a single week $17.5 billion was announced. As for the oil sector, I will not repeat the figures, but we are talking about $520 million in tax cuts according to the economic statement before us.

Our colleague is absolutely right: we need to find a balance. We must observe the Canadian economy as it relates to all its various components, in particular those in the manufacturing, forestry and tourism sectors, in order to strike a balance when it comes to our strategic initiatives and investments.

The manufacturing sector, as well as the automobile and aerospace sectors, need strategic financial support and financial initiatives that are very targeted when they are experiencing difficulties as they are now. We should not tell these companies that we will give them tax cuts when they are making a lot of money, as oil companies are right now. These companies do not need tax cuts. They need new money injected into a development and support strategy.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member. Mr. Lavoie from the Laurentian Bank of Canada stated that Quebec had added 70,000 jobs this year. This accounts for more than one-third of the country's total employment gain this year.

I wonder if Quebeckers would like to hear something a little more optimistic from the Bloc who do not paint a very pretty picture? He never recognizes that there are some really good things happening in Quebec.

Also, due to some of the challenges facing older workers and vulnerable communities, would the member recognize the targeted initiative for older workers that this government put in place? There is a total investment of $70 million in the targeted initiative for older workers and 11 of the projects worth $27 million have been announced in Quebec.

Our government is concerned and has shown empathy. I wonder why the member never recognizes some of the important things that this government is doing.

Would the member help the government in one other area? Through Human Resources and Social Development Canada we have sector councils. Sector councils are beneficial in helping workers in such transitions from forestry to mining. Does the member not also think these initiatives will help the residents of Quebec?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Chambly—Borduas may respond briefly.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all we are doing is trying to help them, but they will not listen to us.

There is one thing that our colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, does not want to hear. They say that 70,000 new jobs have been created, but they do not say how many jobs have been lost. What kind of jobs are left? Many of them are poorly paid.

There are two main points to consider here. People who do not have jobs have no income or very little. Many of the new jobs are so poorly paid that many of those who have to resort to food banks are actually employed.

Why is it that if they have a job and an income, they have to go to food banks at the end of the month? Because they are people with low incomes.

In Canada this year, 880,000 people a month relied on food banks, and 280,000 of those were children. That is more than the number of people living in Ottawa. There has to—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The member's time has really run out now. I gave him plenty of time to conclude his remarks, but he took too long. I apologize for having to interrupt him now.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to engage in the debate on the budget bill. Budget bills often include a lot of public policy and this budget is no exception. We have a lot of territory to cover.

Since I sit in opposition, I think my remarks will be found to be more opposition oriented, not so much critical as skeptical and demanding of more. However, I think Canadian voters expect that when they send members of Parliament in opposition, they will perform that role. I will try to be constructive as I go through my comments on the bill.

I cannot imagine that in the whole history of this country there has been a better economic backdrop for a budget. The same is arguably true for budgets under the previous Liberal government. We have a situation in Canada that has evolved over the last 10 or so years to one that is highly good looking. We have interest rates among the lowest they have been in 30 years. Unemployment is at its lowest level in just about as long a period.

I represent an area in the greater Toronto area, Scarborough, and in our Toronto area those unemployment rates are getting right down where finding replacement workers is getting close to what is called structural full employment, but that is not a complaint. I am saying that the state of the economy is such that in general across the country Canadians are faring very well.

Our gross domestic product, the measure of the strength and size of our economy has now gone over the trillion dollar mark. We are now officially a trillion dollar G-7 economy. That is big by any measure and just managing that on a day to day basis is a huge task. We realize of course that the government does not manage the whole economy. It manages a piece of it and facilitates the rest, or it should be trying to facilitate the rest.

The world marketplace is bidding up the value and price of Canadian commodities such as we have not seen for a long time. We know that from commodity to commodity there will be good years and bad years but it seems like all commodities around the world are being bid up in value and Canada has is a big land, a very big place. It has a lot of big commodities.

When I was a kid I would not have listed diamonds as one of our commodity assets but, son of a gun, I find that the explorers and prospectors have found diamonds and now we are mining diamonds in the north for the most part.

The bidding up of world commodities has placed Canada, its people and its currency in a very favourable position. However, that will not always be the case. There will be some weak years. However, with the burgeoning economies in China, South Asia and India, the buoyant, firm value of commodities will likely be around for a while. I know that Canadians, particularly Canadians in communities outside the big cities, actually gather the commodities together by mining and hunting. To those Canadians who work hard at that, it is a pleasing prospect.

The federal budget has been in balance now for almost 10 years. It has been a long time in our history since that has happened and it is a very pleasing prospect. Canadians of course are the ones who enabled that to happen. It did take a government a few years ago, a government that I was a part of, to actually bring things back in balance and it was hard work at the time.

If we listen to the debates here, we still hear criticisms from the opposite side of the House about what they call Liberal cuts to various budgets. Most of those Liberal cuts were absolutely necessary to bring our government spending in line with what our revenues were, and by 1997-98 we had actually accomplished the task.

For about 10 years we had a surplus budget and those surpluses have served us well and I hope our spending served us well. I hope it has, but that is always an issue of debate in the House.

The current account is how we measure between all the money going out of the country and all the money coming into the country. The current account has been in surplus for about seven years and that, in terms of international measurements, is a very big deal. If the current account stays in surplus on and on, our currency must, by definition, go up in value.

Our balance of trade is just the difference between what we manufacture and ship out and what we manufacture and ship in, and what goes out and comes in, in terms of services. Our balance of trade has been in surplus for many years, thanks to all the sectors of the economy that contribute to our economy, all the workers who produce goods and all the work of the people who design and ship them, the truck drivers, the trains. We ship out more than we import and that surplus goes to our current account and keeps us well off. We are a well off country by any measure.

As a result of all of those things and other things, our currency has strengthened and it has strengthened to the point where a lot of our economy is having to adjust. Some of those adjustments are painful and many of them are laid at the feet of workers, small businesses and medium size businesses across the country, and we are starting to see those adjustments now.

If people are outside the country watching, they would probably ask us what Canadians have to complain about. Needless to say, there are a few complaints out there.

Sitting in opposition, we have reviewed the budget. The budget bill is a budget implementation bill. In opposition, our job is to provide a kind of adversarial, critical role. In doing that, we also must accept that a budget implementation bill will have some good things. It cannot, for heaven's sake, all be bad. If it were all bad, we would probably see it on the front page of the newspaper every day.

Therefore, this budget implementation bill would implement a whole raft of technical changes. Most of these are technical changes but some are integral to policy changes brought about by the government.

In opposition, we like some things but we do not like other things, but in the end we need to find a balance. Normally in a budget implementation bill we would find the opposition just pro forma voting against the budget. It is something that opposition parties normally do. If there is a critical mass of things they do not like in a bill, they will just vote against it, but that is assuming that we have a majority government.

In this case, in this Parliament, we do not have a majority government so the implications of voting no just because we do not like the look of the thing would be quite significant. It would actually end up in the dissolution of Parliament if all of the opposition parties or if a majority of members were to defeat a budget bill.

There are some constraints as the opposition address the bill and I hope Canadians will recognize that. I certainly have had to do that as a member of Parliament.

What are some of the measures in the bill that I or my constituents might or might not accept. The one I know my constituents will relate to is the public transit tax credit. This current budget expands the scope of it but the tax credit already existed.

Most transit riders accept that as a good thing but there are some public policy issues surrounding it. Does this particular tax measure increase ridership on municipal transit? That might have been part of the general intention but without the full data it is not clear to me that it has increased ridership. If there is a tax break, surely it has a goal. Does it increase ridership?

The last time I read about this in my area, just one part of the country, the greater Toronto area, it did not appear to have increased ridership in the way the government thought it might, but there is data coming in from across the country and there may be data that shows this in a more positive light.

Here is another question. Does it do anything to reduce the heavy burden of the huge mass transit costs on large municipalities? The answer to that, I think, is no, it does not do anything to reduce the costs or the burden on municipalities in providing, building and maintaining mass transit.

One could argue that if the riders are given a break in taxes, then the municipalities might be able to increase the fares and, therefore, provide more revenue to the transit authority. However, that is not the plan. We do not want to start monkeying around with municipal transit fee and fare arrangements, so we will leave it alone.

When I asked those questions, many of my colleagues on this side of the House felt that, notwithstanding the pleasure it might give to a transit rider, the transit tax credit did not actually accomplish a significant public policy benefit.

A second item I want to mention is enhancing tax benefits for donations of medicine to the developing world. This measure must, by any measure, get an A+ if it works. This is to facilitate the movement of drugs out of our very rich, very well off and very well medically provided for G-7 countries to the developing world. I applaud that tax measure because it can only help. The tax expenditures, which, in accounting terms, are called tax expenditures in government, that might be involved in this tax measure, I am hopeful, will be seen by all Canadians as well spent.

A third item concerns the government wanting to streamline the process of dealing with and registering prescribed stock exchanges around the country. This brings us very close to the issue of securities regulation. The measure is so technical that I do not think it means very much to the average Canadian, but it raises in my mind the issue of the development of a national securities regulator or a regulator of securities who would manage the system nationally in partnership with the provinces.

In a way, the government may only be nibbling at a very significant policy issue. I am hopeful that the government will be able to move a bit closer to that objective of a national securities regulator. The previous government, with which I sat in the House, was not able to move the yardsticks too far ahead. There were discussions, expressions of interest and statements of principle but it is a major task to bring the provinces onside. Hopefully, one day we will get there.

The next thing I want to mention is the provision dealing with withholding the tax exemptions for cross-border interest payments. This is a good measure. We have now and will increasingly have large numbers of people in this country residing, staying or visiting on both sides of the border because that is the nature of the two countries, Canada and the U.S.A. This measure has to help. We have many other issues but we must deal with the cross-border issue. It only needs a minor tweak to assist some people and reduce the paperwork.

I will be a bit harsher on the next issue. This has to do with what the government is calling double deductions of interest expense for financing the acquisition of foreign affiliates. This was actually stated quite differently in the budget speech. I really think that the Finance Minister actually made a mistake in the budget speech, or those who helped him prepare the speech made a mistake, because when it was originally described in the budget speech, it was a decision by the government that it would ban all deductions used to purchase foreign affiliates.

This, of course, was an unwarranted, ludicrous intervention in what is a normal business tax deductibility practice when Canadian businesses do international purchases and acquisitions.

Our businesses have to be able to do that. Tax deductibility for financing is a basic routine accounting item and for some reason in the budget speech the minister seemed to have got it wrong.

In the end, in the bill, the Conservatives have refined the target thing they wanted to work on, to the double deductibility. They wanted to remove the double deductibility. That may have to be looked at from case to case, but absolutely, for sure, if a Canadian outfit is financing the acquisition of a capital property internationally, it simply has to be able to deduct the interest expense incurred in financing it. Otherwise we, as a country, will be out of business in terms of global business and international companies will not even want to be here if we have these kinds of income tax restrictions.

I think the government has repaired it, but I will let the finance committee, this House and the other house, and MPs who work on this more intensively than I do sort that one out.

Number six on my list is with respect to the income trusts. The government has measures here to deal with the taxability of income trusts.

There has been a lot said in the House and outside the House on this issue. It is pretty clear that notwithstanding the commitments made by the Prime Minister before he was Prime Minister that he would not tax these publicly traded income trusts, now the government has made the decision to do it.

The day was referred to as black Friday. It has been characterized as a breach of faith, as a broken promise, as a betrayal. This was not just a little hiccup. This had huge reverberations in financial markets. In fact, it still is. The adjustments going on are still huge and many or most of the investors, certainly not all, have real capital losses as a result of that. They will not forget.

I cannot fix this one. The Prime Minister made the commitment. The government reneged on it and that one sits for the consideration of Canadians.

The last thing I want to mention, as I get right to the end of my list, is the amount of repackaging and rebranding I see going on. The government will take $50 million or $100 million in a program, bundle it all together, and then re-announce the program with a new name. That is okay in politics. Rebranding is important. I just hope Canadians realize that a lot of the money being announced now is really just the same old program with a new brand.

I wish the new government well as it does that, but its rebranding is just as valid as my complaining that all it is, is rebranding.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we discuss Bill C-28, and as we go down through the number of things that have come forward in this bill let me remind members that in regard to the GST, we have taken it from 7% down to 5%. We have raised the basic personal exemption from $9,600 to $10,100 by 2009. We have lowered the personal income tax to 15%. We have introduced the real, true child care program of $1,200 per year. There is some indication that the Liberal Party would remove that and take it away.

We also want to make sure that we always talk about businesses because those are family businesses mainly where we reduced the tax. In our government, one of our key issues was the reduction of the GST. Earlier we listened to members from the Liberal Party talk about the GST and it was interesting as the Liberal leader said that his party would raise it back up to 7%. The Liberal leader said in June that he would raise the GST back to 7%, that he would scrap the 1% cut in the GST and use that $5 billion a year to expand the national child benefit program which is a bit of a bureaucratic institution. That is what he would take that money to do.

The member for Markham—Unionville said that “It's an option. All I can say is that it is consistent with our approach”. I wonder if the member has some comments on that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River will know that at 5:30 p.m. he will be interrupted.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy just to make a brief comment. A lot of what the hon. member said is correct. There is some political rhetoric, but the one that I react to is his suggestion that the government lowered the income tax to 15% from 15.5%. It was at 15% when the Liberals left office and the Conservatives increased it to 15.5%. Talk about rebranding, that is rebranding and taking credit for a tax cut where the increase never should have been made in the first place.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It being 5:30, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River will be interested to know that when we return to the study of Bill C-28 there will be seven minutes left for questions and comments further to his earlier presentation.

The House resumed from November 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-28, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007 and to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on October 30, 2007, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on debate today with regard to the fiscal update.

When the Liberal government came into power in 1993, we had inherited a debt of $42.5 billion. There was no question that this deficit of $42.5 billion was given to us by the previous Mulroney government. Under great fiscal management by the Liberals, we were able to eliminate the national deficit and pay down the national debt. The present government has inherited a very strong fiscal framework, all due to good Liberal management.

The one area that the Conservative government has failed on, and I am glad to see that the minister is here today, is the urban community agenda.

In 1983 the Federation of Canadian Municipalities proposed an infrastructure program to deal with decaying infrastructure in Canada. However, in 1984, the new Conservative government let it lay dormant for 10 years. I know something about this because I was president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities at one time.

There seems to be a pattern here. When we came into office, we brought in a national infrastructure program. We dealt with cities and provinces. We had a true partnership with them. We were moving the urban agenda forward, particularly the agenda dealing with infrastructure.

Regrettably, the Conservative government does not understand the urban agenda and it does not understand infrastructure. Comments have been made by ministers of the Crown, the Minister of Finance being one, suggesting that they are not in the pot hole business.

This is not about pot holes. This is about being competitive, both at home and abroad. It is about making sure that we have the right infrastructure to deal with it. I would have expected the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to have been more sensitive to this issue given his previous life. However, maybe he has forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Miramichi and I know that he is sensitive to these particular issues.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities just commissioned a study which found that there is a $123 billion infrastructure deficit. The government's response is that this is basically not its problem. It was the Liberals who eliminated the GST on goods and services for municipal governments. At the time, we inherited a 57.4% rebate that came in when Mulroney was in power. In 1989 Mulroney quietly brought in this additional charge. We were able to eliminate it and the municipality of Richmond Hill saved $1 million a year.

The Liberals also came in with a new deal. This new deal was about dealing with this order of government, and that order of government being, of course, the municipal sector.

We know that on Monday mayors from across Canada will be coming here. They are going to make it very clear to the government that it will get an F. It could receive lower than that, but on the scale only an F is allowed. The Conservative government has not addressed the issue. The real sad part is that the Conservatives do not understand the issue, and that is rather disappointing.

We know that if we want to compete in the world, we need to have the kind of infrastructure that can move goods and services. We have to be able to deal with businesses and communities and universities and post-secondary institutions in general. The funding gap is there.

The Conservative government is a failure on the environment. However, it does like to recycle old Liberal programs. It likes to recycle moneys which we had set aside over the past while. We on this side of the House will never take any lectures from the Conservative government on municipal infrastructure or on how to deal with cities and communities because we were the leaders on that and we continue to be the leaders on that.

Our party has formed a cities and communities caucus because we have great bench strength when it comes to that issue. We understand those issues. There is absolutely no question--

[An hon. member]

That's kind of late don't you think.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

They can talk all they like over there, but again it is the reality. The reality is that the president of the FCM was here last week and said that the government does not understand the issue.

In order to address an issue people have to understand what it is about. The government does not get it. I do not think it will ever get it. The government did not get it when it was in power under Mulroney and under the present government it is not understood either, which is of course a failure. That failure means that we are seeing bridges collapse. We are seeing infrastructure that generally is not keeping up.

That report which was dismissed by many members of that government is an important report. It talks about where we need to be dealing with these issues. Whether these issues be roads, sewers or whether they be dealing with waste treatment plants, these things need to be addressed, not only for the environment but for health and economic competitiveness which is extremely important. It is rather disappointing.

In this budget the government fails to invest. It seems to think that investing is not a good thing. We need to be investing in these issues. The Minister of Transport might think that this funny, but I have to say that the members of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities are rather shocked at the insensitivity of members of the government on this issue.

I certainly remember those very dark days under the Conservatives when we could not get a meeting with the minister. The prime minister would never attend the FCM. Under the Liberals of course we had all of that. Now, of course, it is fashionable for government ministers to come, but again they are short on delivery. They are long on talk, but they do not deliver. Of course that is very unfortunate because again we are not addressing the issues.

I do not hear the government talking about the innovation agenda. I do not hear it talking about the productivity agenda. These are important initiatives. On this side of the House, we support tax cuts. We support the issues dealing with paying down the debt. We support those kinds of issues. At the same time we believe in investment, whether that is in health or in infrastructure there needs to be a balance. Unfortunately, the government does not understand balance. I think that is certainly something that Canadians want and Canadians expect from the government.

On the transit issue the government recycles Liberal initiatives. The GTA transit is a good example where again the previous Liberal government put money forth. The Conservative government cancels it and then it recycles. I do not know how many times the same program can be repackaged and then resold as the same thing, but apparently the government likes to do that.

We know what the government's shameful record is on the environment. We were going to work with the province of Ontario in closing down some coal-fired generating plants. The Conservatives came to power and eliminated that. Now the government is trying to get back and trying to recycle that initiative. That was another Liberal initiative.

The fact is that at the end of the day we on this side of the House understand these issues. It is unfortunate that on the other side the Conservatives have failed to listen and to respond effectively to the mayors and councillors from across this country on this whole range of issues.

Our cities and our communities are critical if in fact we are going to be able to take leadership on the world stage. We need to make sure that we are doing that. It is unfortunate.

At the same time, this budget also fails to address some other fundamental issues. I suggest that when it comes to partnership it is not my way or the highway. We see that in the provinces. The government promised peace in our time with the provinces. We had two angry provinces going in and of course we have had about four or five that are still very unhappy with the government. Again, it is about partners. It is about listening. We have not had a first ministers conference.

The government is now suggesting that it will have a first ministers conference in January, 22 or 23 months after assuming office. Again, this is rather shameful. The fact is that the government needs to talk with its provincial counterparts. The government needs to talk with the FCM. It needs to be able to say what it can do in terms of having effective leadership in this country.

Unfortunately, the mini-budget fails cities. It fails innovation. It fails the productivity agenda. It does not deal with some of the core issues and core values that Canadians have when it comes to these issues.

That is why on this side of the House we are very disappointed and unable to endorse what clearly was a very lacklustre performance by the Government of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was truly amused by this speech. It is a good way to start a Friday morning to have, shall we say, a jokester on the hustings here.

I do not know, but these Liberals keep talking about how they inherited a $35 billion debt. First of all, it was not a debt. It was a deficit. Every year the government was borrowing more money than it was taking in. It was spending and borrowing money and putting us further and further into debt.

I remember that in 1993 when we were campaigning I had a computer clock set up at some of the trade fairs. It showed how the debt was growing and how we were going to attack the debt.

It is true that the Conservative government under Mulroney for those nine years made only one error, that is, it did not sufficiently address the issue of the debt it had inherited from the Liberals. That debt came totally from the years of rampant spending and overspending by the Liberal government.

I did the math at the time and was able to prove not only to others but also to myself that this was correct. The debt had simply grown, with compound interest, to where it was so huge that it was growing at the rate of $1,000 per second. It was totally untenable for us to put that kind of debt load onto our young people and our next generation.

We fought against that. I am very proud to be able to say that we were part of changing the culture in this place so that we stopped that interminable borrowing. The member says the Liberals did it. Yes, that is true, in that the Liberal government finally succumbed to the pressure and to the reality that they could not sustain that kind of borrowing, but please, let us remember that the debt was a Liberal debt from 1970 or 1972 onward until it had grown into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in 1993 when the Liberal Party came in, 33¢ of every dollar was borrowed money, from the Conservative-Mulroney group. Therefore, it was because of strong fiscal management on our side that we were able to eliminate the deficit and pay down the debt.

No other government in the history of this country has ever inherited such a good fiscal performance as the current government has, because of the work we did. We were determined to work with Canadians, and Canadians understood that we could not continue to borrow money and live beyond our means. By eliminating the deficit by 1996-97, we were able to invest savings. When we pay down the debt, which obviously is still too high, we save about $3 billion-plus a year in interest alone. That again is due to the work of the previous Liberal government.

I commend my friend on the other side for recognizing the work that was done by previous Liberal governments. I would suggest to him, however, that the present government needs to invest in our cities and communities, because if the government does not do that we will continue to see reports like the one on the $123 billion situation. It is important. It is vital.

Again, I am very concerned. I do not want this way in which the members on the other side have been spending money in terms of the GST and all of those things, which costs the treasury $5 billion to $6 billion a year alone. We do not want to go back into a deficit. What if the economy slows down and we go into a deficit? Deficits are very easy to get into and extremely difficult to get out of. We do not want to see that again. We ask for some prudence on that side.

In terms of the government's little GST announcement, unless one is buying a yacht or some expensive vehicle I suggest that there would not be a lot of money saved. It costs the treasury $5 billion to $6 billion per year in order to take 1% off the GST.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly listened with interest when the former president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities was able to bring to the floor this morning some of the concerns that the federation and municipal governments have with this federal government of ours today.

Just over a week ago, the federation had its annual meeting here in Ottawa. I do not think I have ever experienced a meeting with more frustrated people in regard to how they came here to Ottawa to talk about the future needs of their organizations across this country and the response they got from talking with various members of the federal government.

In fact, when we look at their overall concerns in terms of infrastructure, infrastructure today has been put under the Minister of Transport, and I know he has a vital interest in this, but I am not sure he has the backing or the support of his colleagues in the cabinet to make sure that we have a viable and workable infrastructure program, so that not only the large cities but our smaller communities can benefit from the revenues we have here in the federal treasury.

With budgets, visions, directions and responsibilities, and with an attempt to look at the economy so that our people in the future can be prosperous, so that our country can benefit from the wealth of our nation, we have to assess what this present government is doing for our Canadian people.

We have to think about the many students who are attending our universities and who look for some source of relief in terms of the student loans they are accumulating from their years of study.

We have to look at research and development in this country in terms of what attitudes and what directions our government is taking.

We have to think in terms of productivity and how our government is encouraging our various companies in this country to invest in research, to look at forms of development and, above all, to see that we have a productive society from which all Canadians can benefit.

Members may say that our unemployment in this country is at one of its lowest levels. In fact, we are very happy to see that we are almost approaching the concept of a 5% unemployment rate, but we have to look at the types of jobs that we are creating in this country and at whether or not our people can get adequate incomes to support their families.

Too often in this country, we find that workers need to have two jobs, or that they need to have at least two family incomes and maybe three jobs to support a family. With that, we have to look at the transfer of jobs from one sector of the economy to another.

I speak in terms of our agricultural community. While some sectors are prospering, this past week we have had the pork producers and the beef producers here in our city looking for support. They are looking for help in terms of what those sectors are encountering.

We can think in terms of our forestry sector and what is happening there. The province of Quebec recently made some statements on that. We have certainly a lot of people with long term unemployment in our pulp and paper and long lumber industries. Only this morning, while looking in the paper, I noticed that a new company, AbitibiBowater, is closing a number of mills, and in fact one mill just across the way here in Gatineau, and another in my home province, in Dalhousie, New Brunswick.

This is not an easy fact to consider. Many of those people were earning some of the highest wages in this country. With this, the changes that are happening in our forest sector certainly will need to be addressed by the budgets and by the economic icons of the present government.

It is rather disappointing that when I look at the front bench I see a lot of former ministers from the Harris government. With that, I just wonder what happens in that big room upstairs when those people meet and as a cabinet attempt to look at our country and try to see what they can do to improve it and to make our Canadian society more productive.

Mr. Speaker, I know, certainly, that you are a resident of Ontario. You have experienced some of the frustrations of the previous government here in this province and I certainly hope that the decisions being made do not reflect the history of what happened in your own province.

The oil industry and the research and work being done in terms of exploring that oil sector in the west certainly is a very vital part of the Canadian economy. I am happy to say that in terms of even my own province we are seeing the results in the manufacturing sector back home in how it can compete and participate in Alberta and the great activity that is happening in that province.

However, we also have to consider other provinces and other sectors. Hopefully, with the surplus we have today, we can address some of the issues that are affecting people in other sectors.

The hon. member who spoke previously spoke at length in terms of 1993-94 and the difficulties we encountered as a government in the 13 years in which the Liberals governed this country. I think everyone can recognize the tremendous response that the Canadian people offered in terms of the sacrifices they made so that Canada today is the prosperous society that we enjoy.

It was not easy to look at the amount of debt, the annual deficit and the problems related to it. I know that all Canadians participated with our previous government in seeing that we reached a point where we had surpluses and annual balanced budgets and where Canadians could be proud of the fact that they were not accumulating more debt each year. It is interesting to note in terms of what has happened that we are approaching today the 25% ratio of debt to GDP which was the goal of our previous ministers of finance.

So today I express concerns in terms of what is happening with our surpluses. The previous members talked about how the HST or GST affects the future of our country. It is rather disappointing that we spend so much time trying to look at a 1% saving, which, for the average Canadian, saves a very small amount of money. In fact, the average worker probably would save only $100 or more per year, but somebody with a lot of wealth would save a great deal more in taxes.

We must salute the fact that personal income taxes have been at an all-time high, that corporations have been contributing to our revenues, and that overall the present government inherited a very sound and very stable fiscal arrangement from the previous Liberal government.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the comments of the member for Miramichi, I was quite surprised by the claims made by the member and the previous speaker with regard to a lack of support for municipalities. In the previous government, the support for municipalities was lacklustre at best.

In contrast, we now have a government that has pledged some $33 billion in support for municipalities and for small communities right across the country. Not only does that include an extension of the gas tax, which, by the way, the previous government back-end loaded so that under its previous commitments up to 60% of its commitment in gas tax has yet to be realized, but we have continued it for an extra four years, well out to 2014. I think in a lot of cases the municipalities forget to consider that.

This means billions of dollars. The two programs combined, the full GST refund commitment and now the gas tax commitment to municipalities, total some $18 billion, which is fully three times what the previous government committed in any case to municipalities.

The member's words ring hollow. I would ask the member to consider them and to respond in some way as to how he could make such a claim in light of what he now sees in this commitment by the government.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Simcoe North for bringing this to our attention. The federation believes very strongly that there is a situation of smoke and mirrors with the $33 billion.

As I said in my speech, a government has to plan for the future. My disappointment with the present Conservative government is the fact that not only is it failing to prepare for the future, but it is trying to destroy some of the past programs, which were so effective.

A child care program disappeared. We see little of an excellent program that attempted to help our university students. When the Conservatives talk about the money they are spending, or plan to spend, it is the idea, the vision for which we are looking. It is a vision of what we can offer to our municipalities in an attempt to improve their infrastructure. It is a vision to give them some sense that something is being done and that we are not looking to the past.

Further, I have to be concerned about the fact that we have had a lot of announcements, but only few programs are on the table. Many of our municipalities have said that the program is not ready yet, the announcement has been made but there is no money yet. They want to know we get things going.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite taken with all of the discussion about good planning. I saw an example of that good planning in the city in which I live, London. About three weeks ago, the street literally caved in, and the city of London has been desperately trying to address the situation that this huge sinkhole has created downtown, in the busiest part of the city.

Consequently, merchants and people who work and shop downtown are tremendously disadvantaged. Since it is during the Christmas period, this is creating a certain level of shock.

I have no faith in the planning, about which we keep hearing. The problems involving infrastructure just did not happen. The fact that the current government is not interested in helping municipalities does not change the fact that the previous Liberal government had no interest.

My question is about planning. It seems to me that in the last decade or so we have had a lot of news about Liberal surpluses and Conservative surpluses. Why could both governments not anticipate needs well enough to understand that these surpluses would be available? What on earth is wrong with their ability to calculate and tabulate the money coming in?

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the great problems. In fact, the present government, when it was in opposition, always criticized the Liberal minister of finance, saying he was somehow jigging the books, that he could not really analyze the state of the economy well enough to have a fairly balanced budget. The same party that criticized us has a more serious problem, if it is a problem, today.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-28, in which I take a great interest. First of all, I should point out that this bill introduced by the Conservative government was drafted for purely partisan reasons.

By drafting a single bill to implement the provisions of the March 2007 federal budget, the provisions of the October 2007 economic statement and the side deal with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia on equalization, the government has introduced legislation that may be designed to provoke an early federal election.

The Conservatives could simply have introduced a separate bill for each part of Bill C-28.

But no. It is important to remind this House that even though the Bloc Québécois voted for the March 2007 federal budget, we have always opposed side deals on equalization.

Now, Nova Scotia is getting new benefits under an accord that the Bloc Québécois has always denounced. We also opposed the economic statement because it did not address the Bloc Québécois' five priorities.

For example, the measures in the economic statement do not meet the urgent needs in the manufacturing and forestry sectors and do not include an older worker assistance program, even though the Conservative government could afford one, given the $11.6 billion surplus it announced in the economic statement.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois, as a responsible party that defends Quebec's interests, will vote against this bill.

As for the economic statement, this government has demonstrated that it is completely indifferent to the problems facing workers in the manufacturing and forestry sectors and the communities that depend on those sectors.

The Conservatives have demonstrated once again their total disdain for the lot of these thousands of workers who have been so greatly affected. This attitude appears all the more disdainful when we realize that the federal government has huge financial means with which to provide them with assistance.

The Conservative government had the means to help the manufacturing sector by providing loans for new production equipment and for massive investments in innovation.

It could have helped older workers as well. We estimate that it would cost $60 million to set up an income support program for older workers, something that we have been demanding for a very long time and that Quebec has also been calling for since the POWA was terminated.

Despite its vast surpluses, the government could not even come up with a hundred dollars a month to increase the guaranteed income supplement for seniors and ensure that the poorest of them have enough income to keep them above the poverty line.

There is nothing here for our manufacturing and forestry sectors, nothing for older workers who lose their jobs, and nothing to help seniors. Yet the Conservatives did not hesitate to cut taxes. What ridiculous propaganda. Who will benefit from these tax cuts? Rich oil companies in western Canada. The Conservative Party's only goal is to help the oil industry and, of course, scuttle the Kyoto accord.

These tax cuts will not do forestry companies and manufacturers one bit of good because these businesses are in crisis and are not making a profit.

All told, this government has presented measures that are completely out of touch with Quebec's priorities but that are great for their friends, the rich oil companies.

Once again, this proves that Quebec ministers in the current federal government have been sidelined. They have no real power, they cannot defend Quebec's interests, and they are just there to promote Alberta's oil industry.

The Conservative government's shameful indifference to the problems facing the manufacturing sector and the powerlessness of Conservative government members from Quebec are jeopardizing key economic sectors in Quebec.

Take job losses in Quebec's manufacturing sector: 135,000 manufacturing jobs—one in five—have been lost in Quebec since December 31, 2002, and 65,000 of those since the Conservative Party came to power. Nearly half of the 275,000 jobs lost in Canada during that period were lost in Quebec. The Conservative Party says that it is acting in the best interest of all Canadians, but it is certainly not acting in the best interest of Quebeckers.

Unfortunately, we have not seen the end of this yet. Yesterday, AbitibiBowater announced the permanent closure of several locations, including the Belgo mill in Shawinigan. Between now and March 2008, over 500 jobs will be lost. This is an economic disaster for Mauricie because closing this mill means losing $30 million in salaries and $60 million in economic spinoffs for the Shawinigan region. This is an economic disaster.

What is the government waiting for?

One thousand Quebeckers who work for AbitibiBowater will lose their jobs. This is a tragedy for these workers and their families, and it is dreadful news to be receiving just before Christmas.

The Conservative government needs to take a long hard look at how it has managed the forestry and manufacturing crisis. Everyone has been begging for help for years now, but the government just ignores those pleas, or promises measures that, for now, do not amount to anything.

Forestry workers have to know that this government is refusing to help them. That is unacceptable. The government has to help these workers who are going through the worst crisis in their history, a crisis that is made worse by the government's mismanagement.

In my riding of Berthier—Maskinongé, which I have the honour of representing, the furniture sector is quite important. In Berthier—Maskinongé, we have a number of innovative and dynamic companies and skilled and creative workers who, in the past, like everywhere else in Quebec, have shown that they can face the new challenges of international competition.

Now, in light of this new trade reality we are experiencing, this industry needs the government's support to help it adapt.

Let us not forget that this furniture industry has seen a 22% decrease in its labour force. It is currently generating roughly 24,000 jobs, while in 2000 it generated roughly 30,500. Employment is decreasing in the furniture industry and the federal government, with its huge surplus, is not doing anything about it.

In December 2006, I tabled a notice of motion calling on the federal government to implement an aid package to support the furniture industry as it adjusts to the rising Canadian dollar. I also asked for support to help the industry cope with fierce competition from emerging countries. Unfortunately, the federal government chose not to present any aid package or research support program to help this industry adapt.

As I have indicated, the Conservative government had the means to help the manufacturing sector by providing loans for new production equipment and for massive investments in innovation.

What more can I say? The federal government is only working on defending the oil industry and abolishing any form of intervention to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. It is only working for western Canada.

It presented an economic statement that is out of touch and does not meet our needs. In this statement, the government chose to help western Canadian oil companies and left the manufacturing sector to fend for itself at a time when it is experiencing the worst situation in years.

The Bloc Québécois cannot accept that the government is standing idly by as Quebec's manufacturing and forestry sectors crumble and fall.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc had a lot to say.

We as parliamentarians and Canadians in general would like some understanding of the framework of the fiscal situation of the Government of Canada.

In Bill C-2, the accountability act, there was the commitment to have what I call truth in advertising. It was in the bill but it has not been brought into force to have a budgetary officer of Parliament to tell Canadians and parliamentarians what the surplus will be.

When the Conservatives were in opposition, the then leader of the official opposition who is now the Prime Minister was very clear that he wanted to have an understanding of what the surpluses would be so we could have a debate in this place and Canadians could have a debate in the country as to where the money should be spent.

Sadly, the government is doing what the previous government was doing, which is to treat the nice big fat surplus as if it were the government's, when in fact we know it is Canadians' surplus. The Conservatives just spirit money over to the debt and bring forth a fiscal update which we cannot debate to the extent that we debate a budget. We cannot invest the surplus in our communities to deal with the crumbling infrastructure, housing, et cetera.

I would like the hon. member's take on why the government has not brought into force the budgetary officer of Parliament. Why does he think the government is hypocritical on the issue of debating the surplus and not having a real debate in this country about the country's finances?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question.

At the beginning of the year, the government forecast a $3 to $5 billion surplus. According to the Bloc's estimates, the surplus will be $16 billion, at a time when our companies are shutting down and the forestry sector is in serious trouble. But the government is doing nothing.

Let me say this. We are a sovereignist movement. We want a sovereign Quebec. If we were independent and had access to all the taxes paid by Quebec workers, we could better support our manufacturing and forestry industries as well as the poor. Furthermore, we could develop social housing.

But here in Ottawa, governments seem to get bogged down, Liberals and Conservatives alike. They are doing nothing to help older workers. We are asking for some of the money to be returned to the unemployed. This week, changes to the employment insurance fund were voted down. A total of $55 billion was taken out of the pockets of workers through the excessive premiums charged to employers and employees. Both of these governments have kept helping themselves to workers' money and blocking improvements to the employment insurance program.

These are all examples of what makes it difficult for Quebec to be part of this big family. My colleague had every reason to mention the $16 billion surplus, when in Quebec, we have problems providing health and education services for our population. Here, they have a $16 billion surplus, while our companies are shutting down and cannot get help. That is my answer to his question.

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this government has missed several opportunities to support the manufacturing and forestry sectors, especially considering the strength of our dollar. Everyone except the government understands that we have already lost so many jobs and many more will be lost in the future. This is one subject on which the Bloc Québécois and my party agree.

My question for the hon. member is as follows. What does he think the government should do to support the manufacturing sector?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the rising Canadian dollar and competition from Asia is having an impact on our manufacturing industry. Next week, we will debate Bill C-411. I therefore invite the Liberals to vote in favour of this bill, so it may reach second reading in the House of Commons.

Bill C-411 would establish new criteria to better protect our businesses from competition from Asia. It defines five criteria that would allow customs officers to better protect Canadian and Quebec businesses from Asian competition. I would be surprised to see the Conservative government vote in favour of this bill, because it prefers completely open markets and it has no concerns. It wants a wide open market.

We find it surprising that supply management is still around under this government. It is not in this government's philosophy. It wants free trade for free trade.

The Standing Committee on International Trade has no statistics that would tell it, for example, if it would be advantageous for Quebec businesses to do business under a free trade agreement between Canada and Korea. What are the advantages of such an agreement for the Government of Quebec and the rest of Canada? This is the case in all sectors. More in-depth studies really need to be conducted.

Once again, I invite Liberal members to vote in favour of Bill C-411, which will protect—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé, but his time has run out.

We are now at the period for 10-minute speeches followed by five minutes of questions and comments for everyone.

The hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the budget bill. Pardon me if I smile a bit, Mr. Speaker, because this is a joke. That is all I can say. The bill itself is a joke. When we look at the budget that was tabled it is like everything that the government does. It is a great marketing strategy, fabulous retail. When we look at the window dressing, it is beautiful. It will sell anything. But when we look for the substantive part, it is not there.

Let us consider some of the words in the budget. Let us look at some of the phrases that were used. First and foremost we have to note regarding this budget, people have said that the current finance minister has been the highest spending finance minister in the history of this country.

The Conservative government inherited from the former Liberal government a strong economy, a strong balanced budget over nine years, huge investments that were made in innovation, in learning, in helping to move forward into a 21st century economy. None of that was followed through on. A lot of money was spent on little baubles that look pretty in the window, but which really have no long term impact, no vision and absolutely no ability to create a future for Canadians. In the 21st century, productivity, competitiveness and the ability to develop human capital are the key things we should be thinking about if we are to hold our heads above water.

Given that we are such a small country with only 32 million people, we have to be smart. We have to be the best and the brightest in terms of our workforce. We have to create a country which is going to be innovative, creative and technologically progressive. There are certain things we need to focus on because we cannot be everything to everyone. None of that was taken into consideration in this budget.

Instead we heard marketing slogans. The budget talked about an infrastructure advantage. That is very interesting because there was a reiteration of many Liberal programs, for instance, the gas tax rebate that went to cities for infrastructure. There was in fact a delay of the Pacific gateway which was a huge infrastructure advantage for Canada, for British Columbia and the west.

We know that if we are to be competitive we must diversify trade. Right now most of our eggs are in one basket, and that is the United States. Eighty per cent of our trade is done with that nation. Anyone, including my mother, and she is not an economist, could tell us because it is just common sense that we do not put all our eggs in one basket, that in a global economy we diversify.

Canada has an enormous advantage. We could go to Asia. We have the people. Multiculturalism has given us a whole generation of people who speak the language, who understand the culture and who understand the marketplace of most of Asia. We could have a distinct advantage there. Was anything done to win the race to get there first? No. In fact the gateway has been delayed by five years. As I said once before, by the time we get there, there will only be crumbs left to pick up off the floor. Canada is a trading nation, but absolutely nothing was done to create an advantage for us in terms of trade.

The Conservatives talked about modernizing the health care system. This was another wonderful little slogan that came about in the budget, modernizing the health care system. The biggest problems with our health care system right now are one, infrastructure, and two, wait times. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to know that one of the key factors in bringing down wait times is increasing the human resource potential of health care professionals. We are short of physicians. We are short of nurses. We are short of technologists and technicians in health care. We now know that there are almost three million Canadians who cannot find a family physician. There was not a single word in this budget about health human resources.

The Liberal government had already spent the first year building a policy to help create a strong health human resource pool. That has disappeared. There is no knowledge about where it went and there is certainly no word about it.

The language, the pretty thing in the window, says that the government is talking about modernizing the health care system. What is it modernizing it with? There is nothing substantive to do that, but still they are nice words.

Then we heard talk about a cleaner, healthier environment. That is wonderful. The first thing the government did was to renege on Kyoto. To show how much it cares about a healthier, cleaner environment, the government went to the CHOGM meeting in Uganda and refused to put its signature on a plan to deal with greenhouse gas emissions and to clean up the environment.

The Conservatives argued that they did not sign on to the plan because China was not involved in it. China is not a member of the Commonwealth. That is like saying we will not do anything in our own backyard to make a difference because the rest of the world has done nothing. It is like the cockeyed plan, which they signed with the United States. Now Congress has to look at that plan again to decide if there is a better plan to deal with the environment. Here we go again. The Conservative speak great words, nice words.

Now we know that no one else will go to the next environmental conference. Not a single member of the opposition will go because we are persona non grata with the Conservative government. Parliamentary democracy is taking a beating with the government. As opposition members, we never get to go. I do not care which party goes, but the opposition is an important part of parliamentary democracy. We should be there to ensure the government represents the best interests of Canadians. I guess if we are not there, then we cannot complain. It is kind of late for us to say anything now as it is after the fact: A cleaner, healthier environment, indeed.

Then we heard talk about entrepreneurial advantage. That was another wonderful statement in the budget. Do members know what gives us an entrepreneurial advantage? Investing in human capital will give us that. Anybody who has studied the economics of a post-industrial era will tell us that the most important of the three capitals that are spent on economic development is human capital. We have to educate people so Canadians can be the best and the brightest in the world.

We cannot compete with China in making cheaper T-shirts, but we can talk about how Canadian citizens can be the best and the brightest. Ireland did it. With only four million people, it is one of the most productive and competitive member states in the world and it became so by investing in people and in learning.

Instead, the Conservative government has cut adult literacy. Instead we find out that the fifty-fifty plan the federal Liberals had to help young people to get a post-secondary education is gone. The $3.5 billion skills and training agreement that the federal Liberal government made with the provinces disappeared. Instead, with all that money gone, $800 million has been invested in what?

How did we miss the boat on getting the best and the brightest, on giving every Canadian youngster a chance to go to school early? We have no child care, no early childhood development. That was also felt to be unnecessary. Getting our young people to be the best and the brightest, starting at their earliest years, has disappeared. Getting into post-secondary education has disappeared. Skills and training is gone. There is no word about adult retraining for people who have lost their jobs in the manufacturing sector. Yet we hear this wonderful term entrepreneurial advantage.

When I look at this budget, I have to smile. I have to stop myself from laughing out loud. There is absolutely nothing in the budget that would give Canada an advantage on the world stage. There is nothing to help Canada hold its head above water. There is nothing to help Canada become competitive and productive.

When the government answers questions in the House about jobs, it tells us there are all kinds of jobs out there. There are jobs and then there are jobs. With a $10 an hour “Mac” job, people cannot bring up a family. We are talking about real jobs, sustainable jobs. We are talking about the ability to invest in Canada and in Canadians. We are talking about moving toward a goal for a future for our country. We are talking about being the most competitive in the world on the global stage. There is nothing about that in the budget.

As I said before, I was pleased to stand and speak to the budget bill, but I can find very little in it that is worth mentioning or worth applauding or that has a vision for our country.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

There will be five minutes for questions and comments on the hon. member's speech when debate resumes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-28, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007 and to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on October 30, 2007, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill, but it is sad that we are having to debate this bill. I do not think the bill should have been brought forward in the manner it was. I say that because one of the things that we on our side of the House have been very clear on is that Canadians need to have a fulsome debate as to how the surplus of the nation is spent.

I want to begin my comments on that note because of something I call truth in advertising. When the government was in opposition, it was very clear in its position as to how we should be dealing with the finances of the nation. In fact, I recall in 2005 the then leader of the opposition party, now Prime Minister, went as far as saying to have these kinds of surpluses was akin to fiscal mismanagement. He was saying that because of what had been happening with the previous Liberal government's pattern of underestimating the surpluses.

Of course, we agreed with him on that note, the fact that there should be more accuracy and truth in advertising in understanding exactly how much money is projected to be in the surplus. We know over the years the private sector forecasters, the not for profit forecasters, were all accurate in their projections of what the federal surplus would be and the government would always underestimate it.

The surpluses would come forward and the government would say, “oh, look what we have here, a terrific surplus” which was no news to those who had been paying attention and keeping an eye on these things, but apparently it was to the then government.

What happened of course is that the surplus would be spirited away to pay down the debt, which is noble and might be the best thing to do, but in the way it was done there was no debate. There was absolutely no indication to Canadians that the surplus was something that we could actually talk about, that we should decide where the money should be spent and invested in our communities.

It is rather sad now that the Conservatives are in power they have decided to replicate the same behaviour as the previous government when it comes to surpluses. Further to that, which is more egregious, in Bill C-2, the accountability act, there was a provision for a budgetary officer of Parliament. It is in the act. Anyone can go and look at it. That bill was passed.

What has not been acted on, brought into force, is that budgetary officer of Parliament along with the idea that we can actually have people who are appointed to agencies, boards and commissions to have to be appointed according to merit. Those two key foundations that the NDP supported, and in the case of the public appointments commission amended, have not brought into force.

We now have a government that in opposition said that we need to debate the surplus, we need to have accurate forecasting, and we need to make sure that Canadians are aware of the finances of the nation.

However, not only do the Conservatives continue the past poor practice of the previous government of not being upfront about the surpluses, but they do not bring into force and appoint a budgetary officer of Parliament whose job it would be to give unblemished, objective forecasting, so that all members of Parliament, and by extension Canadians, will understand the fiscal framework of this nation.

Add onto that this method of using a fiscal update to bring forward a very substantial change in the fiscal framework. We just have to look at what is being proposed in this: major tax giveaways to corporations and effects that will continue on for many years. This is not a fiscal update.

A colleague said the Conservatives make it sound like it was a mini-bar in a hotel and they were just doing little fiscal updates in those little bottles. He said in his own way that this was more like a 40 pounder. This is a big giveaway. This is a substantial tax giveaway to corporations with no debate that is substantive. We are debating this now, but normally this would come forward in a budget. Instead, we have it as a “fiscal update”.

I just want to begin my comments on process, on accountability and on what the government said it would do in opposition vis-à-vis surpluses as well as what it said it would do around the accountability act with a budgetary officer of Parliament to provide objective, unblemished fiscal updates.

It is important that parliamentarians and Canadians in general know exactly how much the surpluses will be so we can have a fulsome debate. The money should not automatically go toward paying off the debt, holus bolus. There should not be these fiscal updates without Parliament being provided the information ahead of time.

That said, the fiscal update bill is before us. Essentially it says that the government's role is to shrink the pie on what we invest within our respective communities.

When we look at the amount of tax giveaways to corporations, there will be less in the federal government's revenue stream, at a time when there is up to $123 billion in infrastructure debt across this land, when we have needs in terms of housing, affordable education, affordable drugs. There is a widening prosperity gap, and the Conservative government has actually shrunk the pie so that in future, there is less ability for the federal government to make a difference in the everyday lives of Canadians.

The $123 billion infrastructure deficit that exists was recently brought to the attention of Canadians by an excellent study that was done by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I might add that the government used that group as a validator in previous budgets, but now seems to want to distance itself from that group when the news the FCM provides is not the news the government wants to hear.

The study outlines the infrastructure deficit across the land. People may ask why we should care about that in that we are at the federal level and it is a municipal concern. The Conservative government would tell the municipalities to quit whining, and in fact we have heard the government say that, to make do with what they have and to raise property taxes.

The government has denied the reality of our communities. The FCM study showed that our bridges, sewers, water systems, et cetera are falling apart and need updating. We have heard the horror stories throughout the land of infrastructure falling apart. It is a real cost. It is a real shame that the government did not see the need for investing in our communities.

I implore the government to take a look at the deficit across this land among our partners at the municipal level. The Conservatives should listen to them. The municipalities know what is going on in our communities. The fact that they will be provided with no relief in this fiscal update is not only a shame, it is an abhorrent action by the government. It shows the lack of responsibility of the Conservatives in terms of the infrastructure of this nation.

I implore other parties to join with us and oppose the bill. I ask them not to abstain on the vote. We saw that occur before. It is not a credible position by any member of Parliament to abstain on this issue. It is too important for Canadians. It is too important for the infrastructure of our cities and municipalities.

I look forward to any comments or questions from my colleagues on a debate that is very serious, very important and incredibly sad in terms of the actions of the government vis-à-vis the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is a staunch defender of his constituency, his city, his province and his country.

He is absolutely correct when he talks about the municipal deficit in terms of infrastructure for water, sewer, transit and so on. The infrastructure in the cities and rural parts of Canada are crumbling.

My question is with respect to the human deficit.

The government is giving over $7 billion to the most profitable corporations in the country, some of which are foreign owned, all of which are making very good money under the current tax regime, but it cannot help children with autism. The government tells widows of veterans that they have to wait. It tells atomic veterans that it might get around to them. It tells agent orange victims that only some will receive compensation and the rest will not.

What type of government would ignore the plight of so many who are being left behind to enhance the profits of those that are already doing very well in this country?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Nova Scotia for the hard work he has done for children with autism and for veterans. Before I was elected to Parliament, I was a teacher and I was aware of the work my colleague did in advocating for the rights of autistic children who, sadly, are being ignored by the Conservative government.

My colleague asked what kind of government would decide it is more important to give money to corporations instead of investing in vulnerable people, children and veterans. I would respectfully suggest that it is a government that seems to be out of touch with communities across this land. It is a government that is out of touch with the people who need help.

Why is government here? Is government here to advocate on behalf of just big business, or is government here to help out communities, to help out the vulnerable, like autistic children?

This is a very important bill. It deals with the finances of the nation. When the Conservative Party was in opposition, it asked the then Liberal government to be upfront and truthful about the surplus and to have a debate in this place about how that surplus should be spent. Now as government, the Conservative Party is not doing that. It is not going to appoint a budgetary officer of Parliament to provide that information. It is irresponsible and hypocritical.

On the point that my colleague made about how we invest in people, I might add there are over 10,000 people right here in Ottawa, in the nation's capital, who are looking for affordable housing. They have been on a waiting list for a very long time. They are being ignored by this legislation. There is no money for them.

The government has said that it has invested in affordable housing. A point that should be made is that money was in Bill C-48, the amendments that the NDP made in 2005. That is the last investment we have seen in affordable housing. It is not good enough for the residents in Ottawa. It is not good enough for the people of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely correct about housing. I just did a tour of the far north in the high Arctic and talk about acute housing needs. The people up there desperately need help and they need it now. The Conservative government is completely ignoring them.

The reality is the government has clearly defined that it is only for the individual, where we in the NDP are for the collective. That is a very clear distinction.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on why in a nation that should be a healing nation, in a nation that encourages all people to have the same rights and benefits, the government is leaving so many behind.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the government is just listening to the wrong people. It is not listening to the communities. The Conservatives are out of touch, but the voters will have a chance to put them back on track and maybe put them out of power. Who knows what will happen in the next election. If they stop listening to Canadians in communities, that is exactly what will happen.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a distinct pleasure and honour to rise in the House today to speak about the economic statement that was tabled in this House earlier in the fall.

I know that members would agree with me, because we all spend a lot of time in our constituencies, but certainly the constituents of Kitchener Centre and in fact Canadians right across this nation have indicated that they do not want tax cuts at the expense and the compromise of the social fabric of the nation. For the majority of Canadians, spending on medicare and education, the elimination of poverty, the creation of a national child care program, as well as the protection of the environment all come before tax cuts as their priorities.

Today Canada's economy is performing extremely well. In fact, the federal treasury is awash in cash. As the government announced in September, it ran a surplus this year of $14 billion. Certainly a tax break would be in order during times of such prosperity.

However, the government also announced a reduction of the lowest tax bracket to 15% when in reality it was merely reinstating a tax cut that our previous Liberal government had made. The Conservative government in its initial budget had raised the tax rate of the lowest income bracket from 15% to 15.5%. It is hardly a tax cut when it merely returns to the same rate that it was previous to the increase in the budget preceding. Canadians are no further ahead financially than they were before the minority Conservative government took power.

Many in this House will recall the previous Liberal government's $100 billion tax reduction plan. It was passed in the year 2000. It was the largest tax cut in history, and Canadians continue to benefit from that budget today.

What made the tax relief plan and the subsequent Liberal tax relief so effective was how very broad the application was. Millions of people benefited from those reductions.

We are also in favour of reducing the tax burden on corporations because we recognize this is one way to unleash Canada's productive capacity. Our record speaks to this.

The finance minister and the government make much of the reduction of 1% in the GST. It has gone to 5% from 6%.

What is interesting about this is that the vast majority of economists and as a matter of fact those with any kind of economic sense are quick to acknowledge that trimming taxes on consumption offers very little in terms of economic stimulus. Quite frankly, it advantages the rich. We all know that we would get more GST relief when buying a Mercedes-Benz than when buying a bicycle. It is simple arithmetic.

On this side of the House, we are accustomed to governing with vision and with an eye to the long term economic good of our country.

The quick fix, simplistic initiatives put forward by the Conservative government are designed to pay dividends at the ballot box in the next election. There is no commitment to long term economic vitality, no vision and no attention to growth.

The Conservatives fail to deliver on the long term vision of the investments that need to be made in using the record setting fiscal strength that they inherited from our previous Liberal governments.

We need a system of taxation that would provide an economic stimulus to help mitigate the economic slowdown in the United States. No one can dispute that Canada will face consequences of any economic changes that happen in the United States. With our loonie at par and occasionally above par and worth more than the U.S. dollar, Canadian manufacturers need help from the government.

The Conservative government is failing to create or even protect thousands of manufacturing jobs. In 2006, the House of Commons industry committee made 22 unanimous recommendations to help Canada's manufacturing sector. To date, of the 22 unanimous recommendations, one has partially been implemented. That was the creation of a two year window for writing off capital investments at an accelerated rate as opposed to the committee's recommendation of a five year window.

Meanwhile, other sectors, such as the booming oil sands industry, continue to enjoy a much more generous accelerated capital cost allowance. These are industries that have immense returns on their investments, yet we see the manufacturing sector struggling in Canada and hear silence from the government.

Canadian communities are also feeling the pinch of this Conservative mismanagement. According to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Canada's cities and communities now face an infrastructure deficit of over $100 billion, yet only $4 billion of the government's $30 billion building Canada fund has been earmarked for municipal infrastructure. Clearly, this is simply not enough.

Canadian cities and municipalities need long term sustainable funding for infrastructure programs. This requires partnering at all levels of government, but the Conservatives have failed to come to the table. The Conservative finance minister accused mayors, my own mayor from Kitchener, of being whiners. He dismissed them. He said that the government does not deal in potholes and said to go home. Yet everybody lives in a community, whether it is a village or a city, and recognizes that there needs to be attention to infrastructure. How many bridges need to collapse and injure or kill Canadians before we recognize the screaming deficit that we have in investment in infrastructure?

Similarly, the Conservatives' immigration program shows no real desire to respond either to the needs of our economy or to the needs of new Canadians. Their approach has a narrow regional focus. It lacks long term objectives for our immigration system. It ignores the realities of the Canadian labour market, where there are severe shortages. In addition, the Conservatives' plan is targeted almost exclusively at western Canada and shows no real desire to respond to the needs of employers in other provinces.

In budget 2006, the Conservatives provided $18 million over two years to create the Canadian agency for assessment and recognition of credentials. This is for foreign-trained professionals who want to immigrate to Canada. This represented a $145 million reduction--and I underscore that, a $145 million reduction--in spending on foreign credential recognition and cut the shelf life of the programming in half from what was promised in 2005.

What is worse, budget 2007 continued this backward path by breaking this meagre commitment. Instead of creating a foreign credential agency, the government replaced it with a Foreign Credentials Referral Office that is worth $13 million over two years. This merely provides referral services for prospective immigrants to connect with appropriate provincial assessment bodies rather than actually helping the foreign-trained workers find jobs quickly.

Statistics show us that within the next 20 years immigration will account for all of Canada's net labour force and population growth. Passing the buck to provinces and territories hardly seems a responsible reaction in addressing this sector of our society and our economy.

Liberal governments implemented numerous infrastructure programs in the 1990s and the early 2000s to support the municipal infrastructure projects, culminating in $5 billion over five years with the transfer of gas tax funds to municipalities and continuing at $2 billion annually from 2009.

The Liberals also invested $263 million in the foreign-trained workers initiative in 2005 and over $100 million to improve the delivery of immigration services.

As a member of the Liberal Party, I have consistently advocated for the support of Canadian families while promoting fiscal responsibility and building a solid economic foundation for the future.

I find this budget short-sighted and irresponsible. Quite frankly, Canadians deserve better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by first saying that I have tremendous respect for the hon. member who just spoke, but she talked about the values that Canadians wish to have, such as investments in health, education, infrastructure and so on, yet her own government announced, and she said so in her speech, $100 billion worth of tax cuts in 2000.

We said the same things in 2000 that she says now. We said that many people were left behind, including autistic children and veterans, as well as the shipbuilding industries and everything else.

Yes, it is indeed important to ensure that taxes are done fairly and equitably right across the board. If reductions need to take place, they need to be done with a proper and thorough debate in the House of Commons.

I would like to give the member an opportunity to elaborate a bit more on this style of government we are seeing, with a government that turns around and gives a massive tax break to very profitable corporations, usually in the financial and the oil and gas sectors, corporations that are already making record profits under the current tax system.

Yet the government turns around, and except for a penny or two off a cup of coffee or whatever, average Canadians will not realize any major tax reduction at all in their taxes. Yet the very wealthy who run some of these corporations will realize the lion's share of these cuts.

Does the hon. member not think it appropriate that we should be investing in those people who are going to be left behind by the government, including farmers, fishermen, Inuit, first nations people, children with autism--I go back to that again and again--and families who are suffering? What about homelessness? What about infrastructure and so on? There are so many things the government can and should be investing in, but it simply has re-gifted many things that we in the NDP pushed for in Bill C-48 of the previous Parliament.

Why does the member think that the Conservative government and its Conservative members, who individually are really decent people, collectively seem to have lost their minds? They have gone blank. I would like to give the member a chance to elaborate a bit more and enunciate to us why the Conservatives would be so cold-hearted on many of the things I have just mentioned.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, lest this sound like a mutual admiration society, I would have to say that I have eminent respect for the colleague who just posed the question. I know that, in the main, members in all parties of the House come here to make this a better country for their constituents, their provinces and Canadians across Canada.

In direct response, I would look at the accelerated writedown of capital costs and ask why the government would choose to continue to have a richer writedown of capital costs for people in the oil sands, who have record profits right now, and ignore the plight of manufacturers.

I think there are many things the government has done that really underscore a philosophical bent. There is an expression, and I do not know if people viewing this on TV will understand, known as “retail politics”. It is what will sell at the ballot box. It is the politics of division in choosing winners and creating losers.

The government had a $14 billion legacy of surplus left over from the hard work not just of the previous Liberal governments but all Canadians, because we recognize that everyone collectively tightened their belts to get rid of the $42 billion deficit that we as a government inherited.

The government has cancelled the court challenges program. Philosophically, they have taken word “equality” out of the mandate of the Status of Women department. There seems to be an absolute philosophical bent to decide who votes for them and how to reward them.

Communities and cities right across the nation need the kind of partnership that we can create at the federal government. I look at Waterloo region and Kitchener Centre. I look at the homeless issue. I look at the supporting community initiatives of over $320,000 that went into my riding and at what the local levels of government and non-profits did to make sure that nobody was left behind in my community.

That is the kind of leadership and partnership Canadians deserve and should expect from the federal government. It is not the kind of leadership they are getting from this minority Conservative government.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-28, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007 and to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on October 30, 2007

First of all, I would like to reiterate my colleagues' comments that this bill does not address the Bloc's five priorities, which we all know are as follows: complete elimination of the federal spending power, tax measures for regions affected by the forestry crisis, maintaining in full the supply management system for agriculture, withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan in 2009, and full respect for the Kyoto protocol and Quebec's interests.

In this bill, the rich continue to have the biggest piece of the pie. Oil companies benefit the most from corporate tax reductions. Because Quebec manufacturing companies make no profits, this bill does nothing for them.

The bill does not include any measures to help the manufacturing and forestry sectors, which are in crisis. Yesterday, in response to a question, my colleague from Trois-Rivières said that it would take shock treatment. The Conservatives are not here to provide that sort of treatment.

This bill also has nothing for seniors. Since this is an issue I feel strongly about, I am going to talk about it.

The bill does not provide for indexing the guaranteed income supplement or for fully retroactive benefits for seniors who were cheated for years. It does not include an assistance program for older workers who have lost their jobs and cannot find work. This bill enhances a side deal benefiting Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, which cuts the heart out of the equalization program, and Quebec is paying the price.

That is why we are opposed to this bill. Whether we are talking about tax credits or the decrease in the GST, the people who are benefiting from these measures are still the richest members of our society, while the others are continuing to sink deeper and deeper into poverty. Yet these are the people who need help.

I have been sitting in this House as a Bloc Québécois member for a year now. When I look at how the government operates, I sometimes get the feeling that we are the only ones who are defending the poor.

With regard to the 1% cut in the GST, which will cost the federal government $6 billion and the Government of Quebec $100 million, we wonder who really benefits. I talked to other people about this, and the example I was given is totally absurd. I was told that someone who buys a $300,000 house will benefit from the 1% decrease in the GST. I wonder who can afford a $300,000 house. Are most people in Canada and Quebec buying $300,000 houses? I doubt it very much. Surely not. Who benefits from the decrease in the GST?

I would like to talk further about seniors who are living in dreadful conditions and whose income puts them, in large part, below the poverty line.

I toured Quebec in the spring and I saw to what extent certain seniors live in extreme poverty. In 2004, a study established the low income cutoff at $14,794. That was in 2004 for a single person. In 2007, even with the $18 increase from the Conservatives, the maximum income under the guaranteed income supplement was $13,514. That means that a poor senior who receives the maximum guaranteed income supplement is living below the poverty line. That person is $1,280 a year, or $106 a month, shy of reaching the low income cutoff.

There is something scandalous about that. Once we know about it, then we have a moral and human obligation to do something. The government is up to its neck in surpluses: $11.6 billion this year and $14.5 billion next year. The government should be doing something for the least fortunate in our society, but it is not.

What is more, we know that in Quebec, and even in Canada, a good number of seniors are not receiving the guaranteed income supplement even though they are entitled to it, quite simply because they are not receiving the necessary information. Seniors are not aware of this program and the government is not doing anything to reach them. In Quebec alone, an estimated 40,000 seniors are poor—and therefore eligible for the guaranteed income supplement—but are not receiving the supplement for lack of information.

A few years ago, an MP from the Bloc Québécois, Mr. Gagnon, did an extraordinary job of finding these seniors. He reached thousands of them, but unfortunately many more remain.

A few weeks ago, we all saw the story on Radio-Canada television of the woman in Toronto, Mrs. Bolduc, 78, who was living on $7,000 a year. She was entitled to the guaranteed income supplement, but did not know it. A social worker took up her case. Once again, we would have liked Mrs. Bolduc to receive five years of retroactivity after being cheated by the government for years. However, she was granted just 11 months of retroactivity even though five years of retroactivity would have amounted to just $12,000. The reporter asked her what she would do with $12,000. She said she would buy winter clothes, because winter was coming.

I called Mrs. Bolduc the day before yesterday, and I spoke to her for an hour. She was just leaving the hospital after breaking her arm last Friday when she fell in a Toronto subway station. I asked her if I could talk about her today, and she gave me her blessing. As I priest, that was all the encouragement I needed. I am usually the one giving people blessings, but in this case she gave me her blessing.

Mrs. Bolduc said something to me that I would like to share with the House. She said that in a country as rich as ours, it is shameful to deprive seniors of a decent income. I think this bears repeating so that the Conservatives will really hear it. The worst of it is that the government knows about the situation but is not doing anything to fix it. The government would rather spend its surplus on the debt than enable our to seniors live with dignity. I find that scandalous and immoral.

It is indecent to be treating our seniors like this. They are the people who built this country. They are not asking for handouts. They are just asking for their due. We know that seniors are getting poorer and poorer. We know that there is not enough housing and that much of it is inadequate. We know that suicide rates among seniors are climbing. It is scandalous that nothing is being done to help them.

Members of the Bloc Québécois cannot support this bill because it perpetuates gross injustices upon older workers, the manufacturing sector and seniors. It is important to speak out against it.

I have two minutes left, so I would like to share some lines that Georges Lalande, the president of the Quebec seniors council, included in a document that was sent to Quebec seniors. He quoted Victor Hugo to illustrate how important seniors are in a society like ours. Here is what Hugo wrote:

All things found upon this earth
Rich tradition gave them birth
All things blessed by heav'n on high
All thoughts human or divine
These things, if rooted in the past
Bear leaves that will forever last.

I think this means that seniors are important because they represent where we came from and help us to see where we are going.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Repentigny for his moving remarks about a senior who was short changed with the guaranteed income supplement. He spoke a little about how it was shameful that the government is going to pay down the national debt—which is not a bad thing—when it should start by paying back the money owed to seniors.

The Bloc Québécois is not asking for new subsidies to be created here. They have a right to that money; they simply did not claim it in the past, because the government did not provide enough information.

If, as a country, we are going to pay our debts, we should start by paying back the debt we owe to seniors. It is even more shocking that they cannot get full retroactivity. I think that if the situation were reversed, if the seniors had failed to pay their taxes for five or ten years, they would not be able to tell the tax man that it has been more than 11 months, and too bad for him, but they are not going to pay their taxes.

Does my colleague not find this double standard absolutely disgraceful? If a senior owes the government money, it will go back 5, 10, 15 years, but when the government owes money to seniors, for some inexplicable and unknown reason, they get only 11 months retroactivity.

Also, does my colleague not find it shameful that during its election campaign, the government promised to fix this problem and it still has not? It is breaking—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Repentigny.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his questions. Indeed, this is scandalous. An older person once said to me that the government has a long arm when the time comes to take money from our pockets, but its arm is not nearly as long when it is time to dig into its own pockets. That is one way of describing the injustice that exists. And it is true.

Considering the surplus accumulated by the government this year, the retroactivity question could easily be resolved. It would cost $3.1 billion for all of Canada, and there is a surplus of $11 billion. Thus, this problem could be resolved, especially given the growing numbers of seniors in this country. We have heard that by 2015, 28% of the population will have reached age 60.

It seems to me that we must find a place for them, especially since these people often live in insecurity; they are often disadvantaged, afraid and need help. There are growing numbers of poor seniors. This is important.

The second question had to do with the Conservatives' broken promise. During the election campaign, the Conservatives promised to resolve this problem, but it remains unresolved. An increase of $18 a month was given, when we know that $110 is what is needed just to reach the low income cutoff, the poverty line. This is also scandalous and is, in many ways, immoral.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I invite the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber to take his seat for a moment, because I would like to allow the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé to speak.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. As we all know, our colleague from Repentigny has a long history of spiritual and social involvement, and I am sure that he finds the government's contempt for seniors and workers scandalous. This week, they voted against the $55 billion employment insurance fund, thereby depriving seniors and workers of income.

What does the member for Repentigny think of this right-wing government—

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

Heartless, a heartless government!

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

—that wants to get rid of all social programs and policies for the most needy in our society?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The member for Repentigny has 20 seconds to reply.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I would like to respond to part of the question. Yes, it is scandalous. Take housing, for instance. As I travelled around Quebec, I went to Rimouski, where seniors in wheelchairs were living on the fourth floor of a building with no elevator.

We know that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation records a surplus every year, so we are asking the government to increase transfers to Quebec based on the population and—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

We must continue with the debate. The hon. member for Davenport.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the government's budget and economic statement implementation act.

Although budgets often seem to be about numbers, balance sheets and allocations, the reality is they are truly about people. They are not just dollars and cents.

The decisions that are made here directly affect the lives of millions of Canadians, and this is an important and enduring responsibility. I have always believed that, in this context, budgets must be fair, balanced and responsible, not just responsible in fiscal terms but in how they treat Canadians.

I am always pleased and honoured to have the opportunity to visit with constituents and agencies within my riding of Davenport. Their insights are invaluable to me and they are truly caring and dedicated people.

During the recent break in the parliamentary calendar, I met with many of these wonderful people, who live and provide invaluable service in my riding. I visited with agencies like FoodShare, the Working Women Community Centre, St. Christopher House and Stop Community Food Centre. I also had the opportunity to meet with residents of Terra Nova Apartments, New Horizons, Rankin Apartments and St. Anne's Place.

At each location, I was deeply moved by the concerns expressed by these caring and concerned people. The concerns touched on things we should all see as priorities. They spoke about poverty in our country, the crisis facing our cities and fair taxation policies, to name but a few of the things about which they talked.

I share the concerns of my constituents on the issue of poverty and, in particular, the realities that many of our children and most vulnerable citizens must face each and every day. Only a few days ago a report was issued that indicated one in every eight Canadian children lives in poverty. This is an outrage in a country as blessed and prosperous as Canada. It is amazing when a statistic like this is released and all the government can do is speak of growth statistics and optimistic fiscal forecasts, which fail to take into account the human face of poverty.

In my city of Toronto 93,000 households live in poverty. During my meeting at the Rankin Apartments in my riding, the people spoke of the realities of poverty. In the context of the government's fiscal plan, not one economist of note, anywhere in the country, agrees that the 1% cut in the GST is a sound fiscal policy. In fact, most agree that the reduction of GST will have such minimal effect for the average family. The supposed gains would be virtually negligible.

As the Leader of the Opposition has suggested repeatedly, the funds from 1% of the GST would have been much better spent to address issues facing Canada's most vulnerable people. Can anyone imagine the investment that could be made in the fight against poverty with the billions of dollars the government is relinquishing on the GST cuts? People in my riding can. Why can the government not?

During my visits to programs like FoodShare and Stop Community Food Centre, the realities of hunger are rarely more apparent. What kind of government adopts policies for political shows while many of its most vulnerable citizens go hungry?

I am proud that the leader of my party has announced a real plan of action on this issue of poverty in Canada. The 30:50 plan would create a “making work pay benefit”, improve the child tax benefit, lift seniors out of poverty, assist first nations people and, as per its name, cut the number of people living below the poverty line by 30% within five years and reduce the number of children living below the poverty line by 50% in five years. This is a real plan of action, not just platitudes and political posturing.

The residents of St. Anne's Place, Terra Nova Apartments and New Horizons live in the heart of Toronto. They witness each day the need for investment in our cities, particularly in the areas of infrastructure and public transit.

Cities across the country require a minimum of $123 billion in infrastructure funding. Like the famous line from the movie once asked: “Where is the money?” Unfortunately, from this government there is very little to be found even in a time of unprecedented prosperity that it inherited as a result of the hard work of the previous Liberal government.

My colleague, the member for Don Valley West, who served as infrastructure minister in the previous Liberal government, welcomed cities to the table and had begun a process of supporting them with real and meaningful funding. We do not see this from the current government.

Yesterday we heard of the government's action with regard to HIV-AIDS funding and its decision to honour commitments made by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation by taking money away from other programs instead of putting forward new money as agreed. This is simply wrong.

In 2005 the former Liberal government put forward a real fiscal plan of action to help seniors, assist students, address poverty, support child care, and improve the lives of millions of Canadians. That is what a budget should really be about. The reality is that the government is like the salesperson who sells a shiny new car with gleaning paint, clean windows, nice upholstery, but the car has no engine. It is all smoke and mirrors.

For Canada's most vulnerable, for those most in need including our seniors, students, the working poor, and the cities in which they live, there is nothing in this budget document that provides any hope for a better future.

I am proud to belong to a party which has a more just, more equitable, and more humane view of Canada. We on this side of the House are heirs to the legacy of Trudeau and Pearson, the party of national health care and the Canada pension plan, and we will always speak up for those who are most vulnerable as I am proud to do today.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to correct the record. It was actually a Conservative prime minister who brought in the Canada pension plan. As well, it was Prime Minister Diefenbaker who lowered the age to 65.

However, the member was talking about fairness and justice. When the people of Canada elected us, we had a situation where there was an unbalanced marriage penalty in the taxation laws, there was an accelerated capital cost allowance for the oil fields, the majority of families had no benefit at all for child care, the corporate tax rate was such a burden on Canadian companies it was hard for them to compete, and the Liberals had promised to scrap the GST but never did.

We corrected the marriage penalty and now a spouse who stays at home has the same exemption. We cut the GST to 5%. The personal exemption rate went down by $1,000. The age exemption for seniors also was raised another $1,000 so they pay less tax. We have also introduced income pension splitting for seniors. Which one of those initiatives would the member like us to remove for the people of Canada? These are all initiatives for people who are in vulnerable situations and who need help.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member speaks of initiatives the government has brought forward, but yet we see our cities crying for infrastructure moneys and a need for more child care spaces without any support from the government.

The member opposite forgets that this is a government for the first time in the history of our country which has no elected members in any of the large major cities in this country: none in Montreal, none in Vancouver, none in Toronto. The reason for that is because Conservatives do not understand the real needs of the major cities and their concerns facing poverty, issues of homelessness, issues affecting seniors, and issues affecting infrastructure.

That is the reason the government has no support within the major cities across this country. If we look at its record, it speaks for itself. It is the record that a majority of our seniors cannot support because of the fact that the Conservative government has a dismal record when it comes to addressing issues of poverty, homelessness, and child care in our cities that is so badly needed.

I would challenge the member to go out and speak to those groups and tell them it has done exactly what he said because most cities, most municipalities, and most mayors would laugh in his face.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not have the opportunity before to ask a third question. However, perhaps my Liberal colleague could respond.

A great deal has been said about this heartless government that refuses to pay back money owed to seniors cheated out of the guaranteed income supplement. I realize that our views on state assistance to citizens will vary according to our political philosophies. The belief that solidarity is important or that personal initiative and individualism are more important will depend on whether we are on the left or the right side of the political spectrum. I can understand that. However, I believe that one thing should be clear to all members, whether they are on the left or the right, and that is that we must be concerned with justice. When money is owed to seniors—or to anyone for that matter—it should be given to them even though the debt goes back one, two, three, five or ten years. A debt must always be paid.

Does my Liberal colleague agree that, no matter whether we are on the right or the left, it is reasonable that seniors who failed to claim amounts to which they were entitled, over the years, should receive these amounts?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the seniors of our country, the elderly, need our help. That is very obvious. The poverty rate in our country is too high. Poverty among seniors is scandalous. As parliamentarians, we must help all the seniors in our country.

Lowering the GST will not solve the problem. We must find a solution that will help the seniors in our society.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the 2007 economic update.

I must say, though, that it is a woefully inadequate document. It simply does not take Canada in the direction that Parliament and the House of Commons is obligated to take our country. It quite simply sees this government, as with the past government, taking Canada down the wrong path.

It is not a balanced approach and it completely overlooks an unprecedented opportunity to invest in the people and the communities of this nation.

If we think about it, year after year we have seen incredible surpluses, surpluses that could have been invested in a way that is appropriate and helpful.

The point is that we have not had any real investment in this country. We have not had a new social program in the last 30 years. This government and the government before it had all kinds of chances to invest in national housing, child care, students, and in every juncture but both failed and failed quite miserably.

New Democrats are very concerned about the economic statement and we want to make it very clear that we will not be supporting the government's financial statement. We see it has no promise for the people we represent.

What we wanted and did not get was a balanced approach, investment in people and communities, targeted tax relief for those who need it most, and a chance to close that ever increasing prosperity gap.

I would like to speak a little bit about the reality that I see in my constituency and what this budget will not mean for the people of London—Fanshawe.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

My apologies to the hon. member who is speaking, but I think it is pertinent that this point be raised with you, Mr. Speaker.

During a question and comment period, the member for Jeanne-Le Ber used an unparliamentary term and I would request that you, Mr. Speaker, review the blues and act in accordance with your decision.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I thank the hon. the parliamentary secretary for his point of order. I will review the blues forthwith and come back to the House if necessary.

The hon. member for London--Fanshawe has the floor.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while I certainly would never support unparliamentary behaviour in this place, it would seem to me that we should be a lot more focused on the needs of the people of our community, their economic needs and the security of those communities, than to be dancing on words.

At any rate, I want to speak about the city I live in, the city of London, and I want to tell members what this budget and previous budgets have meant to those who are most vulnerable.

There is a community of women who have been supported by a remarkable place: My Sister's Place. About four years ago, when a review was done of services for women in the city of London, it was discovered that services for women suffering from mental illness or living in abusive situations were woefully inadequate. So, out of the housing budget, out of the SCPI budget, allocations were made to support My Sister's Place and it received about $150,000 a year.

That might sound like a lot of money, but when we put it into the large picture of things, it is really very little money for what we see in terms of services to the women of my community.

One woman told me, quite frankly, that if it had not been for My Sister's Place she would have died, that she, quite simply, would have perished, that she owed her life to the staff and the sisterhood that she found at My Sister's Place. Because it is not just the staff, although they are absolutely remarkable and do extraordinary work, it is the other women, the 60 or so women who come in every day, who provide that additional love and support that women who are abused, women who are homeless, women who are suffering from addictions and mental illness so desperately need. It is lonely out there.

My great regret is that this government does not understand what it means to be alone, what it means to be afraid, what it means to be homeless, and what it means to do without day after day. I wish that the Conservatives would try to understand.

At any rate, under the SCPI funding, it received $150,000. It was always from one year to the next. It had to reapply every year. It had to fill out extensive forms. Nobody was ever sure whether that money was coming through because the Liberal government had nothing in terms of core funding. It was a band-aid approach that left all of us, I would say, wondering, worrying and trying to figure out how we would manage.

This government came through with a new program. They call it HIPPY on the street. It is supposed to take the place of SCPI.

The interesting thing is that the government cut in half the allocation for My Sister's Place and the other agencies that make up the homelessness coalition in London. In September, it was very clear that this very important service was going to, quite simply, disappear and so the folks at My Sister's Place went into fundraising. At this point in time, they have been able to cobble together a plan and find enough community support to manage.

However, that is not good enough. The charity of the community is not infinite and the time will come when the lack of funding is going to cause significant problems for My Sister's Place and for At^Lohsa, which provides services to aboriginal people living in this city, and programs for street youth. In fact, we have lost a great deal of the programming that we had for street youth.

Quite ironically, we have a government standing on its hind legs, carrying on about how it will address crime with boot camps and all kinds of criminal bills to get tough on kids. I would call it a devastation of the youth in our communities. The government has done nothing to prevent children from being involved in crime. There are no preventative measures, and I have seen that first-hand in my city.

Another thing that this so-called budgetary interim statement fails to address is the infrastructure problem. I stood in the House about three weeks ago and talked about the six metre sinkhole, which appeared in the middle of downtown, and the crumbling infrastructure. I found out subsequently that older cities like Montreal, Toronto, London are in desperate need of infrastructure dollars. In fact, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has indicated that there is a $123 billion deficit, which is soon to become a $150 billion deficit.

The end result of this lack of investment in our cities has caused a real problem, not just the mess that a sinkhole and crumbling infrastructure creates, but a problem in regard to clean water. About 40% of the clean water produced in cities is leaking from old infrastructure. It costs a great deal to ensure that water is safe and clean. It is a very expensive proposition. We are losing that because we have inadequate infrastructure.

I had a great deal more to say, but I want to conclude by saying the economic update provides $1.50 a day to the average Canadian family, but $14.5 billion to big oil, to big banks, to those who need it least. The end result is the $190 billion is being taken from the federal government funding capacity, our ability to address the need for housing and need for infrastructure.

The Conservative government has done nothing. The Liberal Party sat on its hands. It is not acceptable.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

As we know, the Bloc wanted specific measures to help the workers, companies and regions affected by the forestry crisis. But the economic statement in this bill does nothing for the manufacturing sector, nothing in terms of a program to assist older workers, and even less than nothing for seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement.

By the way, as my colleague said earlier, the guaranteed income supplement is money that the government owes to seniors.

The Bloc Québécois believes that whether a person is on the left or the right, regardless of his political beliefs, the least he can do is keep his word. But the Conservatives did not do that. When they campaigned in Quebec, they said they would solve the problem with the guaranteed income supplement for seniors, but they did not solve it, nor did they announce a new POWA. The independent employment insurance fund now stands at $55 billion. But this week, they voted against a bill that would do something about it.

How can a government that is forecasting an $18 billion surplus over the next four years do nothing for the poor and less fortunate in this country?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess it is a matter of priority.

I will follow up with a couple of observations. He talked about seniors. The status of women committee looked at the economic security of women primarily, but we also touched on senior women and seniors in general. We discovered that far too many of our seniors were living in poverty.

Again, I come back to that $14.5 billion. All that money is being given to big oil companies and big banks, but nothing for the people who desperately need it. There is no money for seniors or for women who are living below the poverty line because they cannot access programs. Programs, such as the employment insurance fund, have been plundered not just by the Conservative government but by previous governments.

The government has no real consideration or concern about how to build a community, or what must be done to have strong communities. Investment in communities is essential. Yet $190 billion has been taken out of the federal government's ability to invest, to fund communities, to create the kind of nation that real leadership would determine. The government should be concerned.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, why does the member say the previous Liberal government did nothing? Does she believe that taking a country that had a $42 billion annual deficit in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1994, and turning that into eight or nine consecutive surplus budgets, paying down debt by $135 billion, reducing income taxes and giving Canada the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years is doing nothing?

If those are the facts, which I know they are, why would the member insult everyone's intelligence and suggest that somehow the previous government did nothing, as she said in her speech?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is interesting. I have a little story in regard to those surpluses and that reduction of the deficit.

In 1997, at a luncheon, Jean Chrétien congratulated himself for reducing the deficit and bringing about prosperity. What he did not tell everyone was that he had raided the EI fund and people entitled to employment insurance were receiving none.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a Friday and it is just a few minutes before we move into the last part of the day with private members' business. I would have liked a full time slot to talk about repackaging, and it has nothing to do with industry or business. It has to do with that government over there, which has not come up with anything new that was not already in the works when it became government. Then it reintroduced it.

On the transportation bill, I remember the parliamentary secretary stood and said that the government had held extensive consultation on it and had come with the bill. In fact, there were extensive consultations and they went on for two years, but the Conservatives took credit for it. They took credit for the bill. It was a good bill, and we will support it.

Then there is some more repackaging. The Conservatives came up with 10 or 12 justice bills. They all went through the process and to the justice committee. Then all of a sudden, the justice committee could only deal with one bill at a time. It had been loaded up. It had no chance whatsoever to deal with all the bills because they had to be done in a reasonable order.

Then the Prime Minister got up at a function and said that the other parties had wasted 1,000 days in getting through the government's important legislation on crime. The government has not even been in power a thousand days. That is a long time.

Here is how the Prime Minister thinks. The bill waited for another bill that was before the committee. It waited 200 days. The next bill waited 250. The next bill waited 200 to 300 days. He added them all up and came up with a thousand. This is the new math of the Conservative government. I have a feeling Canadians have to beware of what they have been shown. It is the tip of the iceberg. This is a government that cannot be trusted.

As the transport minister just indicated, the government is very scary. That is the point.

What did the Conservatives do on a scary night like Halloween? They had the biggest broken promise in the history of Canadian government. They had promised during the election—

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

You guys had the biggest scandal in the history of Canadian governments.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities wants to yell me down. Canadians should know that when a member is trying to speak and a minister is trying to yell him down, he must be on the right track. I know I am on the right track. The minister is now very animated. I am glad he is entertained.

The fact is the Conservatives promised, during the election campaign, to never tax income trusts. Then they turned around and levied a 31.5% tax on income trusts. This affected about 2.5 million Canadians, many of whom are seniors, and their retirement nest eggs were attacked. That is shameful of the government. Even the Prime Minister, when he circulated a piece of literature during the last election, said that by far the greatest fraud was a promise not kept.

Halloween was a scary night for seniors who did not know whether they would be able to survive on what was left of their hard-earned retirement savings. It was a scary night for those people who did not have anything but those income trusts and all of a sudden their equity was gone. It was a scary time for people who did not know they could not trust the government. They made decisions based on that trust.

The government interfered with the marketplace. It hurt Canadians, mostly seniors. It touched at the very core of integrity and credibility of government. Those are the things of which Canadians should be scared.

That government has a terrible record, whether it is on basic things like saying it actually reduced taxes when in fact it increased personal income taxes or other things. The Conservatives think that just because it was a budget implementation item or a mini budget that it is not law until that implementation bill actually passes.

I can tell them that if they want to apply those kinds of rules, we are presently talking about the 2007 budget implementation bill, and none of it is law in Canada until it passes. They should not take credit for something that is not law.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

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

When we next return to the study of Bill C-28, there will be four and a half minutes left for the hon. member for Mississauga South.

The House resumed from November 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-28, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007 and to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on October 30, 2007, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

When we last debated Bill C-28, I informed the hon. member for Mississauga South that there would be four and a half minutes left, and he has the floor.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, when I spoke to the budget implementation bill, there was quite a bit of animation in the House. In fact, when I got into the subject matter of how the government had repackaged other legislation from the prior Parliament and taken it as its own, it brought a very resounding cry of foul from the Minister of Transport, who proceeded to try to shout me down so I could not get the rest of my examples on the record. He suggested that somehow this was scary.

Because he used the word “scary”, it made me think of what I should talk about in the last couple of minutes of my speech, which is what happened two Halloweens ago with the income trust taxation broken promise. I have presented petitions in the House on this matter because it is important to Canadians.

In the last election the Prime Minister promised that he would never tax income trusts. In some of the literature that he circulated he said, “There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept”. What happened? He broke the promise and he imposed a 31.5% punitive tax, which permanently wiped out over $25 billion of the hard-earned retirement savings of over two million Canadians, particularly seniors.

It is interesting to note that seniors are some of the largest and broadest investors in income trusts for one reason. About 30% of seniors have a registered pension plan income. This is income for pension purposes from a corporate plan. I am not talking about RRSPs; I am talking from a company pension plan.

The Minister of Finance at the same time he announced the government would tax income trusts at this usurious rate, he also announced pension income splitting for seniors, which he hoped would take away the sting of what had happened.

Now that the forms and explanations are out, it is clear that only 30% of seniors have pension income that is eligible to be split. Seniors cannot split RRSP income or RRIF income. The Canadian pension plan can be split, but for other reasons. Of the 30%, if we take out all those seniors who do not have a partner to split it with and if we take out all those seniors who are already at the lowest marginal tax rate, the number of seniors eligible for pension income splitting is down somewhere between 12% and 14%, based on the economic and financial analysis done for us.

Therefore, the only people who will benefit from pension income splitting are the highest income earning Canadians. Those who have the highest marginal rates will be able to split their pension income, up to half of it, with a spouse, for instance, who works in the home or does not have employment income.

We can see there was a caution or a concern about taxing income trusts. There was a very pathetic attempt to suggest to seniors that the government would offset this by income splitting. In fact, the most vulnerable in our society, low income seniors, will not benefit from pension income splitting. I raise this because this is absolutely reflective of the kind of values the government has when it comes to treating Canadians. It tells them one thing, but it does another.

I believe the income trust broken promise is the biggest scandal that has ever hit Canada. It hurt seniors and we just do not hit seniors.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is correct about making a promise and then a great fraud. I will not go into the 1993 red book promises that were broken because that is old history. However, I will carry on with the current government and some of the things it has said to people. Then it turns around and does not do them, not even in the budget.

We have been working very hard on extending the VIP to widows and World War II and Korean veterans. I asked a question in the House on Thursday. The Minister of Veterans Affairs stood and said that he spoke to Joyce Carter and that she was quite happy with him.

In a letter in today's Hill Times, Joyce Carter says that she is ashamed of the government. It has a $14 billion surplus, but there is nothing in the budget to help them.

My question for the hon. member is on the Atlantic accord. The Atlantic accord was broken. It was passed by his colleague, the former prime minister, along with our premier, John Hamm. The government broke that accord. Does the member not think that falls under the fraudulent use of words by the government when it betrays the good people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member has answered his questions with that question. I agree with him fully that the Conservative government has let down our veterans and Atlantic Canadians by breaking its word on the Atlantic accord. Broken promises are a hallmark of the Conservative government.

It is abhorrent to think that those members can say, for instance, that they have decreased the lowest marginal personal tax rate when they have increased it. Do they think Canadians are fools?

We have to respect what Canadians need to know. We have to be true, full and plain. We have to be honest with them. We cannot trust the Conservative government for its words, as can be seen from the examples the questioner has given us.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my colleague.

The first question is related to income trusts. If this is such a big scandal, then more than the Liberals would be complaining about it. Have any petitions been signed by the general public?

So the public knows, we are debating the elements of last spring's budget and this fall's economic statement and what is or is not in those documents. One of the biggest ways of preventing human tragedy is the prevention of FASD. Could the member outline what programs and initiatives were in last spring's budget and in the fall statement to deal with this problem, which can cost $1 million per child?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will deal with the last question first.

The government voted against a bill that would have provided health warning labels on containers of alcoholic beverages. It also voted against the development of a national strategy to address FASD, fetal alcohol syndrome disorder. It is very clear where those members stand on this issue. They do not care about this. About 50% of the people who come before the courts suffer from alcohol related birth defects.

With regard to income trusts, the finance minister said that he had to impose the tax because we would lose about $500 million a year over the next six years, or $3 billion. In fact, as a consequence of imposing the 31.5% punitive tax, that lowered the price and fire sale prices on our energy trusts in particular. The private equity, offshore takeovers of energy trusts in Canada has lost Canadian taxpayers $6 billion a year.

The government did not deal with tax leakage. In fact, it made it many times worse. Obviously the government did not think it through. Obviously the government cannot be trusted to be responsible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on Bill C-28, the budget implementation act, because it is a very important piece of legislation in that it seeks to make the changes necessary to implement the government's plan for Canada.

I want to start by speaking generally about how this government goes about the budgeting process, and in fact how the previous Liberal government did it, because I have some really serious concerns about the way they do that business. It raises very serious questions about how decisions are made and how financial planning is done in Canada.

One thing we have seen in recent years is the phenomenon of surplus budgets. I think all of us welcome the fact that Canada is no longer running a deficit budget. Certainly in this corner of the House New Democrats believe strongly that we should have balanced budgets and that it is the responsible way for governments to go about their business.

In fact, overwhelmingly, that has been the record of New Democrats. A study by the Department of Finance showed that New Democratic governments were better at balancing budgets than any other party's governments in Canada over a period of time. That flies in the face of what is often thrown at us with regard to that, but from Tommy Douglas on, balancing the budget has been an important fact of life for New Democrats and New Democrat governments.

We are not saying that should change. We are not saying that we should not balance the budget. We are also not saying that we should not continue to pay down the debt, because New Democrats know that is an important step to take. New Democrats know that money should always be put toward paying down the debt, which is a burden on all of us and a burden on future generations in Canada as well. New Democrats know that we need to pay attention to the debt in Canada.

However, what we have seen is that Liberal and Conservative governments, now that they have been running surpluses, have not accurately estimated the size of those surpluses. They always have it wrong, sometimes by more than 100%. Sometimes it has been double what they have claimed the surplus was going to be in a given year. They have been very inaccurate in predicting the size of the surplus.

Predicting the size of the surplus is something that other folks have been able to do. Other economists and other agencies have been able to accurately predict the size of the federal surplus. The problem with not reflecting accurately the size of a coming surplus is that we remove the surplus from any planning process in Canada. It is removed from any financial planning process and any program planning process. Every government recently has had a special news conference and a special announcement to say, “Surprise, the surplus is much greater than we expected”. Every government always has said, “Surprise, we are going to put all that money to the debt”.

This takes all that money, those billions and billions of dollars, out of any discussion of what Canadians need, of what support Canadians need from their government and of what kinds of programs might improve the lives of Canadians and build Canada. All of that money is taken out of that process and is not part of those considerations. I do not think that is a very responsible way to do business. It certainly is not the way I would plan my own family's finances. It is not the way most successful businesses or corporations would plan their finances. To constantly say that “this is a surprise and is bigger than we thought and we are going to throw it all into this one place” is not the way to do it.

The other problem I have with the Conservative government's approach to the budget and financial planning is the massive tax cuts it has undertaken, massive corporate tax cuts, and the whole way that this is chipping away at Canada's fiscal capacity, the fiscal capacity of the federal government.

In fact, coupled with the tax measures already brought in by the Conservative government, tax revenues accruing to the Government of Canada have been decreased by almost $190 billion over a six year period. That is a huge decline in the capacity of the federal government to respond to the needs of Canadians. It is a huge gutting of the income, the revenue, of the federal government, which could be put toward necessary programs in Canada. There are so many places where that money could be spent which would better the lives of Canadians, but also, it would ultimately improve our way of life in Canada and our economy if we paid attention to some of those issues.

We see a growing prosperity gap in Canada. There is a growing gap between the rich and poor. Study after study says that poverty is not on the decline in Canada but is actually on the increase. Just last week, a major study of the situation in the city of Toronto indicated that there was a very serious problem with poverty there. We have seen studies that have indicated the difficulties of the poverty faced by new immigrants in Canada. We have seen the devastating effect of poverty in aboriginal communities as well.

None of that can be addressed if we keep chipping away at the fiscal capacity of government and if we keep taking surpluses out of any discussion of what we can do better in Canada and how we can assist Canadians better.

There are so many things that we could be doing. There should be targeted tax relief. A measure that is long overdue is an increase to the child tax benefit. The child tax benefit should be up around $4,600, if not higher, to more truly reflect the situation of Canadian families. We know that this measure would go a significant way toward assisting low income families and their children. It is something that we should be doing. It is the kind of targeted tax measure that New Democrats would call for, not further corporate tax reductions to big oil and gas companies and the banks, because we know there is no significant benefit for Canadians from that kind of tax reduction measure.

We need programs that deal with housing. On my desk, I have a stack almost a foot tall of housing reports from the last two months. In those reports, Canadians from all across this country, including the north and the major cities in Canada, have shown that housing is a crucial need in their communities. The reports show that homelessness is on the rise in many of our communities. Far too many Canadians are without a home. Also, far too many Canadians are paying more than they can reasonably afford for housing, yet the government has no significant plan to deal with this problem.

The government has trust money. That is the money the NDP fought for when we got the Liberals to cancel their last round of corporate tax cuts. We ensured that some of that money went into housing. The government needs to spend that money and actually build new housing.

Canada needs a housing agency that actually does creative work on affordable housing and on building housing. CMHC used to have an excellent reputation around the world for that creative kind of work in the co-op program and other programs, but we do not have that any more. We need to restore that feature of CMHC.

We need to spend more money on post-secondary education to make sure that people get the education they need.

We need to spend money on the environment. We know that many important programs are necessary to help us meet the challenges of climate change. Canada is not going down that road effectively at this point. We need to do that.

Infrastructure is also another key issue that is not dealt with effectively by the government in these economic and budget plans.

In my own community, there is an important project at Burnaby Lake, an urban lake that is gradually silting in and will eventually turn into a mud flat. There is a very strong economic argument for making sure that we maintain Burnaby Lake as an open water lake. We have not been able to secure funding to assist in that project. The provincial government and the city have stepped up and have made their contributions. The federal government continues to ignore the situation at Burnaby Lake.

The city of Burnaby also wanted an immigration hub, but there is no federal infrastructure money to help with this kind of facility which in our city is crucial because we receive such a high percentage of immigrants and refugees in British Columbia.

There is also a serious problem with recreation infrastructure. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities recently pointed out that the infrastructure deficit in Canada is $123 billion. There has been a huge increase in the last couple of years. It is a very serious problem all across Canada.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities pointed out the recreation infrastructure deficit in particular. Many of our recreation facilities were built during our centennial year of 1967 and are now aging and need repairs. Many of these facilities have closed because communities have not been able to maintain them appropriately. That is a huge deficit. It will have serious effects on the well-being and the health of Canadians if we allow that recreation infrastructure to deteriorate and disappear.

There are huge needs that are not being addressed by the budgets and the economic statements that have come from the government. These are very serious issues that we need to pay attention to, but sadly none of that is evident here.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the member's speech and have a very short question. In the budget last year and in this economic statement, is what the government is doing sufficient for forestry and for students?

In particular on students, I have a question about the millennium scholarships. We have had student groups lobbying us to have the millennium scholarship program because it is income tested. They go to students in need, disadvantaged students with little in the way of funds. I would like the member to comment, because we are trying to get this reinstated for those students.

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

Mr. Speaker, the issue of students and post-secondary education is a crucial one. In my riding, there are two very significant post-secondary institutions, the British Columbia Institute of Technology, BCIT, and Simon Fraser University, SFU. These post-secondary institutions are very significant in my community and also in British Columbia.

We see the difficulty that many people have in pursuing post-secondary education because of the dramatic increases in the cost of tuition. This makes it very difficult for people to consider a post-secondary education. When they do, their lives are very difficult because they graduate with such a huge debt. This situation is completely unacceptable.

Canadians know that education is one of the great levellers of our society. It evens things. It is one of the things that makes the difference between the wealthy and those who are not, those who are poor. It eliminates that difference. It goes a long way in ensuring that people can be successful and lead productive, healthy and happy lives because they are able to do the kind of work they enjoy and care about and because it brings in a decent income for them.

When we limit people's choices in getting into university by not doing anything to ensure that there are lower tuition fees, by not making sure that we have significant grant programs, and by not making sure that the problems with our student loan system are addressed, then we are not addressing this.

In my constituency, almost 50% of the people are immigrants to Canada and they in particular know the value of post-secondary education. They know their children will be successful in Canada if they get that kind of education. They work very hard to ensure that their children are able to do that, but increasingly it is more difficult to get children the education they so desperately need. We have to make sure that happens and there is nothing I see in the actions of the government that will address this very serious shortcoming.

The member also mentioned the lumber industry. It is crucial in British Columbia, where I am from. We have seen the industry devastated by the mountain pine beetle. That devastation continues. We also see it being devastated by the direct export of raw logs, for instance, whereby secondary manufacturing has declined in British Columbia. Secondary manufacturing is not happening in British Columbia. We need to ensure that this kind of job-producing manufacturing happens in our communities. This is also a very serious problem with regard to the record of the government.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Sackville--Eastern Shore might like to know that there is a minute and a half left. It will include both the question and the answer.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member knows, earlier this year the government helped support a motion on autism in the House such that the federal government would assist the provinces and territories in developing a national autism strategy so we could help those thousands and thousands of families whose children are going through the effects of autism.

Yet in the budget there is not one red cent for that. In the hon. member's opinion, why would the government, with billions and billions of dollars in surplus, not find it in its heart or even find in its pocket change some money to help these wonderful children with autism throughout our entire country?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is an expression that it takes a village to raise a child. That is even more true of a child with autism, because we know what kind of support the families of those children and the children themselves need to ensure that children with autism are happy and reach their full potential. We know that those families must have support so they also can be happy and reach their potential. We know is not a cheap prospect. It is a very expensive prospect. Here we are, a very wealthy society, and we are not devoting to this the kinds of resources that are needed.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, my speech today on the budget speech and the economic statement is about a litany of broken promises, disappointments and cuts to programs and services for northerners.

There are so many affronts to Arctic sovereignty, the people and the environment that I will not be able to cover them all in 10 minutes but I will cover as many as I can. I call this speech the surrender of Canada's north.

The government made only two promises to northerners. The Prime Minister's first promise was for icebreakers, which are essential. Other countries are making claims on the Arctic. What do we get? We get, what someone affectionately called, slushbreakers. When the ice can be six metres thick, we get a boat that can go through one metre. Basically, for part of the year the boats will be on the east and west coast, giving up the north, when we are having conflicts with other countries. The Prime Minister promised that and had northerners and the shipbuilding industry vote for him because of that, and then decides to totally break that promise.

The other promise was a port for the north, which he has announced. However, when did the northerners in Nunavut hear about it? They heard about it the day of the announcement. What kind of consultation was there to build something that would help domestically as well as militarily. We will have a port where the lights are on and no one is home because the boats cannot go there in the winter to protect our sovereignty.

The Conservatives on some occasions did good things when they continued programs from the previous government, one being measuring underwater surveillance and satellite to cover the north. Thank goodness they are continuing on with our initiative.

We were absolutely shocked, after all the bluster about the north and about sovereignty, use it or lose, when the Conservatives lost it by giving up the Aurora patrols this winter. For decades everyone has known that the Auroras are our patrol of the north but all of sudden we hear, to our astonishment, an announcement a few weeks ago that they were not going to have the Aurora patrols this winter. Who could possibly take seriously any claims on Arctic sovereignty?

One of the most shocking items is that the government is planning, when necessary, to dump raw sewage and food waste into the fragile Arctic waters. People were shocked to hear that.

Here we are, in theory, fighting for Arctic sovereignty so we can set strong environmental standards, and we are going to dump our old food waste and sewage into the Arctic Ocean. Since I have been fighting against that I have heard from a number of northern politicians who are also very upset about it.

Another area that is very important, and probably more important to my riding than any other riding in the country because it is the biggest private sector employer, is tourism. In the whole country it is under threat now because of the strong Canadian dollar. Under the WHIT, the western hemisphere travel initiative, everyone must have a passport and, since most of our tourists come from the United States, tourism is under threat. What happened when the tourism commission had some money left from its move? Was it allowed to use that in marketing? No, that was taken away.

One of the biggest assets for tourism is small museums which are probably the most underfunded public asset in the country. They are scrambling for money. They have very little money and they get very little money from the government. What did the government do? It cut the MAP by 25%.

The Tourism Industry Association of Canada and the Yukon and the other associations made a very extensive, academic case of how important the GST rebate was for tourists. What did the government do? It cut it.

The government put it back for groups but it did not put it back for individuals travelling to Canada. I have many tourists coming to my riding from the United States and they no longer have access to that rebate that the tourism industry says is so important to them. I wish it would put that back.

The former prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, and Jean Chrétien made huge increases in contributions to the northern health care system but that does not mean that everything is totally solved. If the government thinks it does not need to continue to invest in that it is wrong. Medical practitioners were astonished when the economic statement came out this fall and there was absolutely nothing in it for the health care system.

The north could use further investments in Telehealth to cut down on the $5,000 or $10,000 cost for a single trip on Medevac. I hear complaints about rural people having trouble with transportation to medical services.

In the territories, of course, there are no full service hospitals and there is difficulty with access to specialists and surgery on occasion. Why not have centres of excellence for western Canada in the cardiovascular areas, as an example, where all western provinces and northern territories would have access. That might be a way of solving that problem.

Of course, we also need special consideration for hospitals. There is only one in each territory. When there is an outbreak like SARS, the one hospital cannot be closed or people will start dying of other things. We could also use more investment in mental health services and attracting professionals to the north.

A lot of things have been cut in heritage, including millions of dollars for aboriginal languages. A recent complaint I have heard in my riding in the last couple of weeks was the cancellation of the exhibition transport program. Very valuable programs, such as the exhibition of the Sami and Inuit art that will be coming to my area soon, will no longer exist. It is an excellent program. The government says to use MAP but, as we have just discussed, it has been slashed and it does not allow for contemporary art.

Another area was late payments on the residential schools. I was there when Phil Fontaine made the great announcement of the deal with residential schools. People had tears in their eyes and commendations were given to a great Canadian, Phil Fontaine, who did such good work getting to that place. Then the government stalled and stalled and elders died and did not have access to those payments. Now that they are available for everyone, the payments are later than promised.

I was speaking to one chap from my riding who said that he was expecting prompt payment. Unfortunately, he believed the government. He hoped to relocate to Vancouver to be near his daughters. He said that they rarely saw each other because he could not afford it. Now the delay has bankrupted him and thrown his plans into chaos. His electricity was disconnected on November 14. He has no food or money and is unemployed.

Another area that was talked about a few minutes ago is undergraduate students. We wanted $3,000 per student for tuition and they would get about $100 worth of textbooks. A college in my community said that one textbook costs more than $100. Students could not even get one textbook.

There has been no effort to reinstate the millennium scholarships.

The Law Reform Commission, which aboriginal groups used, is gone. There has been a lack of innovation for fetal alcohol syndrome.

I do not have time to talk about the human rights problems of aboriginal peoples that have come forward.

There have been cuts to over 100 greenhouse gas programs and $584 million from Natural Resources Canada.

On income trusts, a single mother told me that because the Prime Minister promised that trusts would not be touched, she invested money for her child's education and lost a lot of it.

I hope the northern strategy comes forward soon. I hope the northern economic development fund that we started will be replenished. It is absolutely essential and we will not stand for less. We want municipalities to get from the new infrastructure programs as much as they did from the old ones. That is very important and we have heard nothing about that.

We had to fight for the literacy program, which is very important, and to get the aboriginal justice reinstated.

The government said that the two northern pipelines were so important but nothing has happened.

There have been cuts to women's groups, child care and to the Status of Women office. There have been two conferences on homelessness for women and aboriginal women in the north within the last month. I hope the government implements some of the recommendations to show its consideration for the north, including the reinstatement of the child care program.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, as I did not catch all of my colleague's speech I am curious as to whether he raised the issue of the northern residents tax deduction. It is not in this budget bill.

The Conservatives are moving ahead with changes to the tax system that has not been updated for a long time. The northern residents tax deduction has not been updated in 20 years. People across the north are just crying out that the cost of living is driving them out of the north and is not allowing them to have useful and productive lives.

Does the hon. member support raising the northern residents tax deduction to 50% higher than what it is today just to get it back in line with inflation which has lowered that benefit over the last 20 years?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the significant input from northerners about increasing the northern residents tax deduction, the member is absolutely correct. There has been no response at all from the government. Many people in his riding and in my riding have signed petitions asking the government to increase the northern residents tax deduction. I have some petitions in my office. Our municipal councils would like it increased and they have sent resolutions to the government. However, the government has been absolutely silent on this issue.

While we are putting this on the record, I would like to change the way the government calculates the northern allowance for the trip out. All sorts of people in my riding are being audited on this, sometimes time and time again. It is far too complicated. The government does not always ask for receipts but when people are asked for them later they do not always have them. This could be simplified just by increasing the amount of the deduction for northerners. This would save the government a lot of administrative work and help northerners keep up with inflation. As the member said, this deduction has not been increased for years.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would humbly suggest that the hon. member has still not read budget 2007, and that was some months ago.

The member talked about post-secondary education. I would like to note that the member voted against budget 2007, a budget that made very significant investments into post-secondary education, a 40% increase. It is unparalleled by any government to ever make such a one time, significant investment. However, we did more than that. We also announced that we would index it with inflation.

The member talked about promises that were made in the platform of the former government. We know that when the former government was in power, it slashed post-secondary supports in this country. The Liberals cut the heart right out of them and the students bore the brunt of that. This government has made investments.

I would love to know why that member voted against budget 2007.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member gets up again. I am making the point that nothing was given to individual students. The budget mentions $100 but that is not enough to buy even one book. We had offered $3,000 for tuition in the first and last year and, for poor students, $3,000 in every year.

Over and above that, the millennium scholarship was Canada's contribution in the millennium year. Other countries built concrete edifices and statutes and things like that, but we invested in our people by providing millennium scholarships for those students who could not afford tuition.

My point is that the Conservative government has given nothing to help individual students who really need the money.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the fact that the Conservatives have very few ideas about the north. They talk good about Arctic sovereignty but they have no idea of the costs involved.

I represent several hundred kilometres of the Hudson Bay coast. My question is about the cost of doing business. If the Conservatives are going to make these promises and say that they will do things for northerners, they need to understand the actual cost of doing business. Perhaps my colleague could comment on how expensive it is to even build a house in the north.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, for the people of Nunavut there are huge shipping costs to get everything they need and huge costs for the fly-in communities in Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Just to get things up there costs an absolute fortune, sometimes four or five times the--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in presenting our very serious concerns about the government's budgetary plans.

We are dealing with announcements made recently in the economic update as well as budgetary measures announced previous to that. Together, these budgetary measures create an absolute missed opportunity for this country.

There is absolutely no question that when we look at this package of budgetary measures and tax provisions, the Conservative government has chosen to abandon Canadians and ignore their major concerns. This is a path that was started by the Liberals and there has been no serious change in direction. It is a disastrous path for this country.

One of the most interesting questions for us today is whether anyone can tell the difference between a Conservative budget and a Liberal budget. If we did not have a name on this package today, how would we know it was a Conservative budget and not a Liberal budget?

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Tax reductions.

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

The exact same path and pattern has been taken.

My friend here from the Conservative Party suggests it is tax reductions. I do not think so. For the past 10 years, whether we are dealing with Liberal governments or a Conservative government, we have had nothing but corporate tax cuts and debt reduction. That is it, the sum total for our country.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Personal taxes.

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

My friend here suggests there have been personal tax reductions. If we look at the total amount of taxes reduced for ordinary families, I think we end up with a small amount of money that will hardly pay for the services that are needed but have been cut back by the governments of the day.

How will a few hundred dollars in tax savings help families pay for rising tuition so that their children can receive an education tuition? How will the few hundred dollars that the Conservative government is so generously providing middle income Canadians help create child care spaces and build centres that are desperately needed by working families?

We are talking about an absolute dereliction of duty on the part of the Conservative government, exactly the direction in which the Liberals took this country. Just look at the statistics between 1997 and the present. How much money in unanticipated surpluses did we have? How much money went automatically against the debt because Conservatives and Liberals chose to hide the figures and refuse to be accountable to this place?

That is $89.9 billion. If we say that number to all of those organizations fighting for better housing or child care or health care, people seeking justice from their own government so that they can live decent and normal lives, if we tell them how it was that Liberal and Conservative governments over 10 years put $89.9 billion against the debt but only pennies toward dealing with the human deficit, the infrastructure deficit, and the reduction of the prosperity gap in this country, they cannot understand it.

Every day I talk to groups and organizations who ask: How can this government, that is awash in so much money, cut back on organizations, how can it cut back on the Canadian Health Network, how can it eliminate this research body which was providing some useful information to Canadians?

How did it choose, in the face of this kind of surplus, to decide to cut back on organizations working to prevent HIV and AIDS? How is it possible for a government today, just like the previous government, to cut back in those community efforts to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS?

How is it possible for the government to betray Canadians and take money from one pot, which is helping deal with a serious problem at the community level, and put it into another pot, the Gates Foundation, to help find a cure for HIV and AIDS when that was contrary to the agreement to begin with?

How is it possible to cut Ontario organizations involved in HIV and AIDS by 30% when this government just put $14 billion against the debt and chose not to actually put a balanced approach before Canadians. Yes, the debt is important and we will put some of that money against the debt, but, goodness gracious, there are programs here that are worth saving and fighting for because they are important to the health and well-being of Canadians.

How is it possible that these Conservatives chose to do exactly what the Liberals did for 10 years and take all of the fiscal capacity and put it against the debt or give it to corporations in the form of tax cuts?

How is that possible that they did not learn their lessons from the Liberals and act in the best interests of Canadians?

Not only that--

[An hon. member]

It's a great model.

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

I hear a Liberal over there say that it is a great model.

Here is how good the Liberals were, in terms of being a model for this Parliament, and why we cannot tell the difference between Liberals and Conservatives.

Let us go back to the budget of 2007, when the Conservatives promised, like the Liberals, to reduce corporate taxes. Then they promised to get the corporate tax rate down to 18.5% by 2011. We thought that was offensive. No breaks for Canadians but more breaks for corporations.

But, lo and behold, along came the Liberals and the leader of the Liberals said this was not good enough. He wanted corporate tax cuts. He called the government to task for not being responsible and vigilant enough in terms of corporate taxes.

There is a saying, “Be careful what you ask for”. The Conservatives jumped on this signal from the Liberals and said, “Aha, we've got all the support we need to go another step further”, or to do as the finance minister said and bring in corporate tax cuts that are the deepest and the fastest ever contemplated in the history of this country.

What did the Conservatives do? With the Liberals' encouragement, they lowered their target even further. Instead of it being 18.5% by 2011, they are going for 15%. So, an even bigger tax cut.

More and more Canadians are looking for decent housing, or child care to meet their needs when families struggle today to work and provide for their families, or health care. Look at the issue this past week of a death at a Brampton hospital in Ontario. One just has to read through this situation involving Mr. Sidhu to wonder what this government is doing that it cannot even find money to deal with its election promise to reduce waiting lists.

So a man with a burst appendix goes to emergency. He cannot be seen or get treated. He dies because of a burst appendix in a hospital that has been constructed under this infamous Liberal and Conservative pet project, the P3s, the public-private partnership that is costing us all a lot more and producing dubious results and that, in fact, has led to the death of an individual who should not have died.

Shame on this government. Shame on the Liberals who promoted the idea of P3s and cut back on health care.

It is time to put the priorities of Canadians first and that means a balanced approach. It means not putting all our money toward debt reduction and corporate tax cuts. It means putting money into quality, universally accessible health care. It means putting money into environmental protections to save this planet. It means putting money into housing, so we are not the only industrial country in the world that does not have a national housing policy. It means helping organizations to help themselves because without that kind of support the future of this country is bleak.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the passion of the member. I have served on committee with her. I think that she is well meaning. I do not happen to agree with her on this issue though.

I think there is a tremendous contrast between the Conservative government and the previous Liberal government. I think that we have worked very hard in ensuring that when we are targeting tax reductions and savings that we are doing so for the benefit of everyday Canadians.

We are trying to ensure that people have the good jobs that they need. We are trying to ensure that families do not bear an excessive burden in taxes. Last year we made a difficult decision to close the income trust loophole, something that needed to be done. The member supported it and she was attacked vehemently by the Liberal Party and its allies in the income trust lobby.

I would like to know this. Does the member understand why the Liberals still stand in the House against logic, truth and continue to give contrary versions of reality when it comes to trusts?

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is simple. It is impossible to have any other conclusion from a party that is so intertwined and interconnected with the corporate sector and so ready to jump when some individuals feel that losses in the corporate sector have to be compensated for. However, the real issue is the failure on the part of the Conservatives to actually take this a step further and understand that this is not just about dealing with lost tax revenue because of this loophole around income trusts.

We are talking about $190 billion in lost fiscal capacity because the Conservatives are following the Liberal path of putting all their eggs in one basket.

How do they explain the fact that they can put $14 billion against the debt and not have anything to say to the family of Harnek Singh Sidhu, a 52 year old Brampton transit driver who had a burst appendix and could not get service at an emergency waiting room?

How do they explain the closure of Peel Memorial Hospital and the added waiting lists created at the Brampton Civic Hospital?

Why has there not been a word of concern from the government, not a mention in the budget nor in the economic update about money necessary to deal with health care, to alleviate long waiting lists or to ensure that people have timely access to the service they need. That is the real question of the day.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest and I suppose I could comment on quite a few things, but I want to talk about the budget.

I am curious to know whether the member realizes that with an intake of approximately $210 billion by the government, after it makes its transfer payments to the provinces, we are then left with the responsibility of conducting what federal governments are supposed to do, to run our agriculture, transportation, defence and the mail, all of those things.

I wonder if the member realizes that from $70 billion, $33 billion is spent to service the debt. I am wondering if she does not think then that it would be good business practice, as in a household if one's debt service gets too high, that one reduces the debt so that future generations are not stuck with that horrendous situation. I would like the member to comment on that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member has 40 seconds to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish the member would apply his logic to a household because in fact that is the perfect example the government should follow.

If one has a mortgage and there are payments to make on a monthly basis, one pays what one can without sacrificing the well-being of one's children. One does not pay off the mortgage and have nothing left to pay for university education. One does not pay off the mortgage and have nothing left to pay for necessary medications because one would only be creating a much larger deficit down the road. That is all we are asking of the government, to balance--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to join in the debate, although my pleasure is not in support the legislation. As a member of Parliament from Nova Scotia, I reflect the views of not only members of Parliament from Nova Scotia on this side of the House, and a couple on that side of the House, but all Nova Scotians when it comes to the budget implementation act and the impact it will have as we go forward with what we see as the shredding of the Atlantic accord. It is of great concern.

Over the last couple of weeks, much has been said about the briefings that were to take place between members of Parliament and the department on aspects of the accord and the budget implementation act. Much has been written about the fact that several meetings were scheduled but cancelled, and that is of concern. We can deal with a little inconvenience on the part of members of Parliament, both in this House and the other house. However, what we have trouble with and what we are most concerned about is the impact this has had on Nova Scotians, which is significant as we go forward.

When the accord was signed, Nova Scotians, for the first time in many years, had the opportunity to impact on their own fate. They would be the masters of their own domain, where they would be the prime benefactor of 100% of the revenues from their natural resources. This would be over and above equalization. With the changes to the most recent equalization programs, whatever those changes might be, we would benefit from that as well as 100% of the resources.

This is not different from Alberta. When Leduc was discovered and that industry was in its infancy, it was given the same opportunity. However, when the past government signed onto the accord, it was the understanding that the agreement would allow Nova Scotians and the province of Nova Scotia to become a have province and continue to contribute to the great federation. We have seen the government step back from that.

When we sat in on two briefings with the finance officials, we saw something that was relatively simple. The Atlantic accord was a two-page document. The government brought forward 28 pages of amendments, 28 pages of changes to the legislation. We talked about the projected numbers. We still do not have projections by the federal officials, but there are published figures from the province of Nova Scotia. When challenged on those figures, the officials did not deny those numbers, but they did not support them, and that is significant. Before we are asked to vote on it, we should know what the scenario will be and what we think will hold in future for the people of Nova Scotia. However, that was not available to us and the officials did not provide that information to us.

From the numbers that have been put forward by the province of Nova Scotia, what we see is fairly dramatic. If there is any benefit to the people of Nova Scotia, it will come in the year 2020. It will come very deep into this agreement. In fact, over the first four to five years, Nova Scotia will lose $306 million.

We certainly will not buy into any deal that is back end loaded like that. It is a huge departure from where we went with the deal when we were in government, under our former prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard. After the deal was signed, there was an upfront payment of $800 million advanced to the province of Nova Scotia in good faith of this agreement going forward. However, with this one, if there is benefit, it will be in the year 2020.

Mr. Speaker, I know you are independently wealthy and a man of above average means. If you were to lose $3,000 for the first four years and a guarantee that you might get $2,000 in the year 2020, if everything went well, I do not think even a man of your means would sign on for something like that. It is not right and it is a detriment to the people of Nova Scotia.

Every time we challenge the government or members on the government bench, they switch and change tact. It is not about the numbers and the benefit any more. They start to talk about the crown's share. This is the trade that takes place and these are the future considerations. I am a Maple Leafs fan. I know a lot of times future considerations do not pan out. Often they do not work out.

In this case the recommendations from the panel are not binding. They are only recommendations. The government can do what it wants with these recommendations. If there were something binding, we would have a little more comfort with that. These are only recommendations.

The premier said that the accord would be fixed by March. I do not even know if the recommendations will come forward by March. The whole aspect of the accord and the crown's share is of great concern to the people of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton—Canso.

The other aspect I want to speak to is the reference made in the throne speech about changes to the administration of EI, the governance of the Employment Insurance Act and where it might go. I know, through the course of the debate on the throne speech regarding EI, a great deal of concern was raised on where the government would go with employment insurance and how much faith Canadians had in the government providing much needed support for families least apt to adapt without EI benefits?

Changes were made in previous parliaments to better support workers in seasonal industries. I am not talking about seasonal workers; I am talking about the industries. These workers want to stay in those communities and support those industries. It is crucial that they have the labour skills to allow those industries to survive.

I have much trepidation when I look at the government's approach to this. There must be a strong statement in the legislation. Some great private members' legislation on EI has been put forward by a couple of the opposition parties. One bill in particular was put forward by the member for Sydney—Victoria. It deals with the extension of health benefits to those stricken by a severe disease such as cancer, stroke or heart attack, and it goes past the 15 week period. My position is we should be able to support those bills. It is good legislation.

I had hoped to see some reflection by the government and some acknowledgement of the good legislation in this legislation, but we do not see that. That is a huge disservice to the many Canadians who find themselves losing EI benefits during times of illness or extended absence from work.

The government had an opportunity to do this. The best way to describe the current legislation is an opportunity missed.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to what the member had to say. Once again, I suggest he is another member who does not understand what is in budget 2007. He does not understand the very significant funding commitments that were made to the provinces.

The member was part of a government that created the fiscal imbalance between the federal government and the provinces. The previous government held on to too much money while the provinces struggled to pay for things like health care. That member's government created the health care problem and then tried to pretend to be the saviours of it. His government slashed $26 billion from health care.

I listened to what the member had to say. The Premier of Nova Scotia called on all members from Nova Scotia to support the bill brought forward by the government to clarify the Atlantic accord. I know the Leader of the Opposition was very clear. He does not believe in the Atlantic accord. Maybe he does now because it is good politics.

Our government has clarified it. We have gone all the way back to 1984 to ensure that it is straightened out for good. We have also come forward with a principled form of equalization that is fair to all provinces, including my home province of Ontario, which has long been discriminated against through the equalization system.

Why does the member believe we should have discriminatory equalization systems in our country?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the premier has called on all members of the House to support the budget this time.

The opposition members and the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley fought many weeks and months in the House against the past budget, which shredded the accord. I guess the way to be a leader is to find a whole bunch of people going in one direction then jump out in front of them. This is what the premier did at that time. However, we fought that battle against the government because of the way it destroyed the Atlantic accord and Nova Scotia's opportunity to be the main benefactor of its natural resources.

I do not think we need any lessons from the premier on how to vote on this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Cape Breton—Canso talked about an opportunity lost.

We were at the meeting to discuss the Atlantic accord. The Conservatives admitted it was broken, that they had broken it, that they betrayed the people of Nova Scotia.

The member for Peterborough should be very careful if he is to hitch any wagon to Rodney MacDonald. In Nova Scotia we already are talking about him in the past tense.

There is a lovely lady in his riding named Joyce Carter. The other day the Minister of Veterans Affairs said that he had talked to Joyce Carter and that Joyce was quite happy with his work on VIP services. However, in today's Hill Times is a letter written by Joyce Carter. She slams the government for having billions in surplus, yet doing nothing to keep its promise to extend VIP services to widows and veterans immediately.

Because Joyce Carter is one of his great constituents, could the hon. member elaborate and enunciate a bit more as to why the government would deliberately the widow of a veteran?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member. I fully respect the work he has done on behalf of veterans, not just on the VIP program, but also on many other issues for veterans.

He mentioned Joyce Carter. Many people in the House have come to know Joyce over the last number of years. She is not only a great advocate for the people who are involved in the VIP program, she is a great Canadian, a super Canadian.

The current Prime Minister, when he was the leader of the official opposition, on two occasions made a promise to immediately fulfill those VIP obligations to all World War II and Korean veterans. It is a shame and a fraud that this promise has not been kept.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-28. The bill lumps together all the different changes that were proposed this year for the tax system. It also includes a number of other rather interesting things which have come out of the budget that I hope to have a chance to expound on a little today.

We have a problem with the direction the government is taking in the budget. It is wrong headed. The Conservatives are moving the country in the wrong direction.

The country is experiencing a great outflow of resources and energy. This has led to a very significant surplus of government revenues. That is a wonderful situation to be in, but it happens to be the cusp of the situation. What is proposed at the cusp is to cut the legs out of the government and future governments that will have to deal with Canadians' issues as they go forward by cutting revenue. Cutting $190 billion over five years will likely to lead us into a deficit situation, either financially or in the kinds of services and support that we provide to Canadians with their own money.

Canadians were not crying out for tax cuts. They were not standing in the streets waving the flag demanding tax cuts. No. The move for tax cuts has been rather different. It has been directed by the government. It follows a trend that was set by our friends to the south with the Republican government that was elected in 2000. It is completely backward. The U.S. government is in a tremendous deficit. That deficit is extraordinary and is only getting worse. Are we seeing the same pattern today? My sense is that we are.

I want to speak to the corporate tax cuts. The logic used for the corporate tax cuts is that they will do wonderful things for the economy and for workers, that they will increase workers' wages and that they will make our economy work that much better.

The Canadian economy is not the same as every economy in the world. It is like some of them. It is like that in Russia and Qatar, countries that export resources. The value in our economy comes from minerals, oil and gas, diamonds, and so on. That is where the real wealth comes from in our economy and we are exporting it.

Companies that are taking advantage of our resources, and quite rightfully so, are in a position to make great profits right now. Those profits are escaping us as Canadians. Those are the opportunities that represent for our children and grandchildren the reinvestment of the resource revenue that we are expending right now. In doing that, we are robbing the piggy banks of our children. Government revenues from those areas in the Canadian economy are extremely important. We cannot sell ourselves out. We cannot sell our children out.

I am not against corporate tax cuts if they are incentives for regions that really require the effort. We met with members of the Canadian Hydrogen Association two weeks ago. They talked about their burgeoning industry with great opportunities for innovation and development and that they needed money. We asked them if they supported the corporate tax cuts that are taking the money out of the government coffers, which means it is not available to invest in and to grow the kinds of businesses that we need to make a good future for Canada. They were silent. They need to get out there and express that in the corporate world.

I come from the north where wealth is generated from resources. Wealth flows from that region every day, yet the people who live in that region, who work in the mines and on the pipelines and in every sense are part of the explosion of the Canadian economy, are not getting the tax break they got 20 years ago. It has been degraded since then with nothing added to it. The cost of living has gone up tremendously for us.

The deal that was struck 20 years ago by the previous Progressive Conservative government has evaporated due to inflation. The current government is not talking about putting it back into place for those people who are making this economy work. I do not think that is fair. There is talk about the capital gains exemption in this budget and how we need to make that fair by raising it 50% to bring it up from where it was 20 years ago, but when it comes to northerners and our tax breaks, the government is remarkably silent. It is a sad fact.

Something that I am finding difficult with Bill C-28 is that part 9 talks about amending the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act. What are the reasons? They are very simple reasons. It is not working quite right. Should it be included in this bill? Should it be done in the way it is being done right now? No. These changes are part of the reregulation of the north. They are directed toward the north and they are going to impact on our development of pipelines in the north for Canadians.

In the budget plan, these amendments were to be made and a consultation process was to be done. To quote the budget plan:

The Government will develop, for consultation, legislative amendments to address the discrepancy in the regulatory powers of the Board under these two Acts.

That is a great idea. Let us have some consultation. Are we having consultation here? No, we are getting this rammed down our throats. While amendments may be beneficial, in the context of the complexity of those amendments, can we understand simply by accepting them in a two day debate in the House of Commons? No. The government was supposed to consult on them before presenting them to the House of Commons.

Not having consultations is an anti-democratic, hollow action from the so-called accountable Harper government that was going to listen to people. Well it is not listening to people. It is not--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Western Arctic is sufficiently experienced in this House to know that we do not refer to other members by their names, but by their titles and names of ridings.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I regret my actions.

In Canada, the National Energy Board just presented a report which said that with all the new sources of natural gas included in the equation, by 2020 we are going to be a net importer of natural gas. It does not refer to our export requirements under NAFTA. We will not be exporting gas by 2020. We will actually be without sufficient gas for our own needs, for heating our own homes. This is the situation with energy right now.

Yes, we need to discuss the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act. Yes, we need to discuss how we can implement plans to ensure there is fair access to pipelines for all kinds of companies. However, we have a bigger job and if we do not take up that larger job today, the situation is only going to get worse.

When we talk about the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act and the National Energy Board, we have to do a little more than simply slide them into a budget address and hope that everybody will ignore it and that we will continue to conduct business in this fashion, which has led us from 1985 where we had a 25 year surplus of natural gas to a situation in the future where we will not have enough for our own needs.

This is not acceptable. We need to move beyond this kind of action of trying to slide something into an act. It is not the way to conduct business in the House of Commons. It is not the proper way to do things for Canadians. It is not the way to understand how serious issues around the regulation of pipelines are going to affect aboriginal people who are landowners, who have land claims and who have constitutional authority in their lands.

It is not the way to deal with governments like the government of the Northwest Territories that is hoping for devolution, where it can actually have a say in how its systems are developed.

It is not good for small Canadian junior gas companies that are competing with one of the largest companies in the world. The only reason the largest company in the world is building a pipeline is to control the access and delivery of gas from its fields, giving it a competitive advantage over our Canadian companies.

These are all issues that need much more examination. They cannot just be thrown into a bill and slid under the table in haste to get this thing done in time for Christmas. What does Christmas hold for Canadians when we are selling them out on the very essentials to heat their homes at Christmas? It is really unfair to all of us.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Western Arctic for his intervention on this very important bill. The bill does a lot of things for a lot of Canadians, including lowering the GST, which would affect all consumers in this country no matter what their income level.

He said he was in favour of corporate tax cuts, which is something that I was shocked but happy to hear. Then he went on to say that he wanted them targeted and he gave an example. If he reads the bill, the corporate tax cuts being offered go to companies that need it today.

We hear from the New Democratic Party that the government is not standing up enough for manufacturing. At every meeting I have attended recently to talk about what we are doing in terms of manufacturing in Ontario, and we hear plenty from the automotive manufacturing organizations in this province, all were in favour of what we are doing on corporate tax cuts.

Did the member for Western Arctic mean that he supports this government doing things for the manufacturing sector through lowering corporate tax cuts? Is that what he means by the kind of targeting he would like to see? Is that not a target that we should be going after?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, and with oil at $100 a barrel we do not need to target the oil and gas industry for tax cuts. That is not what is required here. That is not going to work. When we see the overall reduction in the corporate tax rate at 15% below that of the United States, we are talking about basically giving our resources away.

In the manufacturing industry, the profits are not large. This industry absolutely needs reinvestment opportunities. It needs to be given the opportunity to change what it is doing and in a fashion that will allow it to be more competitive and allow profits to rise. If we lower the tax rate on industries that are not making a profit, then we are not doing them a heck of a big service. What we want to do is change what these industries are doing so their profits will increase. Then they will not mind paying a reasonable tax to provide services to their country.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the member. Does he think women in the north are being treated well by the government? In particular, how did he feel when the announcement was made that there would be money for shelters on reserve when, as he knows, there are effectively no reserves in the north?

A few weeks ago, the member for Beaches—East York and I went to a press release announcement on northern homelessness. Eloquent women speakers were there from each of the three territories. Also, last weekend, a marvellous conference was held by aboriginal women in the Yukon and all sorts of recommendations were made.

Does my colleague agree with those recommendations? More important, does he feel that the government will follow up on those recommendations? Also, does he feel that aboriginal women and other northern women are treated well in the budget and the economic update?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, 13 years of Liberals and two years of Conservatives have left us in a bad situation with respect to housing in the north. I cannot deny that fact. They cannot deny it either.

We need to move forward on this issue. It is a good thing the NDP got some money in the 2005 budget for housing or otherwise we would be in real bad shape.

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

Mr. Speaker, the industry committee unanimously supported accelerated capital allowances of up to five years. The Conservative government proposed only two years. I would like the member to elaborate on why the government would not support a unanimous recommendation from the industry committee.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, as far as I can see, the Conservatives, like the Liberals before them, are against anything that smacks of an industrial strategy that would actually turn the country around. They just seem to want to hold on to the ideology of a market driven approach, and it ain't working.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this bill today, which is the latest chapter in the government's plan for Canada. There is a bit of good news in it, most of it recycled from previous Liberal economic updates, but a lot of it causes me great concern.

I want to talk about two specific issues. One is the Atlantic accord, the remnants, the glowing embers, of what is left of the Atlantic accord. I also want to talk a little about students.

Budget 2007 in the spring signalled the end of the Atlantic accord. This economic budget implementation act confirms the death of the Atlantic accord.

It is an interesting saga. A member from the opposition said the premier of Nova Scotia seems to like it, but the premier of Nova Scotia has some problems that the member, being from Ontario, may not be aware of.

Back in the spring when the budget was introduced, he did not seem to know that anything was missing. He did not seem to know that something was wrong. Suddenly, though, people said that he had better look out, because the Atlantic accord was gone. He said it could not be but looked and saw that, uh-oh, it was. “What do I do?”, he asked.

He decided he was going to negotiate a little. He even told the Conservatives, including the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, to vote for the budget while he worked it out. That member had too much principle to do that. He voted against it.

Then the premier found out that the Prime Minister was not going to do anything for him. He was not even going to acknowledge that the Atlantic accord had been taken out, defeated and gutted. The premier decided that he was going to fight the Prime Minister. He was about the 900,000th Nova Scotian to realize what happened. He got on the bandwagon and said we could not live with that. Then he went over it again, did not get what he wanted, and started to negotiate.

Over the summer, we started to see little tidbits of information that there was a deal here or maybe a deal there. Suddenly, back in September or October, I cannot remember the month, we heard that a deal had been reached. The member for Central Nova, the Minister of National Defence, indicated that it was a good deal, that there was an exchange of letters and that an exchange of letters constitutes a contract. If that is the case, I think I have a valid contract with Santa Claus. Nothing happened. This deal failed to materialize.

Suddenly, a few weeks ago, we saw it, only we did not see it. We asked to see it. We had a briefing that was scheduled and put off, then scheduled and put off again. Then suddenly we had the briefing and the one thing we realized is that it is not a good deal.

Danny Williams, the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, was right on the mark when he said on the day the deal came out that it is a bad deal by a weak government. The people of Nova Scotia and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know that. Those people knew the Atlantic accord. They understood the Atlantic accord. Because although equalization is tough, the Atlantic accord was simple.

This new deal is back-end loaded. Crown shares are brought into it. There are those three-person panels. There is money in 2016. There are funding projections that are in doubt. People do not want that. They recognize that the government is going all over the place in trying to distract them. I think that if the government wanted to drive from Halifax to Vancouver it would go through Florida to get there, because it cannot do anything in a straight line or in a straight way.

However, the people of Nova Scotia and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know one thing: this ain't the Atlantic accord and we want the Atlantic accord. It is not the Atlantic accord. It is not dealing fairly with the people of Nova Scotia and it is not dealing fairly with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now I want to talk about something else. I want to talk about students in Canada.

Canada is an educated nation, one of the most educated nations on earth. In the last number of years, starting in the late 1990s, we invested in research and innovation to make sure that the research agenda matched our students and our fine institutions, our great universities, our wonderful community colleges and our innovative polytechnic schools. We did some work on it, but the statistics now indicate that we are falling behind. We are starting to slip. Those investments are not there.

There is one area that as a nation we really need to invest in. If productivity really matters to a nation, it invests in its people. The human capital is the most important capital in any nation. Countries in the OECD are realizing that and are investing hugely in making sure that all of their students have access to post-secondary education. The emerging giants, China, Brazil and India, are ahead of us on a lot of this and are making sure that people have access to university.

We have to be particularly attentive to the most vulnerable students among us, who tend to be from low income families, aboriginal Canadians, persons with disabilities, and first generation university students. The government is doing nothing for them.

There was an $80 textbook credit in the spring. The average tuition in the province where the member for Cape Breton—Canso and I come from is $6,500 to $7,000. How do people afford to go to university unless the government says it is the government's responsibility to assist people to go to university, not just for their own benefit, which is the social justice argument, but because of the economic argument that it is good for the country and we need to do it?

I want to talk about the Millennium Scholarship Foundation. It was started in 1998 with a $2.5 billion endowment. It now kicks out about $350 million a year for student financing and the money is almost entirely needs based.

A number of student organizations put out a study this year called “Sleepwalking towards the precipice: the looming $350 million hole in Canada's financial aid system”. They talk about the Millennium Scholarship Foundation. They say:

Eliminating $350 million from the Canadian financial aid system will have a disastrous impact on the accessibility and affordability of a post-secondary education in Canada....

The federal government must continue to provide a commitment equal to or greater than the Foundation's original endowment in non-repayable student financial assistance.

One of the complaints we heard years ago about the millennium foundation from the then opposition, now the current government, was that it was not accountable. Guess what the students found:

The Foundation is fiscally efficient and has lower administrative costs than government departments, ensuring that students receive the maximum benefit....

There were “initial problems with displacement”. A number of organizations, such as the Canadian Federation of Students, which I respect, are not fans of the Millennium Scholarship Foundation, but even they would say that if it is taken out it has to be replaced with something of equal or better value for students most in need. The foundation is an organization that works across the country. It is in place in all the provinces and territories of Canada and is providing the assistance that Canadians need.

This program needs to be renewed. The government needs to stop dithering on student assistance and at the very least commit to keeping this very valuable organization going. It has to do this very soon.

Another organization that has been active in the last few months is the Coalition for Student Loan Fairness. Julian Benedict in British Columbia heads up the organization and has done some great research about student loans and some of the work that needs to be done.

The CSLF came out with eight significant recommendations. Among them is one to reduce the cost of borrowing from the 8% to 8.5% the government currently charges in the Canadian student loan system to what is now the cost of borrowing, which is somewhere in the 4.5% range. Whether that is adopted or we go somewhere in between, the government should at least acknowledge that there is a benefit to the nation as well as the student when we actually invest in making sure our students are educated.

The CSLF talks about an ombudsman's office. Whether we call it an ombudsman or a commissioner of student loan fairness, I think that is something we should look at as well.

The CSLF talks about “hardship relief” and the need to have something specific accelerated in this program for those students who are having trouble with their student loans. Students find it very hard, as they cannot go online to find out what their balance is on a student loan. I urge the government, in its review of the student loan process, to take some of those things into account.

Canadian students are among the best in the world. We should recognize that. We should encourage those students. We should make it as easy as possible for all Canadian students to go to university. We do not do enough. We generally do not do enough, not only for students, but for all those Canadians who most need help. In my view, the responsibility of government is to stand up for those citizens who are the most vulnerable.

I believe the current government cares little for those most in need. It shuts out students. It ignores low income families. It does nothing for the environment. I believe it takes Canada backwards in many ways. The Prime Minister says quite often that Canada is back. I would say we are back, way back, at the back of the pack. We are at the back of the pack when it comes to taking care of those who most need the assistance of their government. That is a shame.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to what the hon. member had to say. To be quite honest, I am disappointed because I honestly do not believe that is what the member believes. The facts say something quite different.

The former government did not take the country forward but backward. It took the country backward on greenhouse gas emissions. Tuitions only went up. Accessibility to post-secondary institutions went down. Health care wait lists doubled under the previous government. That member knows this full well as he stands in the House knowing that the present government has made serious progress on all those fronts.

There was a 40% increase in transfers for post-secondary institutions in the last budget. The member, who I know stands for students and believes in post-secondary education, voted against that because he was told to.

He stands in the House today criticizing the commitment made by this government to post-secondary education, which by any previous standard is unparalleled. He voted against it because he was told to. Now he stands here today criticizing it. He should know better. He knows that the government has done a lot for low income Canadians and a lot for average everyday working families. I know he does not believe what he is saying.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in my colleague and he is disappointed in me. I will reflect on that over the Christmas season and see if I can come back and make him happier.

I am 100% confident standing here in the House saying that the government does not care at all about students. If it did, it would not offer an $80 textbook credit. It would ensure that people could go to university. He talked about the cuts. The Minister of Human Resources talked about the cuts of the 1990s and yet back in the 1990s he said that we should cut deeper. The hypocrisy of the government is absolutely mind-boggling.

It is amazing that members stand and recreate events of the last decade when we had to clean up the mess from the last Conservative government. We did a good job but the Conservatives are messing it up again. I hope they will not be in government too long because we will need to fix it up sooner or later.

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing the member knows very well is the fact that one thing the government did, when we talk about fiscal irresponsibility, is propose that two icebreakers be moved from the Dartmouth-Halifax Harbour into St. John's and Argentia. We know very well that the money the Conservatives said that it would cost to move there is simply off the charts. The reality is that it would cost much more and disrupt the lives of over 115 families, many of them in the member's own riding.

I would like the hon. member to elaborate a bit more as to why the government would be so fiscally irresponsible and make such a political issue out of moving those vessels out of there when report after report over 10 years said that they were best to stay right where they were.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Sackville—Eastern Shore is entirely right. We held a press conference on this issue in the spring. The real shame of this is that the people in my riding and the surrounding areas are being hurt by a purely political decision. The worst thing is that it is exactly what the government does best. It pits part of the country against another part of the country.

According to anyone who has looked at this impartially, those ships were moved to make up for the fact that Danny Williams was mad about the Atlantic accord and that Newfoundland and Labrador was shafted. These ships have become pawns. The families the member talked about in my community are being poorly served. Thank heavens for the Coast Guard alumni. Even one of the commanding officers of a ship said, at possible detriment to his own career, that this was a stinky move and should not happen. He is right and the government is wrong.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for putting a lot of facts on the table, especially around post-secondary education.

I come from a riding in central Canada where in the coffee shops people do not know a lot about the details of the Atlantic accord but they know that someone has broken his word. Somebody promised something but did not deliver.

In the coffee shops in the member's riding, what are they saying about people who break their word and do not deliver on a promise?

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

One thing we know, Mr. Speaker, is that when we get back into power we will not call anything an “accord” any more. The child care accord was torched, the Kelowna accord was killed and the Atlantic accord was gutted.

The Prime Minister cannot walk by a Honda dealership without closing his eyes in case he sees an accord. The people of Atlantic Canada have been shafted by the government all the way through and that continues to this day.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will call this 10 minute speech opportunities completely lost.

We have billions and billions of dollars in surpluses, a lot of it coming from the federal superannuation pension plan as well as the EI fund, but most of it coming from Canadian taxpayers and businesses across this country. I have always advocated the one-third approach: one-third on debt relief, one-third on strategic tax incentives and relief and one-third on reinvestment. What do we get? We get $14 billion toward the entire debt.

We can argue whether that is good or bad, but the reality is--I would like those handclappers to stand in their places and tell families what they are prepared to do to help children with autism, what they are prepared to do to help families in the shipbuilding industry and what they are prepared to do to help widows of veterans who cannot get assistance because the government says that it does not have the money. What will they tell students? What will they tell all kinds of folks? Giving somebody on minimum income, under $15,000 a year, a GST break is like giving a diet pill to a hungry man. It simply does not make any economic sense.

The Conservatives talked about lowering the income tax rate but all they did was reintroduce what the Liberals did in their budget. It is like the Seinfeld show of regifting. They are not fooling anyone. Every economist said very clearly that if the government wants to give breaks to citizens, it should do it on the income tax roll, which is where we in the NDP believe it should happen.

We cannot sit here like Uncle Scrooge on our pile of cash and tell the people who require homes, education and a better environment that we will not do anything for them.

I just completed a tour of Resolute Bay, Arctic Bay and Iqaluit in the far north. Those people did not ask for a GST cut. They asked for an increase to their northern allowance, which has not increased in 20 years.

The Prime Minister showed up in Resolute Bay. He did not even tell the local citizens he was coming. He informed them, without prior discussion with the Nunavut government and the local government in Resolute, that the government would be putting a 100 man army base there. One of the questions asked concerned the cost but there was no answer.

He then dropped by Nanisivik, again without telling the local people until the last second, and said that the government would be putting a deep water port there. The first question the Inuit asked the government was whether it did an environmental assessment on increased traffic up Lancaster Sound. The answer, of course, was no.

In Iqaluit there is a desperate need for housing. These families are crowded into their homes now. What is the answer? It is no.

Speaking of autism, a motion was passed by all parties in the House, including the Conservatives, to have a national strategy working with the provinces and territories. What do we get? We get cancelled meetings and nothing else.

In the previous election, the government promised to get rid of the VRAB, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, and replace it with people of medical and military backgrounds. Twenty-two months later VRAB is still there. If we ask any veteran or family member of a veteran who has had dealings with the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, it is nauseating at best.

Last Friday we asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs a question on what he said the government would do, which was to increase the VIP services to all widows and all veterans of World War II and Korea immediately. The Conservatives said that they would do that immediately upon forming government. They have done absolutely nothing.

The Conservatives said that they would look after and compensate all those people from defoliant spraying in Gagetown from 1956 to 1984 and that they would call for a public inquiry. What do we get? No public inquiry and only those people from 1966 and 1967.

Ironically, that is what the previous Liberals were going to offer. The member for New Brunswick Southwest, who is now the Minister of Veterans Affairs, went all over Gagetown and said that the Liberals were allowing his people to perish because they did not have any heart to care for his people. He is now the Minister of Veterans Affairs and he has the power to honour his own commitment and that of the Prime Minister. What do we get? Absolutely nothing.

We have the Atlantic accords in Atlantic Canada, in particular, in Nova Scotia. We have the soon to be former premier, Rodney MacDonald, in Nova Scotia, and that provincial election cannot come soon enough. Premier MacDonald tells us that life is good but let us do a little history on that.

First, when the budget was before us, Premier MacDonald told all the federal members from Nova Scotia to vote for the budget. We told him quite clearly, as did the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, that this was seriously flawed and that the Atlantic accord agreement with the previous government was broken. However, he did not believe it. How could his own Conservative brethren break their word? We have been telling him that the government does that on a regular basis.

He finally figured it out and then called everyone to tell them not to vote for the budget. The member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley did what his premier asked him to do and did not vote for the budget. What was the member's reward? Before he even sat down in this place he was automatically removed from the Conservative Party of Canada.

In another reward for that, the premier had a press conference months later with the two members from Nova Scotia, the member for Central Nova and the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's, and told them how great the new deal was. Can anyone imagine how the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley and his Conservative constituents felt about the betrayal of the provincial government?

Premier MacDonald said very clearly that Nova Scotia would receive an extra $229 million out of this accord, not $226 million or $230 million, but $229 million. At a briefing with finance officials and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, we asked them where Rodney MacDonald got the figure of $229 million? Their answer was that those were provincial numbers, not federal numbers.

Did Mr. MacDonald simply pick the number out of a hat? The reality is that there were no major discussions on the accord between the provincial finance department and the federal finance department. If we read Bill C-28 carefully, Nova Scotia will get screwed. It is as simple as that.

It is the politics of perjury that the Conservatives consistently practice. They say one thing while in opposition and when in government they turn around and completely abandon their morals and principles when it comes to these issues of finance.

It is unconscionable that the Conservatives admit that between 2002 and 2006 Statistics Canada made a mistake on its indexing for the Canada pension plan. The government admits that a mistake was made of well over a billion dollars. We asked, quite rightly, that the money be returned to Canadian seniors.

What answer did we get? The government said that it would not give it back. It admitted that a crown corporation of the government made a mistake but that it would absolutely not give it back to the seniors and their families.

I will admit that the mistake has now been corrected but there is still a four and a half year gap that has not been paid for. I can assure members that the people listening to this know that if they owe Revenue Canada any money at all, Revenue Canada will sick the hound dogs on them and it will collect the money with interest and penalties. Why can the same not apply to government when it owes the citizens of this country money?

This is an opportunity lost. The government had an opportunity to fulfill the promises that it made in writing. The Minister of National Defence says that they have letters on the accord that signify a contract.

Joyce Carter of Cape Breton had a letter and it said that the government would immediately extend the VIP. It has not happened yet. We simply cannot trust the federal Conservatives to do what they say. How can we trust the government with anything else it says? Tommy Douglas once said, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on us”. Shame on the Conservative government.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal in the member's speech that I would love to talk about and rebut but I have only one question because I am sure I will be limited in time.

My question is for the member and most of his NDP colleagues. Why are they so unabashedly opposed to reducing the debt?

If we stop to think about it, our debt is owed to people who have more money than they need, hence their ability to buy Canada savings bonds and make other investments in our country. When we have debt, money is transferred from the people who have less money, because everyone has to pay taxes, and it is transferred to those who already have so much.

I would think that the NDP would be very delighted to reduce the debt by huge amounts so that the amount of money that is transferred from the poor people in Canada to the rich people in Canada would be reduced. It seems to me that would be a logical conclusion.

Why is the member always whining about the fact that we are trying to reduce the debt that was given to us over many years of Liberal governments, starting with Trudeau?

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am a beer man, not a wine man, so I do not whine.

Second, if the member actually listened to what I said, and I know it is difficult for him to listen, I said that one-third of the money that we had should have gone toward debt relief, one-third toward strategic tax incentives and relief, and one-third toward reinvestment. That is specifically what I said.

The NDP is not against debt relief. What we want is a balance. We do not want all the money going toward the debt, leaving millions of Canadians out in the cold. That is exactly what the member from Alberta proposes.

By the way, in case I do not get a chance, I want to wish him the very best because I know he is not running again. I thought he did a pretty good job while he was sitting here in the House, although that question was not a great one. Maybe he would like to ask another one in the future.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member what he thinks about the total abandonment of the surveillance of the north and Arctic sovereignty.

The Prime Minister said “use it or lose it”, and then he promised ice breakers worth billions of dollars to northerners to get them to vote for him, and then he broke that promise. As members know, we just recently heard the Aurora airplane surveillance has been cancelled. It is incredible.

The member is an expert in shipbuilding. What did the cancellation of the ice breakers mean to shipbuilding? We have the Danes encroaching on Hans Island in Canada. We have the Americans in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. We have the whole world in the Northwest Passage and we cancel surveillance. What does the member think of that?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is also another promise the government made in opposition, with big fanfare, of a 500-man battalion at Goose Bay, Labrador. That is not going to happen. Three-armed ice breakers for the north are not going to happen.

The people in the far north have heard far too many grandiose promises. I would suggest to the government, and for that matter, any member of Parliament, to include the north in those discussions of any plans it has for the north.

The hon. member is from Yukon. My colleague right here is from Western Arctic. I lived in Watson Lake, Yukon for over nine years. Those people know what they would like to have. They want to cooperate with all levels of government in order to move the north forward and develop economic opportunities.

Increasing the northern allowance to triple what it is now would be a good start. Providing adequate housing for people up there would be a good start. Allowing them to be able to afford Canada's food guide would be a very good start. There are all kinds of things that we could do to improve the conditions of the north, but if the government is going to do it, it should make sure it includes the north in those discussions.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in defence of my hon. colleague who is going to retire this year, I want to talk about the debt just a little more because the hon. member talked about one-third, one-third and one-third. Now let me think. That is $17 billion over one year, and $465 billion, that is one-third of a thousand years. Is that what he is advocating, that we pay this debt off in one-third of 1,000 years? I would like an answer.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Sackville--Eastern Shore has 20 seconds to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am speechless. The problem is that he is too addicted to his BlackBerry and he got the figures all wrong, but if I may say, in honour of my good Dutch friend--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Scarborough--Guildwood.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to direct the attention of hon. members to page 95 of the government's economic statement made on October 30. It is a statement of the government's priorities and it is also a statement of missed opportunities.

As members know, when the Liberals left office they left the country in pretty good shape, and the Conservatives are the happy beneficiaries of that hard work over 13 years. It is so strong in fact that it is hard for even this bunch to make a hash out of things, but government is more than just simply not making a hash out of things. It is about having a clear vision. It is about being able to anticipate political and economic challenges, so as to minimize the difficulties to citizens.

The statement starts with $60 billion worth of tax relief over five years. So far so good. It promises to reduce corporate taxes by $14 billion, a direct steal from a previous announcement made by the leader of the Liberal Party a full month before the economic statement was released.

This is really a government that did not see fit to give credit to the Liberal leader for his idea, but of course had it done so, it would have been an acknowledgement of the Liberal leader's obvious leadership qualities and his ability to project a vision for the nation.

Naturally, we in the Liberal caucus would support this particular measure, since it was ours in the first place, originally thought of by our party, and when we were in power, we started the general direction of reducing the corporate tax from 28% to where it is presently.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

We will now have statements by members under Standing Order 31. When we return to the study of Bill C-28 after question period, there will be eight minutes left for the hon. member for Scarborough--Guildwood.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-28, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007 and to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on October 30, 2007, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

When the debate was last interrupted, the hon. member for Scarborough--Guildwood had the floor. He has eight minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks. I therefore call upon the hon. member for Scarborough--Guildwood.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe I left off by congratulating the government on taking the Liberal initiative of reducing corporate tax rates. That initiative had been set in place by the previous government. It started with the rate at 28% and it was well on its way. We congratulate the government for continuing that rate reduction initiated by the Liberal government and then substantially encouraged by the Liberal leader a month and a half prior to the actual reduction in the economic statement.

We also support the $265 million reduction in the small business rate. We think that is good for business. We think it is good for our economy. It is a welcome relief to business entrepreneurs.

What would have been even more welcome would have been an increase in the capital cost allowance. As members well know, people in the forestry industry are struggling. People in the auto sector are struggling. Farmers are struggling. They could all do with improving their productivity.

By improving their productivity, they could then deal with foreign competition. Many are finding that with the rise in the value of the dollar they are having challenges they never have had before.

Canada cannot compete in a low wage environment. Canadians will not work at Chinese or Indian wage levels, so the only alternative is to be more productive, but in order to be more productive, shop floors have to be mechanized with the latest technology. Of course, all of this costs money. Companies need to make huge outlays in machinery, equipment and training and they need to be able to write it off as soon as possible.

Here is the tragedy: this economic statement makes no provision for accelerated capital cost allowance but it trashes $34 billion in a GST cut. We all like to get an extra penny off our coffee at Tim Hortons, but someone who has just been laid off in the forestry sector, the auto sector or the agricultural sector would probably prefer, given the choice, to keep his or her job over having a penny off a coffee. Unfortunately, that worker does not get the choice because the Conservative government has already made that choice for him or her.

The Conservative government has chosen to cut $34 billion of tax relief over farmers, over auto workers and over forestry workers. That $34 billion is a lot of money, so let us just think of what it could do for the distressed agricultural, manufacturing or forestry sectors in this country.

It could help these industries with an accelerated capital cost allowance. That would have been one choice for $34 billion or part of $34 billion. It could help to underwrite relief for the purchase of machinery or training for workers. That is something that could have been done with $34 billion or part of $34 billion.

For instance, $34 billion could have done basic infrastructure around the GTA or other municipalities, but apparently the government is not interested in helping municipalities. In fact, our intrepid finance minister just blew off the mayors of this country by telling them to stop whining and fix their own potholes. I like a penny off my coffee at Tim's just as much as the next guy, but I sure do not like blowing a tire on the numerous potholes on Lawrence Avenue just to get there. Yet this is the choice that this particular government has made.

The government has made choices and has taken well over half of the tax relief package and misspent it. The tax relief package in total is around $60 billion over five years. The government has chosen to take $34 billion, in other words, well over half of it, and misspend it on a GST cut. Instead of doing proper tax relief on personal or corporate taxes or, heaven forbid, on upgrading our nation's streets and bridges, the government has blown it on a politically motivated tax cut.

Mr. Speaker, when you are cruising the local Tim Hortons in Oshawa or Dryden or St. Catharines, you should ask the fellow sitting there having his second cup that morning because he does not have a job how he likes his coffee now. Does he really appreciate that extra penny off his cup of coffee or would he prefer to have that well-paid job he had in St. Catharines or Oshawa or Dryden?

With two cuts to the GST, as implemented by the government, the phrase double-double now takes on a new meaning. We can forget all those pointy-headed economists, all 20 out of 20 of them who said that this is a pretty dumb idea, and just ask that guy without a job whether he thinks $34 billion in GST cuts could have been spent in a better way.

My final comment: better late than never. When the Liberal government left office, the threshold personal rate was 15%, but in order to pay for the first GST cut, the Conservative government raised the threshold rate to 15.25% and then up to 15.5%. Economists will tell us that this again is one of the dumbest things we can do: raising personal income tax to fund a consumption tax decrease. It is really, really bad, but in order to cover up for their foolishness, the Conservatives made that faux argument, which was that the Liberals reduced the base threshold rate from 15.5% to 15% based upon a ways and means motion rather than legislation.

Let us look at our own personal income tax returns for the year 2005. I encourage people to go home and look at their returns. We will see that the threshold rate of the first threshold is 15% for the taxation year 2005. If we tell this to a tax filer, that the government did it by way of a ways and means motion as opposed to legislation, the tax filer is likely to scratch his head or probably say something rude. All the tax filer is interested in is knowing that the threshold rate was 15%. To fund their foolishness, the Conservatives raised the rate back up to 15.25% and 15.5% and now are bringing it back to where we were two years ago.

As members can see, I am not overly impressed by this particular economic statement or the legislation that accompanies it.

Reducing the corporate tax rate only came about because of the initial initiatives by the Liberal government when it was in office in bringing it down from 28% to 21% and, with scheduled decreases, down to 19%. That was already well in place. Then there was the further commitment on the part of the Liberal leader some weeks, if not months, prior to the actual setting out of this economic statement.

Accelerating the small rate business rate reduction is a good thing. We do not dispute that. But the government has missed a huge opportunity to cut into the accelerated cost allowances, or in other words, to move it up so that those who are facing competitive challenges such as they have never faced in their business lives can accelerate the ability they have to write off machinery, equipment, technology and all the training that goes with it.

I see that I am running out of time, but I will simply say that the GST cut is blown money, because one cent off a cup of coffee simply will not help pay the bills when people do not have jobs.

Finally, better late than never, bringing the base rate back to 15% puts us exactly where we were two years ago, which is a perfect metaphor for the government. Not only does it not get it done, but it has gone backward.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member pointed out that he was not impressed by the economic statement, unlike: the Canadian Council of Chief Executives; the Canadian Bankers Association; the Retail Council of Canada; the Canadian Chamber of Commerce; Dale Orr, from Global Insight; Craig Wright, chief economist at the Royal Bank; Patricia Croft, from Philips, Hager & North; the P.E.I. finance minister; the B.C. Liberal revenue minister; John Williamson, from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation; Garth Whyte, from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business; and the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters.

I think the member stands alone on this. There are not too many people who were not impressed with the economic and fiscal update.

I do want to mention one thing: $40 million. Forty million dollars is a big number. That is how much money is going to stay in my riding and not be paid to the federal government in the form of GST following the two cuts. That money can stay in my community and create investment and jobs. It will help small business in my community. I am a big supporter of the $40 million a year staying in my riding. Why does the member oppose $40 million a year staying in my riding?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has some selective readings. I would ask him to ask any one of the individual entities named whether they think the GST cut of $34 billion is a good idea. I dare say that not one of them, not anyone who has any economic background at all, would endorse this commitment to a $34 billion cut out of $60 billion worth of tax relief. Many of them would endorse $60 billion worth of tax relief, but they would not endorse $34 billion worth of wasted tax relief, such as the hon. member is saying.

The member thinks that $40 million staying in his community is a good idea. I dare to say that I agree that $40 million should stay in his community, but if it in fact stayed by way of a corporate cut or a personal tax cut rather than by way of a consumption tax cut, it would be much better spent.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member previously mentioned something about infrastructure. I come from a municipal background as a city councillor. I know what shape the infrastructure of this country is in. It is crumbling. Its averages about 85 to 100 years old. What we do is look at something that breaks underground and go from one broken piece to another. We put in new material in between, but we are simply waiting for the next broken piece to fail.

This is causing some real problems when it comes to the safety and functionality of our communities and the possibility of raising our families in safe communities. As well, it is difficult for us to attract industry when we have crumbling communities.

What happened when the mayors and members of councils of this country went to the government and asked for help? They got a stern sneer from the Minister of Finance. He told them to stop whining. That is not the way to treat municipal mayors.

I have a question for the hon. member. We have a very strong economy right now. It is doing very well, thanks to about 13 years of the previous Liberal government putting the economy back in its place. How long can we sustain a strong economy with our communities falling apart because we cannot sustain the infrastructure that keeps industry going?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a timely question. The government has made choices and it has made some bad ones. The member outlines one of the major bad choices that the government has made, namely, blowing off the municipalities.

The government has said to municipalities that it is not going to fix their potholes, repair their bridges, do their sewers or do their water and it is certainly not going to make any money that the government has in surplus available to any other level of government, particularly municipal levels of government.

It is great to have a booming economy. In some respects, we do have a booming economy in that we have a low unemployment rate and all that sort of stuff, but it is in sectors. There are sectors, such as there are where the hon. member comes from, where they are not doing very well at all. Frankly, his area would like to have some repairs to bridges.

It is great to have a product that is made on a competitive basis. It is great to be able to buy a piece of machinery and be competitive with anyone else in the world, but if it is impossible to get that product across the bridge because of traffic tie-ups that are three or four hours long, then all the personal, corporate and business initiatives are utterly useless. That is what the government has missed. It has missed the big picture.

That is what the government regularly misses. It misses the big picture. The government does stupid little things that in fact are counterproductive to the economic prosperity of the nation.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy this afternoon to have a few minutes to speak once again and very directly to the budget implementation bill which is now before the House.

I had an opportunity last week not to enter the debate on the bill but rather on several occasions to ask questions of hon. members on both sides of the House about their comments and about the positioning of their party on the bill. To state the obvious, the government members made it clear from the outset, of course, that they would be supporting their own bill.

What was very much more surprising was that the Liberals, who have stood up here day after day trashing the decisions made by the Conservatives in the bill which is now before us, indicated nevertheless that they would be sitting in their seats rather than voting against the bill.

Perhaps even more surprising, if one pays close attention to the interventions from the official opposition, the Liberal members of the House, they have praised the government. We just heard the same thing from the last speaker, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

He praised the government for the extent, the depth and the breadth of the corporate tax cuts, while also trashing the government for the expenditures that it did not make on a whole wide range of desperately needed, overdue investments in the Canadian people, in Canadian infrastructure, and in broad social supports that deepening poverty has left people desperately requiring.

Middle class families are losing ground and being punished by the prosperity gap. They were also hoping would their issues be addressed in the budget, but clearly were not. It is a really difficult thing. It is kind of like whiplash. We get whiplash trying to keep up with where the Liberals really stand on the budget.

Let me say very clearly once again, and the point has been made very ably by a number of my colleagues, starting with my leader, the finance critic and also a number of other colleagues, that we will not be supporting this budget implementation bill for several reasons.

I do not want to be parochial about it, but let me say once again clearly for the record that one of the reasons that the members from Atlantic Canada will not be supporting it, but also the rest of my colleagues from all over the country, is because it completely betrays the Atlantic accord that was entered into through an all-party agreement starting in Nova Scotia, but also finally here in the House. It betrays the commitments made.

I want to say very briefly that it became extremely clear when I received in my mailbox in Nova Scotia a communication from the premier of Nova Scotia, which was not especially directed to me but went to every household in Nova Scotia, in which in the very first paragraph the premier of Nova Scotia stated categorically:

The Atlantic Accord is alive and well. The clarification which we and the federal government agreed upon on October 10th makes us better off financially than we were when we signed the Accord in 2005.

So far so good. That is absolutely true. The accord in its present form, desperately shaved down and shrunken, would make Nova Scotia better off than before the accord existed. However, it does not tell the truth that it does not make Nova Scotia better off to the extent that was absolutely promised in the signed and sealed legal document that constituted the first Atlantic accord, and that effectively was shrunken down by this budget implementation bill. Second, it states absolutely erroneously:

It is also a fact Nova Scotia stands to receive hundreds of millions of dollars more than when the value of the Crown share is determined in March 2008.

Again, in a special box highlighted on the first page of this communication, the premier of Nova Scotia says:

A three person panel will resolve a 20 year dispute over the value of offshore resources by mid-March. We are confident Nova Scotians will receive hundreds of millions of dollars from our Crown share.

The Minister of Finance has made it clear that is not true. The political and financial advisors of the government, in a briefing, made it clear that is not true, that in fact the only thing that may happen, and let us give the benefit of the doubt that it will happen, in mid-March 2008 would be an attempt to come to an agreement over what process would be used to subsequently resolve this 20-year dispute.

Not that the dispute would be resolved, not that the dollar amounts would be determined and made known to Nova Scotians, but that there would simply be an agreement on a process that would be used which could go on for a very long time.

I want to finish off dealing with the Atlantic accord because it is clear that there is every reason for it now to receive the new name: the Atlantic discord. There are tremendous contradictions between the provincial and the federal governments over what this newest iteration of the Atlantic accord actually means.

When there are constant differences in the interpretation of an agreement reached between two levels of government, this is a very big problem. This indicates that not only is there not certainty, there is not even any kind of agreement about what the accord actually means, let alone the likelihood that what is being promised in this implementation act would actually be delivered.

That reason alone accounts for huge numbers of Atlantic Canadians, particularly in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, absolutely making it clear they do not want this supported and they are having a hard time understanding why Liberals are sitting in their seats instead of voting against it if in fact they care about the economic health of the Atlantic Canadian provinces.

It does not just benefit Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, although they are the chief beneficiaries because it is about the revenues from offshore resources, but it clearly, if it were fair and it were actually delivering in this implementation bill what it promised to deliver, it would benefit the economy of the whole Atlantic region.

I must say, yet again, that I was stunned to hear the member for Scarborough—Guildwood congratulate the Conservatives for continuing the massive tax cuts to the corporate sector that are contained in this budget and, again, I guess we would expect him therefore to stand and vote for the budget.

However, that member knows and all of his colleagues know that it was the Liberal leader who gave a clear signal that the Liberal Party would be completely supportive of deeper and faster tax cuts, that were already contemplated by the Conservatives, that we see the massive deep tax cuts to the corporate sector.

Let us be clear who the single biggest beneficiaries are. Two major beneficiaries of these very deep tax cuts are: the oil and gas companies that are continuing to gouge consumers at the pumps, and the banks that are continuing to gouge consumers in terms of service fees.

What is that costing Canadians? I know my time is up, Mr. Speaker. It is costing in terms of this government not delivering on the long-promised and desperately needed universal child care program, not delivering on the affordable housing desperately needed, not delivering on reducing post-secondary education tuition fees for students who need an education in this knowledge-based economy, not delivering on the infrastructure programs that municipal leaders had to come to the Hill to plead for today because of what it means in terms of the deterioration of sewer and water, bridges, and not delivering on many other very important municipal infrastructure programs.

For all of those reasons, let me make clear what my colleagues have already indicated. We will not be voting for this very flawed, shortsighted and meanspirited budget implementation bill when it comes up for a vote.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again I rise to ask our NDP colleagues a question. I know we are not going to convince them on the advantages of corporate tax cuts and how that spurs on the economy, but I want to ask the member about the cuts that we have made to the GST.

I know earlier last week we had some people see us at the industry committee. These people represented the Canadian restaurant and food services. They told us the impact that the GST has had on the restaurant services and how that had a profound impact on the industry. But more so, I am think specifically of the waitresses. Generally speaking, they are paid minimum wage and they rely on tips. When customers get their bill, they are expecting to pay $17.95 for a meal and then they have taxes levied on top of that and oftentimes the waitresses bear the brunt of that when they lose the tip that is so important to them.

I am curious. What about the GST? Is that something that the member would agree to? Is that something that she sees as beneficial both to the economy but also to those marginalized people who it has made such an impact on?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be disrespectful and I do not want to accuse the member of being sexist in his insistence that we are talking about waitresses. I would think in this day and age we would be talking about servers, but since he clearly means women, let me talk about women who are working at very inadequate wages.

They are desperate for universal child care programs because they understand that the child care program is not only essential to ensure the safety, health and security of their child but it is early childhood development. It is early learning that is critical to the development and well-being of the child.

Let me talk about women earning very inadequate wages. It means that they are hurting because the government has not done anything about affordable housing, especially special needs housing, in some cases for single parents, and in some cases for older women who find themselves widowed or divorced and with inadequate incomes.

We know there are older women working as waitresses these days because they, in many cases, have the need for prescription drugs, either for their own illnesses or because they are supporting, with no help from the government thank you very much in terms of a universal home care program, and trying to provide desperately expensive prescription drugs for a family member or spouse who is ill.

I think if the member could just raise his sights a little bit to see the bigger picture, he would understand that most hard-working family members or single women, whom he has in his sights here, would rather have seen the investment in these kinds of programs. That would lift those in deepest poverty up out of poverty and give a break to hard-working families and individuals who are suffering because of the increasing gap between the haves and have-nots in our society.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to the member that probably the best way to raise people out of poverty is through good paying jobs and one of the things that the member is not aware of is that corporations largely pass high taxes on to consumers. They pass them back onto people and they also pass them on in the way of lower wages.

We have heard this in the finance committee time and again. The more we tax corporations there is less investment, less money is paid to their employees, and higher prices have to be paid for their products.

I do not understand why the NDP does not get it. We are trying to benefit all Canadians and provide more opportunity. They are standing in the way.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think that was an assertion, not a question. Sometimes it is hard for us in this corner of the House to know whether it is a Conservative or a Liberal member speaking because we cannot tell a bit of difference between them when they sing the praises of making even faster and deeper tax cuts for the wealthiest corporation.

Let us be clear.

[An hon. member]

It's a race.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Yes, it is a race to see who can give away the bigger tax cuts. The statistics are truly--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Malpeque.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the budget and economic statement implementation act. I will use this time to spell out how serious the hog and beef crisis is in this country and the absolute neglect that the new Government of Canada is showing toward that industry in its time of trouble. I will keep my statements mainly on the new government's lack of commitment to Canadian farmers.

Nothing is so glaring in this economic statement as the new government's failure to respond to the crisis that primary producers are facing. I could go into a lot of areas, including the fact that the Prime Minister committed 18 months ago to a cost of production. Nothing has happened. There has been no cost of production for Canadian farmers.

I could point out the fact that the new government promised to scrap CAIS but all it did was change the name and pass a few little amendments that are already in place. Even with those few little amendments, the safety net program does not meet the needs of producers in the livestock industry.

The simple fact is that this country's beef and hog producers are facing the worst crisis in a century, bar none. There is no question that BSE was a crisis in the beef industry but it does not have a patch in terms of the crisis in economic pricing that the beef and hog industry is facing at the moment.

The new government, with its huge surpluses, is failing to address that need. I do not know whether it is caught in the Ottawa bubble, where nothing exists outside of Ottawa, and it does not understand the concerns, but it is certainly not acting when it should be acting in farmers' interests.

Traditionally in this country when commodity crises have hit in the past, previous governments have acted with haste and resolve to do their part to support a commodity in crisis. It does not matter whether it was Brian Mulroney with his $1 billion and $1.2 billion Canadian grain payments or the previous government under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin in terms of BSE and other--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Malpeque is one of the most experienced members of the House and I am sure he meant to the refer to the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, my apologies. The fact is that other governments have acted but the new government is failing to do so.

The new government should realize that there are ways of acting. If I have time I will get into what the previous government did on beef in the past just as an example so that the new government will understand that there are things it could be doing.

Simply put, Canada is losing its hog industry and our beef industry is in serious trouble.

We in the House and Canadians need to understand that this is not just about losing a business. These are family farms and some corporate farms as well, but farming is not only a business. These are third, fourth, fifth and sixth generation farmers who are now going down the tube or exiting the industry as a result of financial pressures they find themselves under. These are not just numbers. These are farm families. These are human beings who are actually losing their heritage as a result of this farm crisis in which they find themselves.

The government must absolutely act, as other governments have in the past.

For those who do not understand the farming industry, these are not poor or inefficient farmers. They are the most efficient farmers in the industry who are now facing financial ruin. They are farmers who have responded to calls from governments over the last 20 years to increase production and increase their efficiencies so we could get into the export industry. Those farmers met that call that governments asked them to meet. They produced more efficiently, increased their production and exports from Canada went up and up. However, farm incomes went down considerably during that period of time.

These people, who met the call of government to become more efficient, more productive and produce more, are now facing financial ruin for themselves and their families. It is not because of anything they have done. It is because of events far beyond their control. Yes, part of it is the dollar, part of it is high feed costs and part of it is the amount of subsidy going into ethanol production, which pushes up the price of the feed costs, but they are efficient farmers.

The new government has a huge surplus. What is needed is an immediate cash infusion.

Last Thursday night, in my province of Prince Edward Island, the beef and hog producers had a meeting. I was not able to attend because I was returning from an international event on food safety. However, I have reports from that meeting. The beef and hog producers who attended outlined their fear and their frustration of where they were at in the industry and whether they could survive.

In Prince Edward Island, 30% of the hog industry has already closed its doors. Many others are hanging on by a very thin financial thread. For these people, this is a life's work, not only one life's work but, in many cases, several generations' life's work destroyed, while the government sits on its hands on a huge surplus and fails to put in an ad hoc financial payment to tide them over.

Previous governments have done that. Why will the government not act when it is absolutely necessary to act for the beef and hog industry in this country?

I have spoken about Prince Edward Island but it is the same across Canada. On the beef industry, let me read from a letter from the executive director of the P.E.I. Cattlemen's Association, Mr. Bradley. He said:

There is no doubt the Island's beef industry is in crisis. I get calls every day from producers asking if there is any government assistance on its way. Farmers are desperate. There is a huge amount of concern and desperation out there....

He goes on to say:

...The operations we are losing today belong to some of the best farmers in the region and once they are gone, they won't return.

Even The Guardian, our local newspaper, which covers the Island like the dew, talked about the situation. It said:

This province has been built on agriculture and Islanders need to think carefully before allowing that foundation to erode.

It goes on to state:

...almost 30 per cent of hog producers have closed their doors and most are losing $60-$80 per hog.

The article continues to state:

This isn't a question of whether farmers can weather this or that challenge; it's whether they can survive.

This is about the farmers of Canada. This is about hog and beef producers in this country. This is about food security. Do we want to be dependent on other nations for our food supply in this country? The crisis in which these individuals find themselves is not the farmers' doing. It is more the government's doing than any others.

In news reports on the Minister of Agriculture's meeting with the Canada Pork Council, they revealed that the minister expressed concern. I am telling the House today, on the third day of December, that a lot of these farmers will not be around by Christmas. Will we allow these farmers, the people who feed this nation, to go broke before Christmas? The minister does not need to show concern. He needs to come up with actual cash, with an ad hoc payment that will do some good.

The Minister of Agriculture owes it to the hog and beef producers of Canada to state clearly what his government intends to do and he needs to state that immediately. Governments have a responsibility to act and the Conservative government has displayed a consistent aversion to acting on behalf of struggling farmers. The hog and beef industry needs action now. I call on the government to act today.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that member frequently stands and talks about how our government is not acting in response to farmers and is not assisting farmers, but he forgets his government's abysmal record on agriculture.

For years the Liberals neglected agriculture in this country and they hurt farmers. BSE should never have happened in Canada, except that they failed to act when all the signs were there. When protection should have been put in place, they did nothing.

This government is standing up for farmers. We brought in compositional standards for cheese. We filed an article 28 against milk protein concentrates entering this country. That is good for dairy and it will help our dairy farmers.

We got the border open to Canadian beef exports and that will help the Canadian beef industry.

We are entering into a biofuels industry so our grain and oilseeds producers will have another market and can be self-sufficient.

This Conservative government put more money into agriculture, record agricultural funding to support our farmers because we believe in food sovereignty. We believe in our producers and we stand up for them each and every day.

That member did nothing when he was in government. We will take no advice from him.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, that member may be able to peddle wild stories in his riding about what the previous government did or did not do but nobody pumped as much money into agriculture as the previous government did.

Let us talk about BSE. The border was supposed to be opened in June when the Conservatives formed government, but because the Prime Minister was so close to President Bush he did not put the heat on to ensure that it opened in June.

The member said that we did nothing on BSE. Let us go through the list: $520 million for a BSE recovery program; $200 million for a cull animal program; and $680 million for a transitional industry support program. We stopped supplemental beef imports. It was not the member's government.

We had a fed cattle set aside program. We had a feeder cattle set aside program. We had authorized case special advances. We managed the older animals program. We assisted in establishing traceability. We fostered expanding export markets. We fostered increased slaughter capacity in this country. We put in place the loan loss review program. We expedited established review and plant appeals for slaughter plants. We increased the CFAA line inspectors. Finally, we put $80 million in place for traceability in the plants. It took the member's government 18 months to negotiate how that $80 million would be spent.

That member does not need to talk to me about what we did or did not do because I have just shown him our record. His government is failing. When the industry was in crisis we acted. It is time for that government to act today.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting exchange. The descriptions of the mismanagement between the Conservatives and the Liberals are wonderful to hear. I will comment on the previous Liberal record. Obviously Canadians were not satisfied because they booted the Liberals out of office.

I want to get back to the update, which we are supposed to be discussing. It becomes very clear to us that there is not one thing in the budgetary update for ordinary, hard-working Canadians. As with the previous Liberal government, the Conservatives are continuing their corporate welfare program with large cuts to corporate taxes. We will hear a variety of stories around how good that is for corporations. I suggest the corporations and the banks are doing quite well in fact. The tax breaks for the corporations will reduce taxes by a further $14 billion a year. Together with the massive cuts contained in the bill, these will amount to $190 billion in years to come.

The obvious concerns I hear back in Hamilton are around the fact that Canadians fear the loss of fiscal capacity for the federal government in years to come.

Today, as we all know, Canadian cities are facing huge infrastructure problems. Last week, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities demonstrated this very clearly in its report. According to its information, there are some $123 billion of an infrastructure deficit in Canada.

In my community of Hamilton, year in and year out our city council has to turn to the province of Ontario for assistance, in the amount of approximately $20 million a year, and the Ontario government has said that this is not sustainable. When there is about a $4 billion deficit in infrastructure for sewage repairs that need to be done in Hamilton, what will happen when that hits us. Each year more and more watermains break because of the aging infrastructure.

Another point I will make is that Hamilton is the second stop for new Canadians when they come to Canada. When they find that they cannot afford to live in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal, then Hamilton is their second home for them. The first moneys go to those other communities and Hamilton receives none. In the budget update there is no new money for immigration services.

What I am about to say will not come as a great surprise to members present, but Canadians are people with a lot of common sense. When I spoke to a number of them in my riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, they were quick to point out that they were surprised a government with surpluses would not approach the matter with that same common sense.

Canadians know when the country is doing well, it is a time to invest in repairs and upgrade their homes and put a little money aside to prepare for that eventual downturn. They do not run to the bank and pay off their mortgage. They know that keeping reasonable debt to help sustain their cash flow is a wise proposition.

Another topic of conversation at our Timmies is the fact that seniors know they have been underpaid by some $500 per year for a number of years due to a federal government error. These seniors are waiting to hear from the taxman. I presume the government will be quick to move to ensure that Canadians get back the money they are owed. We know for sure that if the taxman were owed money, the government would be knocking on their doors right away.

When I speak about Hamilton in particular, it is one of the hardest hit areas of new unemployment in the last number of years. A manufacturing crisis is hitting all across our country. Hamilton has been the core of manufacturing for so many years and the crisis is particularly hard there.

We know that 11,000 people lost their jobs last year in Hamilton. They rightfully think the government would help them because of that loss in employment. In fact, the national average for accessing EI is about 40% and in the urban areas it runs between 20% and 22% in places such as Hamilton.

I have raised repeatedly in the House the desperate cycle of poverty that too many Canadians are living with today, the day in, day out misery they are suffering. In fact, in Hamilton one in five persons lives below the poverty line, many of whom are seniors. They could use that $500. As well as seniors, there are far too many working poor. Where there are working poor, there are poor children.

It has been in the area of 18 years since the House took the decision on a motion to end child poverty by the year 2000. Obviously, it missed that particular mark. In the budget, with the surplus moneys available to the government, we would have thought there would be something to help poor children.

In my riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, there are programs within the schools, but some children do not have $1 to buy a hotdog at lunch or a slice of pizza. They are missing out on gym programs because they cannot afford a pair of gym shoes to take part in a much needed program.

I want to return to seniors for a moment. With a surplus of tens of billions of dollars, here was an opportunity for the federal government to offer some dignity to seniors as they are living out their final years. It could have moved forward on a national home care program.

Further, there was an opportunity for another very significant program of great benefit to seniors in particular. That would be a national prescription drug program. We have all heard horror stories in the House of so many people who cannot afford prescriptions. It is sad to say that seniors, the most respected people in our country, are top among those who cannot afford to purchase prescriptions that their doctors have said are essential to them.

Along with seniors and children, the government has failed students. The bill does not even mention students or student debt.

My theme today has, to a great extent, been on poverty and missed opportunities. A significant missed opportunity, in my opinion, was the chance to restore a federal minimum wage, which was taken out by the Liberals previously, at a base level of $10 per hour. This would be in combination with provincial minimum wage programs of $10 an hour to start to address poverty.

I would go so far as to suggest that the title of the bill before us today should be changed to the lost opportunities bill, lost opportunities for communities to invest for the future, lost opportunities for our children in poverty and lost opportunities for our seniors to live out the last of their days in dignity.

Speaking of lost opportunities, one serious lost opportunity was sacrificed recently by the Liberal Party opposite. Day in and day out we have heard other people calling for a national manufacturing strategy. The opportunity presented itself recently when the Bloc moved a motion in the House on manufacturing, with a call to action and suggestions for the government to stand up for the manufacturing sector, the workers who are at risk and the ones who have lost their jobs.

What did the Liberals do? They sat on their hands and did not vote. I find it extremely baffling as to why that would occur. It was not even a confidence motion. It was something that should have been what is called motherhood and apple pie. It should have been very easy for them.

The bill before us today has ripped the fiscal capacity out of the present and future governments. It has taken away all the opportunities I mentioned, and I am very concerned for the future of Canadians.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, and I was quite amazed. He touched upon several things, one being the national manufacturing strategy. He also touched upon students, children, seniors, needy parents and lost opportunities.

I will ask the member a question because I am really puzzled.

Prior to 2006, the manufacturing sector, at least in my province of Ontario, which is where the member is from, did not have the hundreds of thousands of lost jobs. Since the new Conservative government has taken over, they are being lost. He did not talk about the bill. He talked about the Liberals. That is what prompted me to get up on my feet.

As for lost opportunities, in the last budget, which the NDP supported and enhanced, there was money for students, for seniors and for the cities. There was the early childhood program, which the NDP supported. We agreed to part of the recommendations.

I believe the hon. member's heart is in the right place. However, why did the NDP betray those programs and overthrow the government? Indeed, he is right, all the programs have now been thrown out. The question is not what the Liberals did, it is why the NDP betrayed the constituents. The NDP members lent their vote and now Canadians know what they lost.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I responded to a similar statement, a speech given by the member for LaSalle—Émard. He talked about the Liberals and all the things they had done. It was very clear, at that point in time, there was an air of blame for the NDP.

The practical reality is Canadians were fed up with the corruption. They were fed up with the dollars being funnelled into Quebec, the $42 million of which a small part of it was uncovered by the Gomery Commission.

The Liberals still, to this day, have not respected the vote of Canadians. Canadians voted for change because they were tired of the same old insider politics. They were tired of the corruption of that party. Until the Liberals take ownership of that, until they heal, the poll numbers they see day in and day out will remain the same and get worse.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, I was prompted to respond to the use of the word “corruption”. There was an open and transparent judicial inquiry. We caught the culprits. They went to prison. There was restitution sought and paid back. I do not know to what the member is referring. We addressed it in a transparent way.

Members opposite wanted a commission. They talked about the boondoggle for years. After an inquiry and millions of dollars were spent, the auditors said that they could not find $64,000 and a couple of hundred dollars, to the tune of millions of dollars that could have gone to the program to which the he referred. I do not know what the member is talking about when he talks about corruption.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's last comments go to the heart of what I said a moment ago. The members from the Liberal Party opposite are having a great deal of difficulty taking ownership for those things that Canadians decided were wrong about their governance when they were in office.

We can quibble back and forth about a number here or a point of view there, but the end result was Canadians assessed the Liberals, the Liberal government in the past, found them wanting, felt they were dishonest and booted them out of office.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to add my comments on Bill C-28, the budget and economic statement implementation act, 2007.

It certainly was a statement worth discussing with our constituents. We had the opportunity to meet with them at home in our constituencies to get their views and opinions. We also had the opportunity to get the views of the city councillors and our provincial representatives. Today I would like to bring some of those comments to the attention of this House.

In the Liberals' last budget, moneys were allocated for the cities. The cities need funds to take care of sewers, to take care of roads--

[An hon. member]

That was a broken promise.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

--in the member's area of Peterborough and everywhere, not just the city of Toronto, Mr. Speaker, where I come from.

One of the highlights of the economic statement was a 1% reduction in the GST. This supposed tax reduction, according to all of the economists, boils down to is a savings of about $125 to $127 per person, approximately $10 a month. What does that reduction in the GST mean? It means the average consumer has to spend money in order to save money.

I was on my feet during the budget debates when the so-called new Conservative government said that it was reducing personal income tax. I held up a year-end statement of a Canadian, whose name I will not mention, who wanted to know why, under the Liberals, that person was paying at the low end, 15%, and that under the Conservatives that person was paying 15.5%. That is factual.

Now the Minister of Finance in this economic statement has had the audacity to stand and say that the Conservatives have given Canadians a tax reduction. I do not know where the Conservatives learned their math. Under the Liberals it was 15%. It was increased by the Conservatives to 15.5%. It has now been decreased to where the Liberals had it, at 15%. It is similar to a store that has a 15% sale, but the store jacks up the price by 15%, then reduces it by 15% and calls it a 15% discount. That was the tax reduction.

On the GST, the current Minister of Finance, in his own words, when he was the minister of finance for Ontario, said he agreed with the then minister of finance, the member for LaSalle—Émard, when he said it was relatively useless. He also said that he agreed with the federal minister of finance. He said, “We have talked about this. All you get is a short term hit, quite frankly. It has no long term positive gain for the economy”.

That was said by today's finance minister on November 5, 2005, when he was the finance minister for the province of Ontario.

The current Minister of Finance also said that measures are relatively useless because it only advances consumer spending. The finance minister said, “That would happen in any event”. He said that he was more interested in cutting personal income tax because it is a more “direct stimulus”. The current Minister of Finance said that when he was minister of finance for the province of Ontario.

All the economists, even the Conservatives' own right-wing leaning economists, have stated that it is the wrong thing to do.

But let me tell members what Canadians, at least from my neck of the woods in the greatest city, Toronto, are saying. They are saying that there is six point something billion dollars that is going to be spread around at $100 or $120 per person per year. Why could that money not be allocated to the needs of the city?

In essence, the Minister of Finance is reducing an individual's GST, that is, if the individual spends money, by $120, yet the cities, which are in dire straits and need money to take care of roads, sewers and infrastructure, are having to jack up property taxes. He is giving them a break, supposedly, on the GST but the cities are having to raise property taxes for the money they need to keep the cities going.

Why could we not, as Canadians are saying, take that money and allocate it to the needs of the cities? It would be a great idea as a suggestion to the finance minister.

I would like to talk about education because not too long ago we met with the post-secondary students associations and they were concerned. The last thing students need is to graduate with a debt burden on their shoulders. They complained. We invested wisely through the Canada millennium scholarship fund. They are complaining that they should be supported and things administered in the same way Liberals did it, not in the way it is about to be changed.

What is upsetting is that in the statement there was zero money for post-secondary education. Students are the future of Canada. If we are going to be competitive we must have a smart society. A smart society is obtained through education. I am sad to say there was zero for education.

I chaired the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and National Defence. Today's Minister of Veterans Affairs is on tape as saying at committee on the issue of agent orange that if the Conservatives were in government, they would take care of that right away.

It is fortunate that our country has been blessed. We made some tough decisions as the Liberal administration post-1993 and today we have moneys, thank God. Why not take care of the commitments that were made? If we do not do it now when the money is there, when are we going to do it? After all, with every day that goes by we lose one, two, three or however many veterans. This is the time for the Minister of Veterans Affairs to do what he committed in committee to do. The previous minister of national defence was at that committee as well. They said that they would do it immediately. It has been two years now. They have made movements toward it, but not in the way they promised.

The Conservatives ran on a fighting crime agenda in 2006. There has been almost zero money put into crime prevention programs. It is not about building jails as was outlined in the first Speech from the Throne when the Conservatives took office. The Conservatives said that they were going to build larger and bigger institutions. If the crime rate comes down, why do we need bigger jails? It does not make sense.

Today, two years later, we see record numbers. When I contested my riding in 2006, my opponent in the Conservative Party said, “We are going to wipe out crime. We are going to put them in jail”. Lo and behold two years later we have numbers that we have not seen in 10 years. Why are we not putting moneys into rehabilitation programs and addressing things at the early stages so we can prevent crime from happening?

Part of the problem is in our communities. The city of Toronto is looking at closing libraries and community centres. If we do not provide money for the cities, how can the cities keep the community centres, swimming pools, basketball courts, and volley ball courts open? Without the money, how can that library stay open? That is where young boys and girls spend time doing some reading, research, et cetera. If they do not have those facilities, they might be out on the street and God knows, they might get into mischief.

I am concerned that this economic statement has nothing for the wait times. That is an issue which really touches all of us from coast to coast to coast. Our health care system makes Canada stand out. According to all the professionals, wait times have gone up instead of down. The question is why? Supposedly, when the new government came in it was going to reduce and eliminate wait times. It has been two years. I have read the statistics and wait times have gone up.

I look forward to any questions.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a low point in the afternoon, I would have to suggest. The member started by pointing out that the NDP is to blame for the Liberal Party not being in government anymore. I would give Canadians the credit for voting that party out of government because I think that is where it is deserved.

The member said more than that. He talked about caring about student debt. Since when did the Liberals care about student debt? Student debt went up exponentially when the Liberals were in government. They care about property tax increases. My property taxes went up exponentially when the Liberals were in government.

I really need the Liberal Party to take a brief look at the Constitution because it clearly sets out that the municipalities are the responsibility of the provinces. That is why we gave so much more money to the provinces in budget 2007. He may like to read it. It is a good document.

We transferred a lot of money to Queen's Park. The city of Toronto, which the member is very close to, should march to Queen's Park, which is very close to Toronto, and they should say that they need some help. Maybe they should ask for some tax room, ask for some more money, or ask Premier McGuinty to give them a hand. They should not be coming to Ottawa. And they should not be saying that Canadians should not be given a tax cut which they rightly deserve just because the cities think it should go to them. Cities are the responsibility of the provinces. That is the first point.

The second point is that when the municipalities came to us last year, they said that what they really needed was an extension of the gas tax fund to 2014. If the member would read budget 2007, he would see that we gave them exactly what they asked for and not a penny less.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member for Peterborough used the words, the “extension of the gas tax”, meaning that it was a Liberal program.

In terms of responsibilities, I do know that the cities are the children of the provinces, but Canadians are Canadians whether or not they are city dwellers. There is one taxpayer. We collect their money in the way that the province and city do. When one member in a family needs help, others in the family should extend that help.

I explained it to the member. Maybe he was not paying attention. The cities today in not having funds are having to raise property taxes.

The member is new and was not here, but I will inform him that when we took over from the then Conservative government, this country was unofficially bankrupt. It took us several years to balance the books, to eliminate the $42.3 billion deficit and to start paying down the debt. It was not until a couple of years later that we had money surpluses. What did we do? We had one-third tax reduction, one-third investment in the programs that Canadians wanted, such as the millennium scholarship fund, funds directed to students, and of course we lowered the debt as well.

The hon. member talked about coming to Ottawa. When he is next campaigning, I ask him to go to his constituents and tell them not to talk to him but to go to Ottawa, and I would bet he would not return.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague from the Liberal Party of Canada has provided us with a golden opportunity to briefly recall the September byelection in Outremont. The member just whined that the Liberal Party of Canada was overthrown and that the NDP was to blame. This is very revealing. It tells us that the Liberals believe they have some divine right to rule. Well, I have news for them. The results in Outremont will be reflected in many other Liberal ridings across the country. The NDP won 49% of the vote and the Liberal Party of Canada, 27%. I had to mention that.

In fact, the Liberals are competing with the Conservatives to see who can cut corporate taxes the fastest. At the same time, they are rising and saying how terrible it is that nothing is being done for forestry companies and manufacturers. The famous tax cuts do nothing to help a company that did not turn a profit and therefore does not have to pay any tax.

That is the Liberals' attitude. They are always ready to say anything. They signed the Kyoto protocol when they had no plan. As a result, they increased greenhouse gas emissions instead of reducing them. That is the Liberal record.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is the NDP that will say anything and promise anything, as they promised Canadians but when the member talks about the outcome, I want to remind the member that although he was not a member then, he should know that two out of three Canadians did not vote for that party.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please. 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 Don Valley East, Federal-Provincial Relations.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-28, referred to as the budget bill, that is shocking in many respects in terms of its consequence.

We need to put this in the proper context and I will spend most of my time addressing the corporate tax cuts.

It is important to look back as recently as the budget of 2007 when the government came forward with a series of substantial corporate tax cuts over the next four years. In that period of time, the corporate tax rate would have dropped from 22%, which is where it was at the time, down to 18.5% by the 2011 budgetary period.

We then jump forward to the October-November period with the throne speech and to, what in the common parlance is being referred to as the mini-budget, the economic update statement.

What do we see? First we see in the throne speech that the Conservative government will reduce the corporate tax rate. However, when we jump forward to the mini-budget, all of a sudden that drop has become accentuated. It has become accentuated because in between the throne speech and the finance minister standing in the House, although I am not sure he actually stood in the House or did it some place else, he told the country that he would introduce even greater corporate tax cuts. Now we have the corporate tax rate by 2012 going to 15% as opposed to just six or eight months ago the proposal that by 2011 would have been fixed at 18%.

What happened in that couple of weeks, maybe a month, between the throne speech by the government and the mini-budget? We heard the opposition leader and a number of other members of the Liberal Party saying that we needed bigger corporate tax breaks. What we had was the government of the day and the official opposition taking the same position.

What I find it most shocking is when I look at where the bulk of those corporate tax breaks will go. They will go to sectors of the economy that, quite frankly, do not need them: the oil and gas sector and the banking sector. A full 50% of every one of those tax dollar breaks will go to those two sectors.

In the figures that came out showing the profit levels of those two corporate sectors, banks were the highest. They made over $19 billion in profit last year and they will break $20 billion at the rate they are going this year, perhaps up to $21 billion or $22 billion. They will be getting a huge tax break because of the size of their profits.

We see similar figures, because of the international demand for oil and gas and the export rates at which we are selling it, that the oil and gas sector will get huge corporate tax breaks from this change that was very rapid. It was in less than nine months.

I come from a region of the country that has as its primary economic base the auto sector. In that same period of time, we saw thousands and thousands of jobs disappear from that sector and a substantial number of closings. We saw it again in some of the news reports this weekend, going through regions in southern Ontario, seeing auto parts supplier companies shutting down in large numbers.

It is estimated that over the last two and a half years--and this took place not just during the 22 months of the Conservative regime but a good number of the months when the Liberals were still in power, 250,000 to 300,000 jobs have disappeared in that sector and it is not finished.

When we look at these corporate tax breaks, 50¢ on the dollar will go to the banks and the oil and gas sector. What is happening in the auto sector? Actually, nothing is happening because there is very little profit. Even for the large manufacturers, the full-blown, primary manufacturers, particularly in the auto parts sector, there is very low profit, if any at all, because so many of them are going bankrupt or at least going out of business before they go bankrupt.

Those corporate tax breaks will do nothing for the auto manufacturing sector, whether in the parts sector or in the primary manufacturers.

In roughly that same period of time, when we jumped from giving the substantial corporate tax breaks to, in the latter part of the year, even more substantial corporate tax breaks, we see in just six months a 7% drop in the auto parts sectors in terms of its productivity. Those are the exports going out of the country.

In the same period of time we wonder what the government has done. We constantly hear the Finance Minister say that he is giving a tax break. It has already been shown that those are useless. He says that he has accelerated the ability to take write-offs on machinery. If we are not making any money and have no profit to write these off against, those write-offs are useless also.

This is not anything new being heard by the government. Both the manufacturers and the auto parts sector have told it repeatedly what is happening.

What do we need? We need those corporate tax cuts reduced dramatically and that revenue, which would have come in, used to help the auto parts sector get through this. We are hearing that it needs $400 million immediately in the form of loans. It would be in that form, not a tax break because that would not do any good, and not with write-offs because that would not do any good. The sector needs loan guarantees and outright loans to allow the auto parts sector to purchase equipment that will allow it to be more productive, more competitive and be able to put people back to work.

Are we seeing that? Absolutely not. The Conservative government has refused to do anything in that regard. We have seen the province of Ontario step in and the province of Quebec step in with direct assistance because manufacturers are in a crisis. This is not something where we can talk long term policy. For example, if we do this, that will happen eventually. We are away beyond that. By the time that happens we may have lost the auto sector in this country.

I say that advisedly. I have lived in the community of Windsor all my life and, for the first time in the last two and a half to three years, I have become convinced that at the rate we are going with our trade policies and with the kind of economic policies we have seen, both from the Liberals when they were in power and now from the Conservatives, which have policies that are almost identical, we are at serious risk of completely losing, by eyesight 20:20, our entire auto sector.

That is a shock because the auto sector, and nobody can debate this, is the sector that drives the entire economy in this country. By and large, in comparison with any other sector, it is the major driver, and both those political parties are prepared to sacrifice that because of their belief in free trade agreements, which do not work in that sector, and by economic policies that have no benefit to the auto sector whatsoever.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the member had to say. He comes from a city in a part of the country where the auto sector is very important.

I noted that he glossed over the fact that when we had a different government, the one he helped throw out of office, there was a contribution of some $500 million, which was welcomed by the auto sector and the auto worker unions because it was the first time in 20 years that there had been any investment in the auto sector by Canada.

That was followed up by the province contributing an additional $500 million. It was $1 billion, which I realize was not enough for the hon. member but it was a substantial amount of money, plus an additional $500 million in the aerospace industry.

I am wondering just what kind of numbers the hon. member thinks would be sufficient. This question is coming from someone who actually has done something about investment in the auto sector, rather than someone who has just critiqued it.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will not downplay the significance of the role the Ontario government played in this but the role the federal government played under Liberal administrations and now under the Conservative administration has been to consistently undermine.

We can talk about these subsidies. We need them from time to time to carry ourselves over in order to be competitive with the other sectors, but as long as the present government is, as the previous Liberal government was, wedded to the auto trade arrangements and treaties that were signed, our auto sector will disappear.

For all those Liberals who continue to stand in the House and whine about losing the election because we cut the ground out from under them, I will repeat, I hope for the last time, that it was not the NDP that did that. It was the Canadian people who threw that government out.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate? Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Accordingly, the vote is deferred until tomorrow at 5:30 p.m.