Debates of April 13th, 2005

Budget Implementation Act, 2005

[Marc Boulianne, Bloc, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin with congratulations to my colleague, not for his position on the budget but on his fatherhood. My congratulations to his wife as well. Parenthood is a joy, but being a grandfather is even more of a joy.

Now to return to his speech on this budget. He spoke of course of the price hikes for diesel, gas and energy. He also referred to wages dropping and to the possibility of a 10% drop in revenues. He did not say this, but there is absolutely nothing in the budget about poverty and families. How can he, a new parent, justify his position or his party's position in favour of such a budget?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his congratulations on the arrival of my son Thomas in Regina.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Your wife had nothing to do with it, right?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am reminded by my hon. colleague that I should pass those congratulations on to my wife. The new baby being 10 pounds, 9 ounces, I do not deserve too much of the credit. Most of it should go to my wife.

I would like to point out that although there is not a whole lot in this budget we can be extremely supportive of, we have to recognize the baby steps, the very small baby steps, of this Liberal government in even coming close to addressing issues of working families. I am embarrassed to even mention the minuscule tax decreases because they work out to something that is really not even worth mentioning. I think the figure is $16 a year.

We have to recognize that at least that is not a tax hike and that is an important change in policy direction. Without a strong Conservative opposition in this minority Parliament, I would be afraid of what would come out of the finance department. Tax increases would be just one of a myriad of things we would see if the Conservatives did not have a strong presence in the House.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy)]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate this opportunity to express my support for Bill C-43, which implements the measures contained in budget 2005.

Before I continue, let me say that I will be splitting my time with the member for York West.

As my hon. colleagues mentioned in their remarks, in this year's budget, the government has taken major steps towards delivering on its commitments to Canadians. Indeed, that is the theme of budget 2005, “Delivering on Commitments”.

Canada is known internationally as a country with a strong social foundation. Canadians believe that everyone should have the opportunity to succeed, to achieve full potential and to participate fully in the promise of Canadian society. In this way, Canada's prosperity is shared by all. This belief drives the government's support for strengthening Canada's social foundations.

In my remarks today, I would like to focus on what this government has done to build on Canada's enviable reputation in this area. Our actions are based on the premise that economic and social policies of the government must reinforce each other.

Strong social policy provides the security for Canadians that is necessary to support sustained economic growth and provide opportunity for all. Strong economic performance has enabled Canada to build a solid social foundation and provide equal opportunity for all citizens. All this must be accomplished with an unwavering adherence to fiscal discipline now and in the future: a commitment to balance the government's budgets and to live within our means.

In its October 2004 Speech from the Throne, the government set out an agenda to strengthen and build a more globally competitive and sustainable economy. This agenda involves strengthening Canada's social foundations through investments in health care, child care, seniors, aboriginal people, Canada's cities and communities, culture, and the justice framework.

By the end of this year, we will have invested $13 billion in programs to support children and families. The Canada child tax benefit, which provides over $3,000, and over $200 for stay at home moms, is just one of those initiatives to support families and children. So when the hon. members of the opposition say there is nothing in the preceding budgets or the present budget in terms of stay at home moms or choices that are given to Canadians, this is one example.

Let us not forget the choice that the Conservatives are in fact giving Canadians. They call it a choice. If we cut the numbers out it is $2,000 as a tax cut, which provides only about 15% to low income families and about $200 or $300 per child. Let us try to find a space in a day care centre in Toronto or Montreal for that amount of money. Also, that does not build a system of early learning and child care.

Budget 2005 builds on the initiatives we have outlined. Let me take a moment and outline just how the government is delivering on its commitment in some key areas, such as early learning and child care, and seniors, which are both part of the social development ministry.

Child care and early learning opportunities are essential to support our children's physical, emotional, social, linguistic and intellectual development, and to set them on a path of lifelong achievement.

The Government of Canada's commitment to a new early learning and child care initiative—which we are working on with our provincial and territorial partners—recognizes the important role that early learning and spcial integration play in expanding children's horizons, as well as in building a more productive economy. Budget 2005 follows through on this commitment with new investments of $5 billion over five years to help build the foundations of this initiative across the country. Hon. members will recall that the federal, provincial and territorial ministers agreed on four interrelated, key principles, known as the QUAD principles, to help shape a shared vision for early learning and child care and go beyond earlier agreements and investments.

QUAD stands for: quality, universally inclusive, accessible, and developmental.

Quality refers to evidence-based, high quality practices relating to programs for children, training and supports for early childhood educators and child care providers, and provincial and territorial regulation and monitoring.

Universally inclusive means that the programs are open to children, without exception or discrimination. Accessible means that child care is available and affordable. And finally, the development principle ensures that child care is focused on enhancing early childhood learning opportunities and the developmental component of ELCC programs and services. These principles were already in place and constituted our commitments.

I know that, soon, we will put the finishing touches on a new national initiative under which the provinces and territories will have all the flexibility required to meet their own needs and be accountable to their own citizens. In the meantime, as a sign of our good will, we are establishing a trust fund, which will provide the provinces and territories with federal funding from now until March 2006, so that Canadians no longer have to wait to experience the improvements in early learning and child care programs and services. Bill C-43, which is now before the House, proposes that $700 million be paid into a third-party trust.

Canada's support for seniors is one of the major success stories of government policy in the post-war era. At the same time, it is an area facing new challenges resulting from the longer and more vigorous lives of seniors.

To address the evolving needs of seniors, the budget makes significant investments across a wide range of policies that matter to seniors from health care to income security programs, from assistance for people with disabilities, to support for voluntary sector activities by and for seniors.

As hon. members know, together with the old age security pension, the guaranteed income supplement, or GIS, provides low income seniors with a fully indexed benefit that ensures they receive a basic level of income throughout their retirement years. Proposals contained in Bill C-43 will increase maximum GIS benefits by more than $400 per year for a single senior and almost $700 for a couple. Half of this increase will take effect on January 1, 2006 and the remaining installment will effect the following year.

It is important to note that the increase will be of particular benefit to senior women who account for more than one million of the seniors receiving GIS benefits. And may I say at this point that this comes from recommendations made by committees of the government's caucus that did an extensive study across the country and came up with recommendations which were incorporated in previous budgets and in this budget in particular.

I would also point out that another proposal included in the bill to increase the basic personal amount to $10,000 over five years will remove some 240,000 seniors from the tax rolls.

In summing up, I will say, as I said at the outset, that Canada is a country that cares about all its citizens. This government has established a solid base for its commitment to strengthen and secure Canada's social foundations.

The initiatives in this bill, which my colleagues and I have briefly detailed today, illustrate that commitment by building on past actions.

I also want to note that we are talking about initiatives related to the social economy—which is an extremely important issue in Quebec. In fact, my province already has such child care programs in place. I am very proud that our government wants to reach an agreement with the provinces on something I consider so fundamental.

I therefore urge my colleagues to accord this bill speedy passage.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to all the wonderful things the Liberal government has done in the last many years I have been here, since 1993. I think the member who just spoke has been here since then as well. She will well remember that in 1993 the Liberals talked about doing something by 2005 for the one million children in the country who were living in poverty.

We have done something all right. It is now 2005 and up to 1.5 million children are living in poverty. That is really fixing the problem. We have had huge surpluses over the last while. I know we were all excited about a $1.9 billion surplus in the last budget. Lo and behold it is $9.1 billion. The Liberals had their numbers mixed up, and another $8 billion suddenly appeared.

I watched Prime Minister Chrétien and the past agricultural minister stand in a field at some farm and say that they were giving another $6 billion to farmers across the country. Then we keep hearing announcements about billions of dollars given to farmers, but they are going broke day by day. There are more bankruptcies across the country.

In my riding, 75% are farmers. I guarantee that they are going under. There are all these fabulous announcements, but what makes the news more than anything else is ad scam. We cannot trust a government that does not take care of these accounts. It is not looking after the children who are living in poverty, as evidence shows. It is not helping our farmers. I can guarantee that I will produce the farmers to testify to that fact if the Liberals want.

When will they quit talking, start to get honest and do some things around here that will really benefit us?

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not think there was one question in that garbage from the other side. On that alone, let me deal with the two issues with which I dealt. They have to do with early learning, child care and child poverty, which is an issue that I have championed also.

The Conservative Party, or the official opposition, has misrepresented some of the statistics. It has been stated in the House both by the minister and myself of how the OECD deals with the statistics on poverty in Canada. This does not mean that a single child in the country should go hungry. We are not proud of that. With the child tax benefit, which I mentioned if the hon. member took a little of time to listen, we provide assistance to low income families. What those members have proposed, which is a tax cut, will not solve poverty in the country.

For example, 70% of Canadians are working, including mothers, and are looking for assistance from the government in terms of assuring that their children are in quality, universal early learning and child care. Education will take children out of poverty. I am a living example of that and so are the members in the House. Education is the basis of getting out of poverty and so is providing enough income and other benefits to families. It is not a tax cut that would go to the rich in the country and not to the low income families. The Conservatives are proposing a tax cut of $2,000 which will not provide any assistance whatsoever to any single person. That is exactly from the electoral program of the Conservatives. They can sing a nice tune about everything that has not been done.

On agriculture, the minister has announced in the House various programs of assistance for agriculture. They have received it. I know they do not want to listen to the truth. The truth always hurts. It hurts badly, especially when we can throw mud instead of ideas in the House.

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

Madam Speaker, I would simply like to mention to the hon. member that a picture is often worth a thousand words. The day after the budget, the Journal de Montréal carried a picture showing that the result of the tax cuts by the Liberal government for one year would fit in one hand. Canadians and Quebeckers got a fistful of change, as we say.

So I put the following question to the parliamentary secretary. The government has given nothing to help the unemployed who have to cope with the gap or seasonal workers or to help families. If I were in her place, I would try not to be too arrogant about this budget.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will not touch the last part of the question. Indeed, we try in this House to keep debate elevated.

First, I already said in my speech that I myself had worked on some of the measures taken by the government and contained in the budget concerning assistance to society's most disadvantaged families. A number of these measures are in operation in my own riding.

I can provide another example of a measure that will help new families and that is the one providing loans for students to go to school. It is well known in my riding. People are eager to take advantage of this program, which gives children a loan they can use in the future for their education.

Unfortunately, I do not have the time to address other measures the government has established. I am still convinced, however, that the Bloc will never be satisfied with any measures except one that leads to separation. This is what they have been repeating in the House for the past 12 years.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak and join in this interesting debate today. I want to share a bit with my own constituents how our government is working to build this great country and to make it even greater.

Budget 2005 demonstrates the government's commitments to keeping its books balanced, while providing investments for health, children, seniors, et cetera. It implements more tax reductions, building on our five-year $100 billion tax cut, which the opposition always forgets to mention, and increases funding for defence and international aid.

There has been a lot in the media lately about our budget and about issues in and around Ontario, which is my home province. I would like to outline some of the areas, specifically to Ontario, that are in this budget, and why it is so important for the people of Ontario and the people of Canada to pass this budget in the upcoming weeks.

Let us talk a little bit about gas tax revenues. Ontario will receive more than $1.9 billion over the next five years as a result of the Liberal government's decision to transfer a portion of federal gas tax revenue to municipalities. By year five, Ontario will receive $746 million per year in stable and predictable funding. That will mean better roads, improved transit systems and more sustainable infrastructure. That is new money, not old money. That is a new initiative of our government investing in our cities.

We talked about economic development. Budget 2005 will provide $88 million in funding over the next five years to FedNor to support the economic development of communities throughout northern Ontario and in rural southern Ontario. We know how badly that extra money is needed there. Included in this is a permanent increase of $12 million per year to FedNor's budget.

Also in 2005-06, another $6 million would be provided for FedNor for its priorities in northern Ontario, as well as an $8.2 million in support for eastern Ontario development funds that would work to provide jobs and create new opportunities.

We hear a lot about border security, something that is very important to all of us. Again, this is strictly for the province of Ontario. Since signing the Canada-U.S. smart border declaration in December 2001, Canada has made considerable progress on improving border security.

Budget 2005 provides an additional $433 million over five years to strengthen the federal government's capacity to deliver secure and efficient border services. A portion of these new resources will help increase the number of officers at key border crossings and airports across Canada, especially in Ontario.

Immigration settlement is a huge issue for us in Ontario because Ontario gets the majority of all new immigrants, and we are glad to have them. Budget 2005 provides an increase of $298 million over five years for settlement and integration programs for newcomers to Ontario. Ontario will receive 60% of the total $298 million. That is a huge increase of money for the province of Ontario to help deal with our newcomers, our new immigrants, and help them to integrate and settle better.

We talk about a variety of things. Let us talk about Genome Canada and the research opportunities. Budget 2005 provides $165 million to Genome Canada, a not-for-profit corporation supporting Canadian genomics research, with five regional offices, including in Ontario. Over the past two budgets, the Liberal government has provided $225 million to Genome Canada, which could lead to breakthroughs in the way we treat disease, grow crops and protect our forests.

I would like to talk about health care, which we heard a lot about today, and the new health care accord that we signed with the provinces.

Under the Liberal government's 10-year plan to stop the bickering and have some stability to strengthen health care, Ontario will receive $16 billion in additional health care funding. Of this amount, $13.9 billion will be core health funding, $194 million is for medical equipment, and $2.1 billion is in order to reduce waiting times. That is just for Ontario.

We talked about urban transit. We talked about Kyoto and our environment and smog, and all of the other issues we are investing in. The greater Toronto area and the City of Ottawa are benefiting from a $985 million investment to improve efficiency and help meet environmental goals by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

What about infrastructure? We all know how important that is. Ontario's smaller centres will benefit from our investment of up to $298 million over the next five years through the Canada-Ontario municipal rural infrastructure fund.

Given that the province and communities would match contributions, the total investment in new infrastructure over the next few years could reach as much as $900 million. That is new investment in infrastructure in the province of Ontario.

Let us talk a little bit about housing. This is a very important issue for all of us in Ontario. On May 17, 2004 the federal government provided a 40 acre site in the McLevin Woods area in northeast Toronto to Habitat for Humanity. The site, valued at $4.8 million, was made available to Habitat for Humanity at a nominal cost under the surplus federal real property for homelessness initiative, another initiative of the Government of Canada. This site will feature approximately 600 residential units of a mixture of semi-detached homes, street townhouses and block townhouse units.

In addition to that, another $99.4 million was allotted in SCPI funding, $8.4 million through urban aboriginal homelessness, and over $2.7 million through the regional homelessness fund.

All totalled, this is a huge amount of money that is going to help us ensure that we are offering housing to those who need it the most. That will be specifically $53 million for Toronto, $17 million for Ottawa, and $12 million for Hamilton in SCPI funding alone.

We talked about a variety of initiatives that are really important as we move forward here in Ontario. In economic development and job creation, the government has contributed to Ontario's economic development through a variety of initiatives through a $207 million investment in Pratt & Whitney to sustain Canada's position as a world leader in aerospace research.

There is a $100 million investment in Ford of Canada to help it introduce innovative manufacturing processes, and a $106 million investment through the Canada research chairs program to provide research funding aimed at helping Canada meet its goals to be among the top countries in the world in research and development.

A little bit earlier one of the opposition members mentioned the issue of agriculture. Under the Canadian agricultural income stabilization fund, Ontario farmers received $81.6 million for the 2003 crop year as of January 2005.

We talked about a variety of initiatives in Ontario. Another one is the research chairs. Ontario was awarded more research chairs than any other province in Canada. Ontario was awarded more research projects than any other province. Investments in Toronto's Harbourfront also continue to go on, so that we can continue to build our province to be the very best that it possibly can be.

Our budget invests in families. Investing in families is a very important part of creating the Canada that we want. Budget 2005 includes initiatives for Canada's seniors, caregivers and Canadians with disabilities.

This budget makes significant investment in seniors' programs as my colleague has mentioned, from health care to income security, from retirement savings to assistance for their caregivers. Our constant goal is to enhance the quality of life for Canadians, especially our seniors. We must always remember that our seniors built this country.

The guaranteed income supplement also provides low income seniors with a benefit that ensures a basic level of income throughout their retirement years. In 2004 our government, under the great leadership of our Prime Minister, made a commitment to increase the guaranteed income supplement payments over the next five years. Budget 2005 goes above and beyond that commitment.

This budget provides $13 million over five years to establish a new seniors secretariat. We have never had that before. Our Prime Minister also appointed a minister for seniors, the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina, as the Minister of State for Families and Caregivers. This is so that we can put specific attention and focus on our seniors, our families, our caregivers, and the many challenges that they are facing in this world today

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question specifically on the topic of border security which she raised in her comments, not only in that respect but because she was past Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

In my riding and in a number of ridings at least in southern Ontario, 60% to 70% of the work we do in our constituency offices involves immigration and the completing of passports.

We have had the Auditor General make some very severe criticisms about the security with respect to the production of our passports. Quite frankly, my office is swamped in assisting people with respect to that. We have had Americans saying that our security is terrible at our borders, that we have severe problems, and that we are not pulling our weight.

The former minister has talked about the issue of border security and has said that it is in pretty good shape. I submit it is not. I submit that our constituency offices are not going to be able to handle the passport problem. I submit that I have seen no signs that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is going to be improving security with the passports. I have had no signs through the budget, which we are speaking on today, that sufficient money will be put into the passport system to improve security.

Not only as the member who just spoke in the House but also as a former minister. I would like her to comment on those very serious issues.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all of these issues of course are issues that we face every day when it comes to the whole issue of passports. Some of the changes that are coming about in the next little while will put increased pressure on that whole division.

In budget 2005 there is a commitment of $433 million to go to border security, so that the resources are there that are needed to ensure that Canadians can travel feeling safe and comfortable at their borders.

We should remember as well that we have a good relationship with the U.S. The Minister of Public Security and Emergency Preparedness is working very closely with the U.S. to ensure that we have border security on both sides in a partnership, so that we can continue to ensure that Canada is safe and the U.S. border is safe as well.

[Marc Boulianne, Bloc, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my speech is also on poverty. Earlier it was mentioned that one of the goals of the budget was to address poverty.

I have on hand—and I would like the hon. member's comments on this—the Campaign 2000 national report on child poverty in Canada. According the report's findings, child poverty has increased in Canada, during an economic boom no less, to 15.6%. In other words, one in six children live in poverty in Canada. The report cited lack of political will.

Why is that poverty was not a priority in the budget, except, obviously, for tax measures?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question gives me an opportunity to highlight some of the investments that frankly would be at risk if we were to defeat the budget. A lot of the things that I mentioned earlier would not happen.

When we talk about child poverty and some of the investments we are making, there is $5 billion over five years to start building a framework for an early learning and child care initiative in collaboration with the provinces and territories. We must always remember that a lot of the things that we do require provincial cooperation. That is not always coming and it is not always easy to work in those areas.

We are putting $5 billion on the table and an additional $120 million over five years to improve the special education program for first nations children living on reserves. That is a very important investment.

As well, there is $398 million over the next five years to enhance settlement and integration programs and improve client services for newcomers to Canada. I can tell the House that money will be very much appreciated in all of our cities and provinces as they continue to deal with the challenges that are facing many newcomers in Canada today.

There is also $125 million over the next three years for next steps for the workplace skills strategy again to help people get themselves into employment areas and give them additional assistance. There is $30 million over three years for the national literacy secretariat. All of those are funds that are going to be helping a lot of people.

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Niagara Falls.

Before I address the environment parts of this budget, because after all, this was a green budget, I would like to quickly summarize the Liberal record.

First of all, on the environment, earlier we heard mention by a member of the opposition that the OECD does a different rating for child poverty. I have checked its rating for the environment and we are rated 24 out of the 24 countries in terms of environmental integrity. It used a whole bunch of criteria which are accepted internationally, have been peer reviewed by a number of scientists, and basically agree that in terms of environmental integrity we are lacking dramatically.

We have over 300 boil water warnings at any given time. We have increased smog days in our major cities. We have more and more contaminated sites and brownfields right across the country. I do not think that the members over there should be bragging too much, certainly not on the environment.

We also have a $500 billion debt. That amounts to about $40,000 per man, woman and child in this country. To hear the government members speaking about this, they talk as if, “We have three credit cards. They are all at the max, but we have $20 in our pocket so we have lots of money. We have a surplus to spend”. Actually our country has a $500 billion debt for our future generations.

We have a justice system that becomes weaker and weaker. Day by day more and more offenders are released, who everybody says will reoffend. We have less influence in the world because of poor leadership. We have an EI fund that overcollected $43 billion and basically less than 40% can collect that.

We have an immigration system that is close to collapse. A friend of mine who works in Qatar says that a person can go to an office building there, have a guaranteed Canadian passport within one year and have an apartment in either Toronto or Montreal given to him or her. He knows of families who have received their Canadian passports simply by going to an office in Qatar.

We have a gun registry that was estimated to cost $2 million but it has gone to $2 billion. That is our first black hole. The second black hole was announced today where there will be $10 billion instead of the $5 billion that was estimated for Kyoto. It will probably be 10 times that and will be our second deepest black hole that we could have.

There is the sponsorship scandal where organized crime is involved with a political party in this country.

When I first came here in 1993 we had a budget of $140 billion. This budget is $210 billion. Think of the spending increase. How many Canadian families have been able to increase their spending by that kind of percentage?

We have higher taxes. They keep going up. Our tax free day occurs later and later. We have a back-loaded budget. We have a defence that has collapsed. We have, as I say, an environmental record that we really cannot say very much about.

What about this budget? Let us talk about the government's lack of planning. In 1992 we went to Rio and said, “Clean air is a major problem. Climate change is a major problem. We recognize it in Canada and we are going to do something about it”. Well, it took from 1993 to 1997 before anything was done. No planning, no budgeting, nothing was done.

In 1997 we went over to Kyoto, we signed something, no planning, no idea of what it was going to cost, no economic projections, no understanding of what that even meant, and we signed on. Then we did nothing.

In 2002, because the whole international community was putting pressure on us, we came up with a plan. The plan of today is a quarter as big as the plan of 2002. It has less detail. It does not even attempt to be a plan. It does not tell where anything is going to come from. It does not tell us how we are going to achieve any of our targets, but it says we are going to spend $10 billion doing nothing. Ten billion dollars is an awful lot of money for Canadians to absorb.

How are Canadians going to absorb that? The only way is by doubling the cost of their electricity, doubling the cost of heating their houses, and probably doubling the cost of driving their cars. That affects everyone. Whether we buy lettuce, the trucking costs will be more, whether we heat our home, whether we are a senior citizen on a fixed income, it means we are going to pay.

What are we paying for? We are going to pay for something that is not going to achieve any targets. What should we be doing? I will get to that in a few minutes. Obviously there is an answer to this, but the government is not going to find it.

If we examine the budget, we would find that part 13 talks about a climate fund. What is it? It is basically $1 billion, only $1 billion. The Liberals are going to take this money and buy emission credits. What the minister said was that we are not going to buy emission credits in Canada probably because they would be too expensive. We would not want to give farmers something for their sinks for agriculture practices. We would not want to give the forester something because of his forestry practices. That would be too expensive. We would not want to do that.

We would rather go to Zimbabwe, Africa and tell them, “You guys never industrialize. We will keep you poor and we will buy your credits and you can give them to us cheap”. We are going to get them for $2 or $3 for a tonne of carbon because after all, the European market is at $30 and we do not want to pay that, so we are just going to boot some of the poor guys, maybe Mexico, Africa or whomever. That is a real Liberal way of dealing with the climate change problem; let us buy cheap credits because after all we are a powerful nation.

I do not know about the buying of emissions credits. It is full of holes. How are we going to administer it? We say to the people of Ukraine, “We will send you about $100 million and you will do an environmentally clean project and we will get credits for it and we will monitor you”. Yes, we are going to monitor them. How can we monitor things that are happening in Canada? We know $100 million goes missing in Canada pretty easily; just imagine in Ukraine or Zimbabwe or Mexico. It just does not make any sense.

Obviously we are going to have a clean fund. I think the name has changed but I have a hard time keeping up with the names because they change every week. We are going to buy these credits and most of them by the minister's admission will be international. I would like to see that in the budget. I hope Canadians ask a lot of questions during the next election about the climate fund and where it is going.

Part 14 is about greenhouse gas technology investment, which sounds good until we look at it. Twelve Liberals are being appointed to a board to take money from one company and distribute it to another company which develops clean technology. That is a great idea too. It is really good to develop new technology, but imagine the Transaltas of this world which are working on clean coal technology. They are the second heaviest emitters in Canada and we are telling them that they will pay millions of dollars into a fund, that 12 Liberals are going to sit on a board in Ottawa and are going to distribute it to new technology funds. Who are they going to be? They are going to be Liberal friendly firms. It is shocking that they would even consider doing that, but they just might.

On the CEPA clause, the Liberals took it out of the budget. They are going to give us a win. Where does it appear? They are going to administer this new plan using CEPA, a carbon tax on Canadians. That is what it will be. That is how it will end up. It is a blank cheque for them so now they have snuck it into that plan out of the budget.

In conclusion, we do have a better way. We have a solution to this problem. We would have a clean air plan, a clean water plan, a soil plan, an energy plan involving conservation, transitional fuels and alternate energy. It will be a long term plan that will achieve the goals and we will have a clean environment for Canadians.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know what a passionate environmentalist my colleague is. We both had the fortune, or misfortune, I cannot tell which, to be at the press conference on this. One comment that came from one of the ministers was the fantastic international record that Canada now holds in terms of the environment, which is contrary to what the OECD and other groups have said.

The NDP invested quite a bit of time and energy in developing its own Kyoto plan. In the absence of a plan coming from the government, it felt it was important to actually cost out what it would look like, cost out the kind of job creation we could have in Canada, what kind of reductions we could achieve with what type of expenditure. He has mentioned his party's plans. I am wondering if his party has done this, if there is a plan available, or if it is a set concepts.

The hon. member made a number of speeches before I came to the House wherein he talked about how climate change did not exist. He was denying the aspect of climate change. I am wondering if he could correct the record as to when his party started to believe that climate change existed.

How is it, in the absence of a plan per se right now, his party would achieve the Kyoto targets? Would there be some suggestion that we should pull out of the international agreement?

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I certainly agree with the hon. member about the international record. It is pretty disgraceful. It is kind of embarrassing. When his leader and I were in Buenos Aires, we sat with representatives from 150 other countries. They told us we were a bunch of laggards. It was pretty embarrassing to be put in that situation. All we could do was point to the environment minister and say that he was to blame, that it was not us.

On the Kyoto plan, yes, my party has one. Yes, I have reviewed the NDP's plan. I think it has some problems. What I have learned is that there is a party in government which, if given everything up front before an election, it steals what it wants and discredits the rest. It does that on everything. It is best to hold one's fire, get that party right in one's sights and then pull the trigger, but do not pull it too soon because one just might miss.

As far as climate change is concerned, we have always maintained that our environment is in great need of help. There are boil water warnings. The aquifers are becoming polluted. The air is polluted. There is an increase in asthma cases caused by particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide, all of those things.

Just as a precautionary principle, we have to deal with greenhouse gases. Climate change is occurring. It is occurring every day. It has occurred 33 times before and will probably occur 33 times again. We are probably having an impact on it and we should deal with it. Just as a precautionary principle, we should deal with it. My party's plan deals with it in a clean air way.

We cannot pull out of Kyoto. Section 26 of the Kyoto protocol says that we have to give one year's notice and then wait three years before we can opt out. It takes four years to get out. It is not practical to waste time doing that. Lawyers get rich. The WTO would punish us. Instead of doing that, it would be much better to come up with a real solid plan and go for it. Get industry and the provinces on side and go for it. We can achieve those targets and better. We could be leaders, but we are not leaders now, I guarantee that.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to follow my colleague from Red Deer in this debate today. Let me say how pleased I am to be sharing my time with him. He is, as we know, a committed environmentalist. I and all Canadians, I think, appreciate the clarity which he has brought to the subject of environmental issues. I certainly appreciate his comments on the government's lack of initiatives in that particular area.

I am pleased to speak to the budget implementation bill. There are many parts to this budget, and I have said before that I and members of my party support any measures that include tax deductions for Canadians. Canadians are overtaxed. The extent of the federal surpluses over the last few years is proof of that. We support any initiatives that would reduce the tax burden on Canadians. We certainly welcome that.

We welcome those initiatives that would put money into the hands of our armed forces. I pointed out on a previous occasion that this has been spread out far too long and is all back-end loaded. It seems to me that it fits this government's pattern. The government either makes a promise or makes an announcement and we are supposed to wait indefinitely for the results or the cheque to arrive.

Quite apart from that, I wish the government would have a look at this bill and make some changes to it in order to facilitate its passage. As we know, the last budget implementation act is still working its way through the system. It takes a long time to get one of these bills through. By piling up a group of things into the bill, the government is leaving certain things hostage, things that are widely supported.

I want to mention a couple of things about the budget. Certainly the Atlantic accord is one of them. It was the right decision to make, but it came about for the wrong reasons.

We will remember that at about this time last year the Liberal Party found itself in trouble. The Liberals thought they were going to lose some seats in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, so against what he has been saying for many years, the Prime Minister reversed himself on the whole question of offshore resources and made a promise.

We support the result even if we do not agree with the reasons for which it was done. In any case, the Atlantic accord has ended up in the budget implementation bill and that is too bad, because those particular provinces want and are entitled to the money that would flow to them from that accord but it is tied up in this bill. Our leader and our party have made it very clear that we would separate this out and pass it at all stages in one day. We would go ahead with that if the government were so inclined.

It is too bad about that, but it actually raises a bigger issue and that is the question of transfers to the provinces. Our party has advocated having a look at the whole process, not as was done in this particular case where the government feels it is being held hostage or is desperate for a couple of more seats.

No, we should do it in a comprehensive way. We should look at the whole question, because other provinces have concerns as well. I picked up the paper this morning, and the Toronto Star , no less, points out the premier of Ontario taking the Prime Minister to task under the headline, “PM has 'Lost Touch' with Ontario voters...premier says”.

These are not my words or those of somebody in the New Democratic Party. This was the premier of Ontario talking. He went on to say--

[An hon. member]

Dalton.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Yes, that is right, Dalton McGuinty, the Liberal premier.

According to this article, the Prime Minister has “lost touch” with the Ontario electorate. I agree with the premier. The Prime Minister has lost touch with the electorate in the province of Ontario as he has right across the country.

On the subject of fiscal arrangements, then, we think we should all have a look at fiscal arrangements and the way the government handles them. We should come up with a plan that is fair to everyone. We should not be doing this in the one-off way we saw in the last federal election.

I am also concerned about the government's commitment to the whole question of border security. In my riding in the Niagara Peninsula, we have four border crossings. It is a huge issue and one that concerns all Canadians, not just me as a member of Parliament from that area.

There are a couple of things I have raised before and on which I will continue to press the government. One is this: not enough is being done on the subject of border security. Here is what is happening. Because the federal government does not live up to its responsibility now, the tab or the price for border security falls to the Niagara Regional Police Service. It is not done by the federal government or an agency of the federal government to the extent that it should be.

This is the responsibility of the federal government. It is elementary constitutional law that international security is the responsibility of the federal government, but the government is not taking it on. As a result, the government has received resolutions from the Regional Municipality of Niagara. A little over a month ago it received a resolution from the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake. That resolution says, among other things, “Whereas border security is a responsibility of the federal government, be it resolved that the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake supports the Regional Municipality of Niagara in requesting that the cost of border security be borne by the federal government”.

Is that not a reasonable request? Is there anything radical about the Government of Canada living up to its responsibility? This was sent to the other municipalities. The resolution I received, of February 28, 2005, indicates that this was also supported by the city of Niagara Falls.

However, it is not just the waterways that I am concerned about. This week in Ottawa we heard from representatives of the customs officers union. They met with a number of us and cited a number of concerns about their ability to do their jobs. The problems they cite at Canada's border crossings included the following. They have problems with the databases. It is apparently very difficult to call up information to check on who a customs officer is dealing with. In this day and age it should not be like that. It should not take them a long time to go into various databases when they have to make a quick decision on what is before them.

They point out that there are over 225 unguarded roads between Canada and the United States. They point out that 1,600 vehicles just blew right past border patrols in the year 2004. They cite problems with students working alone. They cite problems with the fact that customs officers are told not to deal with armed and dangerous criminals but to let those criminals into Canada. Then they are supposed to call the local police. Unfortunately, that sometimes means the response time is very slow, so dangerous criminals have the opportunity to get into this country.

This is a big problem. I think it is a big problem for all Canadians. This is one of the things I have been saying over the past few months to the government: work on these issues. There is money, a lot of money. The government has already figured out that the supposed surplus is about double what was projected just a few weeks ago when the budget came in. The Liberals should use some of that money to protect Canadians and give the tools to our customs officers that they deserve.

As well, members of the Canadian Real Estate Association have concerns that they want to take up with the finance minister. They are worried about the Department of Finance abandoning the reasonable expectation of profit test. I say that the Liberals should sit down with these people and work these things out.

There are a couple of other areas. I would love to get into this area of the municipal infrastructure money. The Prime Minister made announcements on this a couple of years ago, but it is just like a lot of things. The announcement is made, but very often we are still waiting for the cheque.

I am pleased to have had this opportunity for debate and would be pleased to take any questions that may arise.

[Marc Boulianne, Bloc, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with a budget comes the allocation of public funds. The government makes choices and there are priorities.

Social housing was completely ignored the current budget. Instead, the government chose to invest in the army and to give funding to foundations.

I would like my colleague's opinion on this. I want to know what he thinks of the initiative to put $600 million into a specific fund.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point of the problems I have with this budget. It is the question of the government's priorities and the choices the government has made.

The night this budget was presented, the member for Wild Rose made a very interesting comment. As soon as the speech was completed, he called over to the Minister of Finance and said, “I think there is a misprint in the copy I have. The chapter on agriculture seems to be missing. I cannot find it”. The member remembers saying that. I did the same thing.

Agriculture is absolutely vital. It is important to this country. Much of the tender fruit industry and the grape and wine industry in this country is centred in my part of Canada. Of course I looked for assistance in the budget, or a demonstration that the government knows about and wants to support these industries. I will tell members that we had to look real hard to find any reference to agriculture. I was very disappointed.

Again I will come back to this about the Government of Canada and the choices it makes and its way of doing business. I was in Winnipeg a couple of years ago and heard the Prime Minister, then the finance minster, start talking about giving gas taxes to the municipalities. I was a municipal politician at the time. I had no reason to doubt the sincerity of the then finance minister. I told my colleagues, “Gee, I think we are going to be getting some of that gas tax in the municipalities. This will be of interest.”

The spring becomes the summer, the summer becomes the fall, we are into the winter again and there is talk that it is coming. Then we are into an election. There has been an announcement and “gas tax to the municipalities” is part of the election. The election comes and goes, the summer becomes the fall, the fall becomes the winter again and the cheque is never in the mail.

That is the problem with this government. The announcement comes and then we wait. It is like the constituent who came up to me and said, “I'm voting Liberal this time because I think they are going to legalize marijuana”. I said, “Well, jeepers, you'll get to vote for them all your life, I guess, because that's a promise they make every election”.

I disagree with that promise, but the Liberals just keep making it and it dies on every order paper. It gets buried somewhere.

The same promises go on and on. In the end, just like the municipalities waiting for their cheque for the gas tax, those promises just do not quite make it. I would guess that we will probably be hearing another announcement with respect to this.

That is not the way government should be done in this country. We should make commitments to people and then follow through on those commitments in a timely manner.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the discourse of the hon. member. Of course, the reason I listened with great attention is not that I agree with him; it was because I wanted to have the opportunity to state the opposite, mainly of course to bring the facts back to what they are, which I know is what Mr. Speaker would want me to do, being the truly objective non-partisan person that Mr. Speaker is. Being truly objective and non-partisan as he is, he will therefore appreciate what I am just about to say here.

Now, on gas tax revenues, because I know the hon. member is a member of Parliament from Ontario, a very good province of course, he knows that Ontario will receive more than $1.9 billion over the next five years as a result of the Liberal government's decision to transfer a portion of the federal gas tax revenues to the municipalities. I want to know whether that means he will vote for the measures in question.

Next--

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry. The time for questions has expired, but we are going to have an answer from the member for Niagara Falls.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member highlights exactly what I have been talking about. He says, “Oh, the member will be happy with this”. I am happy with announcements, but I will be happier when the cheque actually arrives. That is what I want to see. That is all I want to see. I think it is a reasonable request.

I would ask the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell to use his influence with the finance minister and say to him, “Look, cut the cheque. Do something about some of these promises we have made”. That is what he should be doing.