Debates of June 15th, 2005

Budget Implementation Act, 2005

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, if the House were to pass a resolution that a tooth fairy is sitting on someone's left shoulder and the resolution was passed unanimously, does that mean that there would be a tooth fairy sitting on someone's left shoulder?

Provincial politicians have passed a resolution that says there is a fiscal imbalance. What else would one expect provincial politicians to do but to pass a resolution that says there is a fiscal imbalance? For provincial politicians there is no down side to passing such a resolution. Provincial politicians would feel they have died and gone to heaven. They can get the revenues from another level of government and never have to pay any kind of political price or accountability to their electorate. It is free money.

If all that stands between me and fiscal imbalance and money is a resolution, then as a provincial politician, whether I am a treasurer or premier of a province, a backbench MPP or MLA as the case may be, I am going to pass that resolution because I am going to get money. That is the force in effect of fiscal imbalance as seen through the lens of provincial politicians.

Ironically, when the shoe was on the other foot about 25 years ago when costs were on a runaway train here in Ottawa and the provinces were running a surplus, it was the same question except that it was reversed. The finding at that time was that there was no fiscal imbalance. Does anyone know why? It is because there cannot be any fiscal imbalance in this federation. There just simply cannot be because both levels of government have access to similar sources of revenue.

First, I would like the hon. member to address the issue of how anyone could possibly have a structural fiscal imbalance when each level of the federation has access to almost identical resolutions. Second, he made a big point about enabling legislation. I would like him to comment on whether Bill C-43 is also enabling legislation and in fact parallels the language of Bill C-48.

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary makes a point of repeating that many provincially elected representatives recognize the fiscal imbalance as a problem. And not only in Quebec. I can think of Ontario Finance Minister Greg Sorbara, and of the tour I went on with the Subcommittee on Fiscal Imbalance, where there was this very broad consensus in almost every province we visited about the existence of a fiscal imbalance.

The worst part is that not only does this fiscal imbalance exist, but it is also turning into a political imbalance, where decisions made by the federal government have a very serious impact on how the various provincial states and Quebec are run. The members of the various legislative assemblies and the National Assembly are not the only ones to recognize the fiscal imbalance.

As far as I know, our colleague from Acadie—Bathurst—the name of his riding came back to me—is not an MLA; he is a federally elected representative. As far as I know, the Leader of the Opposition and our Conservative colleagues, who recognize the fiscal imbalance, are not MLAs. Clearly, we in the Bloc Québécois do recognize the fiscal imbalance. We may not always be in perfect agreement on how to resolve this very serious problem, but it must be agreed that there is a problem.

I will give the parliamentary secretary a quick example, and then come back to the phasing out of the corporate capital tax. At the time Bill C-43 was tabled, the federal government was planning to withdraw from that field to some extent. Shortly after, Quebec's finance minister tabled his budget and, in light of the direction the federal government was taking, also decided to reduce the capital tax, and raise the corporate tax rate slightly for larger corporations. All in all, this was intended to result in a tax reduction for corporations in Quebec.

The problem is that, by changing its mind now about the capital tax, the government is completely messing up Quebec's corporate tax strategy. That is what the fiscal imbalance is about. The federal government's decisions have a direct impact on legislation at other levels.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier did the same thing his colleagues did, he tried to attack the NDP instead of the government.

I want to ask him a few questions. Why was the Bloc Québécois so interested in having an election? Did the leader of the Bloc Québécois want an election because he was doing well in the polls? Did he then want to go to Quebec as the leader of the PQ? Is that why? I do not know what led to this.

I can understand when the Bloc Québécois members say they will vote against Bill C-42. However, how can they vote against Bill C-48, when $1.5 billion will go to help students and reduce student debt? Quebeckers are included in this agreement, because we are all Canadians and we are all part of the confederation. So how can they vote? The member can attack the NDP because there is nothing for EI.

The member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier says that our negotiations were piecemeal. I am looking at the Bloc motion from last week, which we voted on this week, and it reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, due to the increasing number of factory closures associated with globalization, the government should establish a strategy to help older workers who lose their jobs, a strategy that should include income support measures.

I can tell you that it was not globalization that took the fish away from Baie-des-Chaleurs. Not even partially. This motion was a piecemeal motion. It is all in how you interpret it.

How can the Bloc Québécois vote against $1.5 billion for affordable housing all over Canada when there are people living in the street? Some Quebeckers are congratulating us, and thanking us. How can the Bloc Québécois vote against Bill C-48? I can see the Conservatives doing so, since they do not want money to go to ordinary people, to affordable housing, to students, to young Canadians with debts. That is against their philosophy.

But, it is quite another thing for the Bloc Québécois to vote against Bill C-48. I cannot even imagine how they can vote against our amendment to the budget. I do not understand it at all. They are not working on behalf of the Quebeckers to get the money to them that they so badly need. They should be on our team if they want to get all that. I would like to hear the member's comments on that.

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Acadie—Bathurst has a lot more experience in this House than I do. I do not think it is necessary to explain to him the difference between a bill and a motion.

However, through his comments he has given us the perfect example of why we should vote against Bill C-48. Practically in the same breath he said that Bill C-48 will lower tuition fees and student debt.

I would like the hon. member to show me where it says that in this bill. This bill is very vague. In committee some people thought it would lower tuition fees, others thought it would increase loans and bursaries, while others still thought it would increase investment in school infrastructure and research chairs. We have no idea what the government's intentions are with this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, this is a great day for the New Democratic Party in the House today. We are in the final stages of the approval of Bill C-43, the budget implementation act, which has been changed, altered and fundamentally transformed into a document that Canadians appreciate and welcome. We are talking about a budget bill that has had the benefit of input from a cooperative approach in this minority Parliament.

We have had input from the Bloc and the Conservatives. I want to add my astonishment at the members of the Bloc who today oppose Bill C-43 yet again. They have stood in this House time and time again, joining with us in calling for a reduction in corporate tax breaks.

The Bloc is a party that has been tireless in working with New Democrats in committee, in the House, raising questions and concerns about tax havens. In fact, tomorrow we will discuss a motion brought before to the committee by the Bloc on how we deal with the money that leaves Canada because of lucrative loopholes and the permission granted corporations in moving money outside the country.

It is with a great deal of shock and astonishment to hear, yet again, that the Bloc is not prepared to support a most progressive budget that has been fundamentally altered. The New Democrats chose to ensure it was more reflective of Canadian needs. The budget guarantees we can invest in projects and areas that would reap benefits for Canadians over many years to come. That is one extremely difficult situation to assess this evening.

On the other hand, for days on end we have heard the Conservatives say that the budget, with its changes with respect to corporate tax reductions and the elimination of yet another benefit for corporations, will bring the country to rack and ruin, It will cause the country to go bankrupt and jobs will be lost, It will cause huge problems with the dollar and inflation will spiral out of control.

We have heard those arguments time and time again without any basis in fact and without any statistical evidence to support such conclusions. Yet, lo and behold, Conservatives supported the NDP amendments to Bill C-43. Conservatives in the House joined with us to call for the elimination of corporate tax reductions. We cannot believe it. Did anyone ever think that we would get to this day?

We know other issues are at stake here in terms of the Conservatives. They have flip-flopped so many times on the budget bill that it is hard to keep track. They were for it five minutes after the budget bill was introduced. Then they were against it a little while later. They then were for it, then against it, now for it. It is hard to keep track.

I am sure it must be very difficult for the Conservatives to sit in this chamber tonight and have to support a bill that has been fundamentally altered by the NDP. I think they had a hard enough time agreeing with their leader on February 23, when he walked out of the chamber and supported the Liberal's budget bill without even a cursory glance at it, never mind the fact that they have to support the bill now that it has been fundamentally altered by the NDP. However, we are glad for their support.

I do not know if they have seen the light of day. I do not know if they have changed their minds in terms of the benefits of investing strategically in our country and not continually supporting corporate giveaways. I do not know if they have had a complete transformation.

At this point we will not question their motives. We will accept their support. We will work with them to help them see the light of day in completing this better balanced budget project and have them come around to our view and support Bill C-48. That legislation takes the money we save by eliminating the corporate tax breaks and puts it into areas that create jobs, improve programs for Canadians and enhance the quality of life in the country

Perhaps there is hope. Before the end of this process, maybe will convince the Conservatives that this was an important contribution for Canadians and one that makes sense in terms of the future of the country.

The concerns of the Conservatives over the budget were certainly heard from their buddies in the corporate sector. We heard from the C.D. Howe Institute, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the Chamber of Commerce. They spoke the Conservative line. They spoke with one voice, suggesting that this little change in the corporate tax rate would create disastrous consequence for the country. They did not tell the whole story to Canadians. They did not acknowledge the fact we were talking about 1.15% of total federal spending. That is the amount of money we are taking away from the corporate sector, which continues to benefit to the tune of $9 billion every year to the year 2010.

Therefore, let us remember to keep this in context. Canadians need to hear the whole story. They need to know that we are talking about a very small adjustment in terms of the corporate sector. That is 1.15% of total federal spending. We are talking about a project that amounts to 0.02% of GDP. We are talking about $2.3 billion this year and next year. That is $2.3 billion of a GDP of $1.14 trillion.

Let us please have the Conservatives apply some logic to this debate. Stop the Mickey Mouse mathematics. They should start to understand that we are speaking about project that will enhance jobs, create investment opportunities and improve competitiveness. At the same time it will bring some necessary relief for Canadians who are trying to find the money to send their kids to university, or trying to find safe secure affordable housing for their families or trying to ensure that there is less smog and less pollution so their kids suffering from asthma have a chance to breath and to lead normal lives.

We are talking about something that is relatively small. As New Democrats, we would have liked to have seen a better budget than the one we achieved, but we did make a step in the right direction. We have improved the federal Liberal budget, as announced on February 23, in significant ways that will enhance the quality of life for many Canadians and help bring some hope to Canadians who have suffer through some very difficult situations.

Budgets should be about growing the economy. They should be about taking care of the needs of Canadians. However, the budget the Liberals introduced on February 23 did not do that. It did not address those pressing needs of Canadians. It did not ensure investments in strategic areas where the economy would grow at the same time the needs of Canadians would be addressed. Its flaws and shortcomings clearly outweighed its advantages.

We understood that almost immediately upon assessing the federal budget and made plans to try to change it, unlike the Conservatives who accepted it, walked out of the chamber and said “We'll go with it”.

The Conservatives are yelling that they abstained on it. We do not know what the Conservatives are doing these days. One minute they are voting for it, the next minute they are abstaining, the next minute they are opposed, the next minute they are voting with the NDP.

It is a strange world in this place. As I said on many occasions, the Conservatives are suffering from a case of sour grapes and NDP envy. They would have liked to have been in the driver's seat like we were. All but their leader would have liked to have been in a position of trying to influence the federal budget, instead of abdicating responsibility for change. They walked out of this chamber and accepted it as it was. We did not accept it. We worked to change it. Canadians sent us a message to try to make the minority Parliament work and to do the best we could for Canadians. That is what we have tried to do.

When we first saw the budget on February 23, we were quite shocked at the fact that there was another $4.6 billion set aside for corporate tax cuts. We did not expect to see that. As I have said on many occasions, the Prime Minister promised in the last election not to pursue any more tax cuts until program funding had been restored to some level close to that which was the operational amount before the cuts began in 1995.

Canadians woke up after February 23 in utter disbelief. The budget contained $4.6 billion in corporate tax cuts, yet their household income had decreased by 38% since 1989. Food bank use had increased by 8.5% in the previous year. The gap was still growing between the upper and lower rungs of the income ladder. They saw youth unemployment at over 13%, but no federal action to relieve high tuition across the country. There was a housing shortage, but not a penny for affordable housing. There was no sign of a comprehensive housing strategy.

They knew Canada had signed on to Kyoto. At the same time they knew that pollution had risen 20% instead of dropping. A watershed health care accord had been signed, but the drug costs and out of pocket payments were still rising. The Bank of Canada governor said that the economy was at capacity, but unemployment was still hovering around 7% and 40% of the jobless could not access benefits.

Something had to be done. We could not just continue to pursue the same course of action with more tax cuts for the corporations and the wealthy without seeing no results. We saw little investment in the economy and very few jobs were created. When profits were booming, reinvestment was disproportionately low. Between 2001 and 2004 the percentage of available cash flow reinvested in capital assets dropped from nearly 100% to only 66%.

Investment spending as a percentage of GDP dropped from 13% in 1998 to less than 11% in 2004. Many economists commented on this situation. Many have said that the lower corporate taxes fall in Canada, the less business invests in new capital. Even the Minister of Finance hinted at that in his speech in Halifax to the chamber of commerce this past week. He suggested that despite all these tax breaks over the last number of years and despite record level profits, investment had declined. It had not kept pace with the kind of benefit the Canadian government had expected.

It was time to try another way and that is what we proposed. Take that small amount of money, which reduced the corporate tax break from 21% to 19%, and invest in education to ensure accessibility for Canadians to higher education, invest it in housing, ensuring some measure of decent, affordable housing, invest it in the environment, ensuring some measure of clean air and public transit to help bring down greenhouse gas emissions, and invest it in some assistance to meet our international obligations for poverty on a worldwide basis.

Many economists have suggested that we will achieve much more by investing strategically in those areas than simply giving another tax break to the corporations.

I know the Conservatives, despite their vote, are still preoccupied with the notion of giving more tax breaks to corporations in spite of record level profits. I cannot believe their tune does not change despite the most recent statistics. Today's business report shows corporate profit surging 21% in the first quarter. Statistics Canada reports show that corporate profits continued to rise in the first quarter of 2005 with operating profits rising 3.4% to $51.5 billion.

I cannot believe the Conservatives continue to stick to their narrow focus of the economy when the TD Financial Group issued a report entitled “Canadian Corporations are Riding the Profit Surge”. It also said that with few exceptions, corporate Canada is flush with cash.

In that context, knowing that the corporations are flush with cash, that profits are surging and Canadians are suffering, surely it makes sense to try to do what we can as parliamentarians to give Canadians a chance, to give Canadians a break and an increase in their wages. Surely it makes sense when we know that investing in affordable housing not only meets a social need but actually creates thousands of jobs. In fact, the estimates for the $1.6 billion promoted by the NDP in the budget process would produce 26,000 jobs, if not more.

Does it not make sense, when looking at the economy, to invest in areas where young people will have access to higher education and be able to use their talents to develop our economy? Does it not make sense to invest in public transit, which ensures jobs, provides accessible transportation for citizens and helps us bring down greenhouse gas emissions?

Why would we not do what makes the most sense in terms of all of our needs as a society? Why would we not look at those areas where we can get the biggest bang for the buck?

It is time we actually put to rest the myths perpetrated by the Conservative Party with the support of its cheerleaders, the Chamber of Commerce, the taxation federation and the C.D. Howe Institute. I am not sure if they are the cheerleaders of the Conservatives or if the Conservatives are the cheerleaders of those right wing organizations, but together they represent a very small voice on the Canadian political scene. The vast majority of businesses, economists and Canadians know that when we invest in areas that create jobs and build a future for Canadians, then that truly is the most efficient and cost effective way to go.

It is important to note many of the studies. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives show that over the next five years revenue coming from corporate income taxes will drop as a percentage of total revenue from 15% to 11%. We should put that in perspective. I hope the Conservatives are listening to this. This is Statistics Canada information. This is not coming from the NDP or some policy organization. This is Statistics Canada information showing that corporate tax as a percentage of total revenue is dropping significantly while personal income tax is rising from 45% to 65%.

Finally, I should point out that we seldom hear about the flip side of corporate tax holidays, which is the cost to individual Canadians. For example, it would cost every Canadian about $400 a year more to maintain public services at roughly the same level as they were five years ago. Even without adjusting fully to make up for the 9% cut in corporate tax rates between 2000 and 2010, plus the elimination of the surtax and capital tax, it would be a total of $12.6 billion in 2010.

We have found a better way. It is a first step. It is the combination of Bill C-43, which would eliminate these corporate tax cuts, together with Bill C-48, which would invest that money in housing, education, the environment and international aid. Together it is a package that produces a better balanced budget for which Canadians can be proud. I hope the House will get on with it and support both so Canadians can reap the benefits of this progressive agenda.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am from Saskatchewan and I have some questions for the NDP member.

When that NDP budget was negotiated in some five star hotel in Toronto, Buzz Hargrove was there to mediate between the leader of the NDP and the leader of the government, the guy having his ships built in China through his corporate buddies over there.

I might have been able to support the NDP bill but there was nothing in that deal for agriculture. The farmers in Saskatchewan were wondering if the leader of the NDP would go to bat for the farmers but there was nothing in that deal for agriculture.

Lorne Calvert, the premier of the province, has been parading around the country telling everyone how Saskatchewan had been short-changed out of the equalization, actually shafted.

The leader of the NDP had the opportunity to address two major issues in Saskatchewan and he just totally ignored them. It was as if he could not see beyond the smog that covered Toronto that day and see that there was some part of the country that really needed some relief. He just totally struck out on both of those issues.

In making this unholy alliance with the Liberals, could the member tell me why her leader did not try to get something for agriculture? Why did he not try to get a fair deal on equalization for Saskatchewan? He just seemed to totally forget about Saskatchewan in negotiating his prize special deal with the Liberals.

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

Madam Speaker, it always amazes me to get that kind of question from the Conservatives, given the fact that they did not propose a single change to the federal Liberal budget on February 23. They did not propose an amendment to enhance supports for agriculture. They did not provide a single constructive suggestion. They walked out of the House and supported the budget.

We at least tried to make a difference. We said that it was not perfect but we sure as heck made a difference and we are reaping the benefits today. I think it should be pointed out that many premiers across this country--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Conservatives would like to hear the answer to their question about Saskatchewan.

I wonder if the Conservatives would like to know about Premier Calvert's strong support for the NDP's better balanced budget. I wonder if the members would like to hear about the premier of Saskatchewan's strong words of praise for the NDP's attempt to get increased support for housing, for education and the environment, all of which will increase the revenue for provinces like Saskatchewan.

If members opposite were doing more than Mickey Mouse mathematics, they would know that when we are talking about $4.6 billion for this country, every province will get its share. This will mean greater investment opportunities in provinces like Saskatchewan and it will certainly mean more jobs.

Like Premier Calvert, many leaders across the country have told us that what this means is a better bang for the buck than we had with the Liberal approach.

I would like to once again try to deal with the silliness or jealousy coming from the Conservatives. Today the Conservatives said that the deal was crafted at a five star hotel. Yesterday, the Conservative Party critic for finance talked about the heartbreak hotel. Another Conservative member talked about the back seat of a Chevy Nova, while another person talked about the motel-hotel.

I think the envy of the Conservatives is getting a bit out of hand. They should know that this initiative by the New Democratic Party was crafted in the full light of day and in full view of the Conservatives so they could see exactly what was being proposed and how the options were being carried out. They also know that the entire deal requires a framework of fiscal responsibility, requires that there be no creation of an annual deficit and requires that the Government of Canada still pays down the federal debt by a minimum of $2 billion a year.

Not only are we putting money into areas of importance to Canadians, we are ensuring it is done on a fiscally sound basis.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it has been interesting to hear the catcalling and the heckling that has been going on.

A criticism was made about China and about standing up for Canada with regard to that issue, but it is important to note that it was the Conservative Party of Canada teaming up with the Liberals that denied a motion I had in the industry committee to have a foreign review investment act examined because the state of China is buying up Canadian companies across this nation without any recourse. The Conservatives denied that examination at committee with the Liberals. It is important to note that they accept the fact that the state of China can own Canadian resources. Ironically, Canadians cannot do that, whether through Petro-Canada or through other types of industry but they are okay with the state of China doing it. Those are their words and their action in committee when they voted to ensure that the state of China can invest and buy out Canadian companies.

However I would like to focus my question on how particular industries and young Canadians would benefit with this budget amendment. We have issues that affect some of our youth in society, be it education, the environment or housing, things that are very important. Youth would benefit from these budget improvements.

As far as corporate tax cuts, why would any Canadian right now support the banks or the insurance companies getting a break off the backs of consumers right now? It does not make any sense. Some of the young people in my community are paying more for insurance on their vehicle than they paid to buy the vehicle. That hurts our economy because it denies getting new models into the market, it hurts the environment because they have lower emissions and it hurts young people because it puts them further behind.

Right now we have some improvements to education, to housing and to the environment. I would like the member to comment on why she believes it is more important to focus on our youth today than giving the banks or the insurance companies breaks at the expense of ordinary Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Windsor that there is no evidence of consistency nor is there any sign of some sort of comprehensive, rational policy approach that the Conservatives are applying to this area. They have this instinctive reaction to do what corporations tell them to do and put profits ahead of all else, regardless of what it is doing for the country. They do not seem to give a hoot about dealing with the whole issue surrounding foreign investment.

We look forward to the time when the Conservatives will actually bring forward some sort of semblance of a fiscal framework and an economic policy that makes sense.

However let me say that with respect to jobs we are taking the value of far off business cuts, which we know will not come into effect right away, that would have no significant impact on job creation based on recent real world experience--

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

You go girl. Sorry, Judy, I didn't mean to get you excited.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

The fiscal agenda made sense in the election campaign, didn't it?

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Order, please. We want to keep some decorum in the House.This is the time of the evening when families are sitting watching this House so let us have some decorum.

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

What I wanted to do is just clarify for the Conservatives again what the proposals we have before us in terms of Bills C-43 and C-48 would actually do.

We are taking the value of business tax cuts, which would have no significant impact on job creation based on real world experience, and converting it into actual program spending in the near term, thereby, this better balanced budget would clearly create new jobs, as the member for Windsor is suggesting we ought to do, not destroy them.

If we were to invest $1.6 billion in housing we would create a minimum of 26,000 jobs, as well as meet some serious housing needs in this country. If we were to invest $1.5 billion in education, we could actually train and educate our young people to take advantage of the new economy so they can work and be productive members of our society. If we were to invest $900 million in public transit and retrofitting of houses, we would create jobs and we could do something about preserving this planet for future generations to come. I cannot think of a better approach to budget making than this one.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am extremely proud to stand in the House tonight to support this budget, especially with its commitment to substantial new funding for health care, for seniors, for education, for child care and for the environment. It is a budget that is very good for Beaches—East York and for all of Canada.

This budget demonstrates that we are delivering on the promises that we made in the last election. This budget is about seniors, about children, about families. It is about the people in Canada and it is investing in Canadians. That is why I am very proud of it. It is a budget that addresses very clearly our social justice system which was needed badly. I am very proud of it.

I will focus my remarks on the initiatives in the budget that build on our social foundations and strengthen our communities.

Beaches—East York residents have told me that they want their governments to do a better job of cleaning up the environment. They are absolutely right. It is a commitment that we have made and one on which I have worked hard for a very long time.

Budget 2005 delivers on the government's commitment to a green economy with a $5 billion package of measures over the next five years to support a sustainable environment. One measure is to address climate change by promoting reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. After the last couple of days we know what that means in most of our cities. Another measure is to build on existing tax measures to encourage Canadian business to invest more in efficient and renewable energy generation, which is extremely important, to stop using fossil fuels. Another measure is to invest in public infrastructure to encourage more efficient use of energy. There is also the remediation of brownfield sites and protecting our natural environment, including the Great Lakes, oceans and national parks.

These measures are just part of the government's substantial measures to improve the environment and address climate change. For example, project green includes investments in the order of $10 billion between now and 2012 to help Canada meet its Kyoto commitments.

While it is important to think globally, I believe we must also act locally. For example, in my riding of Beaches—East York, the federal government is funding the construction of a 25 unit building for seniors which will feature many energy-conserving measures including the installation of solar panels on the roof--

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, if the hon. member would listen, he might learn some--

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

I think it is getting beyond just making comments to a member who is speaking across the way. It is getting to be loud heckling and it is not respectful. I would call on all hon. members to treat each other with respect. Members may not agree with what is being said, but at the same time, throwing rude remarks and speaking loudly and calling people by their names is not appreciated. I would ask every member, especially at this time of the evening, to be respectful to the members who are speaking. I am sure their constituents are watching and they can recognize members' voices too.

The hon. member for Beaches—East York.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, budget 2005 is not just about numbers. It is about people. That is why I was very pleased to see in budget 2005 measures to assist seniors, children and persons living with disabilities.

I would like to take a moment to outline some of the measures focused on our senior population, something on which I, together with the Liberal women's caucus, have worked very hard for two or three years to bring about change in some measure. By the way, the Liberal Party is the only party that has addressed directly seniors issues in the last few years. This budget begins to address them very directly and I am sure that in future programs we will do even better. My colleagues and I began serious work on seniors issues a couple of years ago. Hard work has paid off. We are now seeing through budget 2005 significant investments across a wide range of policies that matter to seniors.

Budget 2005 investments include increases in the guaranteed income supplement, or the GIS as it is known by most people. The budget proposes to increase maximum yearly GIS benefits by over $400 for single seniors and almost $700 for couples. Half of this increase will take effect January 1, 2006 and the remaining installment will take effect on January 1, 2007. A total of 1.6 million GIS recipients will benefit from this increase, including more than 50,000 seniors who will become eligible for benefits as a result of the change.

It is important to mention that the increase in the GIS will be of particular benefit to senior women, who account for more than one million of the seniors receiving GIS benefits. This assistance means being able to buy food and medicine as well as pay rent in many places like the city of Toronto.

Budget 2005 also proposes to expand funding for the new horizons for seniors program to promote voluntary sector activities by and in support of seniors. Funding for the program will increase by an additional $5 million in 2005-06, $10 million in 2006-07, and $15 million in 2007-08.

Budget 2005 also proposes to set aside a further $13 million over the next five years for a national seniors secretariat to be established within Social Development Canada. The organization will serve as a focal point for collaborative efforts to address the new challenges for seniors. This will allow the Government of Canada to tackle issues such as seniors housing in my riding. The Government of Canada has invested $1.25 million toward the construction of a new 25 unit apartment building for seniors, as I said before.

Budget 2005 will further support seniors by increasing the amount of income that Canadians may earn without paying federal income tax, which will remove about 240,000 seniors from the tax rolls.

Budget 2005 also proposes to double the amount that caregivers may claim for medical expenses from $5,000 to $10,000. As we all know, this is a very important part of reform that is required. Home care is one of the areas that we must work on and must deliver.

In addition to these things, we must continue to work to reform the pension system and also to provide proper home care across this country. One such thing is to look at RRSPs. Today RRSPs only benefit certain people who can put away a great deal of money throughout their working lives. They do not help the average Canadian, as most people know.

We must look at renewing and reforming our pension system as well as affordable housing, home care and many other things to make sure that seniors can live independently, with dignity and with respect in our society and continue to contribute to our society.

After fighting for Canadian children for the past 10 years, I was extremely pleased to see the Liberal government propose a budget bill that includes funding to establish the foundations for a national early learning and child care program. Investments in early childhood development pay off far more than any other educational investment at any other time in a person's life.

My constituents of Beaches--East York made it very clear to me that they wanted this agreement. There are parents who have told me that they cannot work because they do not have child care. This investment is good for Canada's children. It is not only a social investment but it is also an economic investment. It is an investment in the future of our children, which means that it is an investment in our health care system, as well as crime prevention and a great many more things that we could talk about. At the end of the day, it is an investment in the future of our country.

Some of the most vulnerable people of our society are not discussed very often. I want to touch on this area for a moment.

I am proud of the steps we are taking in the budget to develop a fairer tax system for our fellow Canadians living with disabilities. In recent years the government has taken significant steps to enhance tax fairness. Budget 2005 builds on those actions by improving the tax recognition of the costs associated with a disability, caregiving and adoption.

In budget 2003 the government established the Technical Advisory Committee on Tax Measures for Persons with Disabilities to advise the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue on how to address tax issues affecting persons with disabilities. The committee's final report contained 25 recommendations. The government is acting on the committee's recommendations.

New measures in this area include the extension of eligibility for the disability tax credit to individuals who face multiple restrictions which together have a substantial impact on their everyday lives. It also means a credit to ensure that more individuals requiring extensive life-sustaining therapy on an ongoing basis are eligible. The budget also clarifies eligibility criteria for the disability tax credit to include the provisions dealing with impairments in mental function.

This budget also adds physiotherapists to the list of health professionals who can certify eligibility for the disability tax credit. It expands the list of expenses eligible for the disability support deduction to include costs such as for job coaches, deaf-blind intervenors and Braille note takers.

Another important measure for students who are eligible for the disability tax credit is the extension of the contribution period. The maximum amount of the refundable medical expense supplement has been increased to $750 from $571 per year. The annual child disability benefit has been increased to $2,000.

These are areas that I am extremely proud of. Not only does the budget deal with children, seniors, families, people with disabilities, but it goes beyond that and addresses broader issues such as the environment which affects our health and our economy. The future direction of our economy affects just about everything.

The new deal for cities is another area in which we have made a commitment and on which we are delivering. It is an area that has been crying out for action for some time. We are bringing the cities to the table. There will be tripartite agreements. The cities will be at the table to decide, together with the Government of Canada and the provinces, how moneys will be spent in those cities so that their needs are attended to directly. This is very important.

The municipal green fund is another area that addresses the environment and the municipalities. In fact, not only are we renewing this program, but it has existed for quite a few years. This program is not new to this budget; it is one which we have had for quite some time.

The latest decision by the Supreme Court also reminds us that we must not forget that while we have made a commitment of $41 billion to renew our health care system, we must now fight to ensure that the health care program remains a publicly funded, publicly administered universal program and that privatization does not creep into the system. That means we may have to push forward the wait time limits. We have to push forward the reforms together with the provinces and put pressure on our partners in the health care system to make sure that the deficiencies that exist are fixed as soon as possible.

We have to also look at the Canada Health Act. Perhaps it needs amendments and strengthening. We also have to look at other potential powers and strengths that we have at our disposal. Our health care system is not only a social program, but it is very much an economic program. We have recently seen the differences at General Motors between the costs per car here in Canada and the costs per car in the United States. It makes our businesses that much more attractive, that much more cost effective. Productivity is something the hon. members opposite talk about a great deal. Educating children, early education, health care, training and education go to productivity.

Even Mr. Dodge, the governor of the Bank of Canada, said very clearly two or three times during his hearings before the finance committee that if he only had one penny left to spend, he would invest it on children. He said that at the end of the day that is where he would get his biggest reward, his biggest return on long term productivity, lower costs to health and a much more productive society. That is where he would invest.

The former deputy of the Department of Finance and head of the Bank of Canada stated that.

As I say, this is fundamentally important. These are programs that finally address the social justice issues in our country but also very fundamentally address the economic policy as well. They are intertwined. Social policy and economy policy are not two separate things. They are one and the same. One cannot deal with one without addressing the other. If that is done, it is done at our peril, and we would not have a society that functions, is prosperous or current in today's modern society.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was going to ask the member if her speech was written by herself or by the department on her behalf, but I noticed that she was speaking extemporaneously at the end so I may give her the benefit of the doubt.

I have a question for her. She said she wanted to strengthen the Canada Health Act. The Supreme Court pronounced on this issue just the other day, saying that when it comes to the Canada Health Act and providing health care for Canadians, providing health care for Canadians takes precedence. But it seems to me that the member is totally wrapped up and consumed by the Liberal Party policy that the Canada Health Act has to be preserved forever, carved in stone, and totally disregards the fact that tens of thousands of Canadians are waiting for health care.

There are no doctors. We find that some towns are losing all their medical staff. The hospitals have to shut down. Remote areas have no access to health care. Yet the Liberals seem to think that protecting the Canada Health Act is far more important than protecting the health of Canadians.

In the United Kingdom, where public health care originated after the war, there is now a very significant portion of private health care as well as public health care. There are lessons to be learned about how the United Kingdom can deliver more health care and better health care and do it for less cost than in Canada.

Therefore, I would like to ask the member, does she think it is more important to protect the act or the health of Canadians? Is she prepared to open her mind and examine possibilities to improve the situation here in Canada?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I do not need the hon. member to suggest to me that I do not write my own speeches. That is exactly what I do, as he knows, and I have my own ideas to express in this area, thanks very much.

First, by not protecting the Canada Health Act we in fact are not protecting Canadians. The two are the same, quite frankly, so I am talking about protecting Canadians. I am talking about getting enough doctors. I am talking about getting the wait lines down. What the hon. member forgets is that in Ontario for 10 years Mr. Harris cut taxes to the bone. We have put all of that money and more back in three accords, but it did not matter because Mr. Harris kept cutting services.

At the same time, the reform needed in the system did not happen. There are huge shortages, which have to be addressed. There is absolutely no question about it. That is why we have a third accord, which provides an additional $41 billion plus an escalator for the next 10 years to make sure there are enough funds. Now it is not an issue of money but an issue of reform. The provinces and the Government of Canada have to work together and they have to work fast to reform.

First of all, some of the doctors in this country are far too busy worrying about their bottom line and not about reform. Community health centres is the way to go. We have to reform the primary health care delivery system in this country. Otherwise it does not much matter what we do because we cannot bring the costs down. That has to happen.

We need to bring down the cost of the wait lines. If that means guaranteeing that people can be treated by bringing in foreign doctors and getting them ready to work, because we have denied them work for I do not know how many years and they are driving taxis instead--

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

That's your policy, by the way.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

No, that is provincial jurisdiction. For somebody who always says we should never get into provincial jurisdictions, he now sits there and recognizes the fact that it is provincial jurisdiction; that is where the problem is and it has to be fixed so that there are doctors available. My own mother-in-law, for instance, cannot get a family doctor, but there are doctors available.

The system can be fixed. It means that we must have the political will. The money is now there. It is not a matter of weakening the act. It is a matter of fixing the system and making it work for Canadians so that they can enjoy it for the next 100 years, not to privatize it and not to weaken the Canada Health Act, which the hon. member would like to suggest is the only way out of the situation.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to note here that this argument related to health care is centring around a Supreme Court decision.

We need to specifically note that what it called for is the availability for people to purchase private insurance plans. Despite the rhetoric of the Liberal government in the last decade, there has always been the growth of private health care in many provinces. Today, right now, if people have enough money they can get private health care in Canada. The distinction is that now people can purchase private insurance.

It is an unfortunate legacy that the government of the day has not invested the appropriate resources into health care and, second, regulatory reform. Regulatory reform is very important, because we cannot just throw money at this situation.

I would like to ask the hon. member a specific question about one of the regulatory reforms that even the United States has addressed. That is the issue of evergreening, the notice of compliance where generic firms are available to produce drugs. After 20 years when they get to the market, the pharmaceutical company can get an automatic stay of injunction for patent infringement without having to present a shred of evidence.

In the United States it is only allowed once, but in Canada there is multiple evergreening, preventing different types of patented medicines from moving into generic form, which would save millions of dollars per year for the Canadian taxpayer and for benefit plans, which are very important. Most labour negotiations today centre around benefit plans and their loss or reduction. This is what has created the most strikes in the last decade.

It is very important for the member to clarify this. Does she believe that Canada should be the only country left in the world that automatically allows the stays of injunction? We are the only ones left. There is nobody else, especially since Rx&D, the pharmaceutical companies, have never met their 10% promise. They have been promising that for 20 years in terms of putting money back into research and development. They have never met that promise.

We do mostly packaging here. That is what they call R and D in Canada: packaging.

Does the hon. member support regulatory reform for this? The biggest single driver of expensive increases for our health care system is drug costs. Does she support changing the system or is she supportive of Canada being the only nation to have this backward policy?