Debates of Dec. 13th, 2006

Prebudget Consultations

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to talk about the work of the finance committee over the last number of months. Before I begin I would like to wish everybody here in the House and those who are watching at home and those in my riding a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Most of my speech today will reflect on the process of what we were able to accomplish and how it worked. As somebody who is new to Parliament, who was elected on January 23, the process of dealing with budgets and how it works was something that was new to me. I would like to relate it a little bit to how it worked with the budgets I worked on for 13 years at the municipal level.

I want to talk a little about my own process in terms of budget input and how we were able to determine what was important to Burlington and talk a little about the recommendations that we have, how the report works and where it goes from here.

First of all, I want to thank all committee members for their involvement, whether they are Conservative, Liberal, Bloc or New Democrat. I think we worked well together. Obviously, we have different views on particular issues, but overall as a committee we worked very well together and worked very closely as we travelled across the country to see what Canadians felt should be in the budget for 2007.

I want to remind everybody that this is advice that the committee is giving to the finance minister. The finance minister will look at the advice in detail, run the numbers on certain issues, come back with answers, and build what he thinks is appropriate into the next budget, which we expect in the spring of 2007.

Going across the country was important to the process. I had the opportunity to go all across the country. We were in Vancouver, Yellowknife, Fort McMurray, Saskatoon, St. John's, Quebec City, Toronto and Halifax. We were hosted by one of our members of the committee who is from the Halifax area and did a fine job of hosting us in Halifax. There were also people who came to see us here in Ottawa.

Here is the way it worked because it is important that people understand it. We had panels. In the morning and in the afternoon, we had 6, 8, or 10 people come and talk to us, each given about five minutes to make their presentations. Then it went around, as all committees do, and we asked questions on the specific topics that they had.

In this case, the topics were not all related, so we could have people on different topics sitting beside each other, each giving their five minutes, giving us broad perspectives of what the needs were across the country. It is fair to say, at least in my opinion, that there are a variety of needs and desires across this country, and it is a process that is important. I am not sure it was done in the past, but I think it is the right thing to be doing to understand what the particular issues are for all areas.

The one thing I would comment on is that we did not randomly pick people to come out. Most people represented their organizations and particular interests, so they were very focused on what they wanted. They understood and they only had five minutes.

If there is one thing I would like to comment on in terms of the meetings system that we have, I actually do not mind having a variety of opinions on different topics. It makes for a much more interesting meeting and allows for a lot better questioning in my opinion, but we did see a lot of repetition. We saw people from different organizations, from different parts of the country, basically giving us the same message, and unfortunately, they only had five minutes.

I think the committee, when it does this again next year, if it does it again next year, should consider that if people are applying for these positions from across the country, if their organization is nationwide and they are seeing us in other spots, that they make a decision as to where it is most effective for them and that we allow more time for their presentations because five minutes is not a lot of time.

The witnesses only have time to highlight a few things that are of interest to them. However, for me personally, and it may not be the same for all committee members, but if the witnesses had more time to elaborate on their particular interests it would make for a better consultation process.

I thank the research staff and the clerks who helped organize those events. It is difficult. We basically move a House committee from one city to the next and it happens overnight. They did an absolutely fabulous job of ensuring we were all prepared, that we knew who was coming to see us and that we had the research material and the presentations in front of us. That is a lot of work and not an easy task. I know people may think that the committee is on a bit of a junket when it goes across the country but it is actually work from eight in the morning until five at night. We jump on a plane, fly to the next place, go to a hotel room and we are back at it again at 9 o'clock. The room looks almost the same as it did the day before.

Our analysts in this case were taking in all the information that was provided by those who presented to us and listened to all the questions that came from the different sides of the table. They looked at it and recorded it and provided a really good report for us to review once we were all finished with our consultation process. Their report was very thick and it had lots of information in it. We did not necessarily agree with everything but we at least agreed with some of the things.

If I were to make a suggestion, it would be that I would be interested in seeing that in the future, although I am not sure it will work, we narrow the topics to the areas that we actually agree on and that we would like to submit to the finance department for its consideration but not necessarily implementation. As we did this time, which I appreciate, we would then offer each party an opportunity to put in a supplementary report. In fact, the New Democrats and the Conservatives put in what we called the supplementary opinion. Our other friends put in a minority opinion. Based on the history of this place and how things work, they are called minority reports.

However, for the budget consultation, I think it would be more effective and more realistic if we were to say that this is the four, five, ten, or whatever that number is, things that we all agree on that we want to recommend. We could also, as a group, present the supplementary ideas that we heard. It should not be as partisan as it has been and I believe this would be one way of showing Canadians that we are willing to work together as a minority. Whether it is a minority or a majority government, this is the way to do it.

Canadians do send us here to get things done and this is one of my personal opinions on how things could be improved.

Personally, the budget has always been important to me. As a city councillor, I was known for my tenacity, both at the region of Halton and the city of Burlington, for going over the budget with a fine tooth comb, making suggestions and making changes. Not all of them passed because they could not get acceptance by everybody. I expect the exact same thing here. We are doing it more as a group, though, instead of individually.

As I need some input from my public, I held a public meeting in my riding about a month and a half ago on the budget and asked people what they wanted to see in the budget. About 80 people attended the meeting, which I thought was pretty good for a Thursday evening, and the meeting lasted almost three hours. We taped it so we would know what was said.

Another thing that is important for the public to know is how the process works. They should know that it is not picked out of a tree or that low lying fruit is picked and that is what goes in the budget. A process is in place and we do work at it. I have put together a show, which is on my local cable company, that talks about how the budget process is done and it is airing right now.

My constituents still have the opportunity to let me know what they would like to see in the budget. The budget, obviously, has not been set and there is still a number of months for that to happen. It is important for all of us to consult with our constituents on these things and we pick our own way to do it.

At the end of the day, we had 43 recommendations on which, let us be frank, we did not all agree. As it is a minority Parliament, votes were held on each recommendation. Some were accepted and some were not. Near the end of my presentation I will talk about a few that I supported as an individual member of Parliament. I believe on my side the Conservative caucus also supported some. We have 43 recommendations.

The report has been broken down into a number of areas to make it easier for Canadians to understand what we are talking about. The theme this year, which I think is important, is how can we be more competitive in this world market.

I think that anyone who says that we are not working in a competitive world is relatively naive and is playing politics with the issue. No matter which company in my riding that I talk to, the vast majority are competing against other competitors from around the world, not just from around the block.

We need a government that thinks about the economy in a world perspective, that we are competing as companies with worldwide companies. We are competing as individuals. We are competing for talent. I know it has been discussed about where we are going with talent and people. The mobility of labour has increased exponentially over the last number of years and we are working on that.

We also talk about health care and the health of our people, which is all part of our budget.

Another section of our budget is life learning. I think is important to have recommendations that say that learning is not only done in elementary schools, which, as we know, constitutionally is not part of what the federal government is responsible for.

We are looking at research and at how to assist students at post-secondary education levels. There are a number of recommendations in that area.

As we saw this week, and which was reported in the newspaper, the actual net worth of people has gone up, but so also has their net debt in a sense. The individual debt of Canadians has gone up. We need to work on issues that help give people the incentives to invest money and to save for the future. We have done that through a number of recommendations in this budget.

It is also important that we have full employment or as close to full employment as possible in this country. We are doing very well. The economy is doing well. In my particular area, the employment rate is not terribly high but we do have unemployed people and we need to give them incentives to find work and help them find that work. This budget recommendation also provides those types of incentives.

We need to look at communities because they are important to all of us. We do not all live in a bubble. I am beside Toronto, Oakville and Hamilton. We need to ensure that the infrastructure is in place to make those communities competitive so that they can compete, not just with each other necessarily but with other communities around the world, and we must ensure they are healthy places for people to live.

Infrastructure is very important and the budget has a number of recommendations on infrastructure. While I was travelling across the country I found that the infrastructure needs in my riding were completely different in some areas than in others. However, I think infrastructure should be focused.

We heard the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, in which I used to play an active part as a member of municipal council. FCM has moved a little bit, saying that it wants long term funding for long term planning. We supported its infrastructure funding through the gas tax and we will continue to do so. In terms of its present commitment, it will run out in early 2010 or 2012. I cannot remember the date off the top of my head but it will be in the next number of years. It is looking for a longer term and we discussed that.

The interesting thing about that is that the FCM wanted to add what we used to call soft services. It wanted arenas and those types of things, which was news to me. This was something I needed to discuss and debate with those people, which was why it was important to be on that trip. I needed to understand those differences.

We do have money set aside for environmental initiatives, which are important and they are included in those 45 recommendations.

We also have a section in this report on charitable giving and the voluntary sector. I have done more than my share of volunteering over a number of years. I could give a long list of boards of associations that I have been on and have helped with. I have knocked on doors to raise money for a number of organizations within my riding, as we all have. We looked at a number of recommendations and I have a recommendation that I will highlight in a few minutes that talks about this section.

There is also a section on arts and culture. I too have been active in this area in my riding. I have been very much a leader in terms of promoting a performing arts centre for the city of Burlington, a piece of infrastructure that the city does not have. I hope we will be able to deliver it in the near future. I am part of a fundraising project right now. Other leaders have come forward and are leading on this project on a local front. I am doing what I can from here to make it happen.

Corporate taxation was mentioned in an earlier question. There is a section in this report on how we can improve corporate taxation, which I think needs to be improved. We have to remember the theme of this prebudget consultation which was how to be competitive and how our businesses could compete against others. We heard in a lot of presentations that we need to be more competitive in the corporate area.

We heard a lot about innovation, research and entrepreneurship. I have a number of post-secondary education institutions in my area, none particularly in Burlington yet, but we have a sign up that McMaster is hopefully moving to Burlington. We have a location for at least one of its schools.

There are a number of other spending issues. We talked about the surplus and the fiscal imbalance, both of which are included in this presentation to the finance minister. It is important that people understand that we are not ignoring these issues. The finance minister knows where we stand. I am certainly supportive of a plan for any existing surplus.

Surplus is really overtaxation. I have never been a fan of overtaxation and I do not think most Canadians are fans. I understand from my previous experience that we need a bit of a cushion just in case things get out of whack from an economic point of view on occasion, but that does not mean that we have to overtax. Fiscal balance is a part of this presentation. It was part of our discussion. Members know that we are working on these issues.

There were some local issues that were of interest to members. I appreciate all the different parties putting together what they were interested in. I do not necessarily agree with everything, but I do appreciate their efforts.

There are 43 recommendations in this report to the minister. There are a couple that I would like to highlight and I am going to speak to the ones that I think the majority of us agreed with.

One of my favourites that I want to talk about is the arts. I am not sure if we all agreed on recommendation No. 22, but I certainly did. Arts and culture is important to the government and the finance committee. We recommended a funding increase to the Canada Council for the Arts. It is important to note that the government in its 2006 budget increased money for the arts. We increased funding to $30 million this year and another $50 million next year.

The arts council came to committee a couple of times. I think it could have had more time at one event instead of at a number of events. The arts council wants to get $300 million over a number of years. There was a debate on how many years that would be and I probably lost the debate at committee. The report says over two years. I am not sure we can make it that quickly. It is important that these kinds of things are highlighted.

Another recommendation relates to my work with charities. There is a recommendation that publicly listed securities for private foundations be considered for the same tax holiday that the government provided in 2006 so that people can donate securities to a charity.

I want people to read the recommendations and understand what we have provided. I am sure that we will see some of them in the next budget. I look forward to that debate. My final comment is that if a lot of the things we had discussions on actually--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I regret that the hon. member could not get his final comment in, but I have to keep the debate moving.

The hon. member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments.

First, the member talked about research. As was mentioned in question period today, the government has made substantial cuts to research so I wonder what his thoughts are on that.

Second, as he knows, one of the recommendations was to restore the cuts in a number of areas, including literacy. I was at one committee hearing and this was loud and clear and took up most of the hearing. It was not partisan; it was the general public who talked about it. The public referenced all these cuts for vulnerable people.

Of course it did then show up as a recommendation in the report that all of the cuts to literacy, the court challenges program, volunteers, museums, and tourism be reinstated. I wonder if the member will be supporting that recommendation.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Before the hon. member for Burlington responds to that question, the hon. government House leader is rising on a point of order.

Business of the House

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 the House shall adjourn at the end of the time provided for government orders and, for the remainder of the day, the Chair shall not receive any quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent; when the House adjourns on Wednesday, December 13, 2006, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, January 29, 2007, provided that, for the purposes of Standing Order 28, it shall be deemed to have sat on Thursday, December 14, and Friday, December 15, 2006.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Prebudget Consultations

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and I also appreciate the fact that the member opposite joined us in committee when we were in his hometown.

First, research is important, and the report contains a number of recommendations on research. We heard recommendations from across the country. McMaster University representatives have come to see me a number of times about research. Representatives from a number of other area schools, such as the University of Toronto, have come to see me and have made presentations. I think research is covered in this presentation and I think the finance minister will take it under consideration when he prepares the next budget.

On the removal of cuts, I will not support going back to before those cuts. If people actually read the documentation that explains why those cuts were made, whether they were administrative cuts or cuts to programs that had money which was never applied for, they will see that there were good reasons for those cuts.

In addition, the Conservatives were elected because we said we were going to look after taxpayer dollars. I used to propose numerous cuts to city and regional budgets every year. I did not get them all, but I got some. I will continue to--

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member will be able to answer another question in due course.

Before I go back to questions and comments, I wish to advise hon. members that in light of the motion just adopted there will be a reception for hon. members in room 216 following the adjournment of the House at 5:30 p.m.

All hon. members are invited to celebrate the end of the session.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to wish everyone in my riding of Berthier—Maskinongé happy holidays.

I listened to my Conservative colleague and I have a question for him.

The government has a great deal of latitude in terms of the budget. In fact, the federal government has posted huge surpluses for several years. Recently, cuts were made to programs supporting the illiterate, women, minority language rights and rights pertaining to court challenges.

For some time, the Bloc Québécois has also been asking for an assistance program for older workers. We are quite simply asking the Canadian government for a measure that could be implemented across Canada. It would cost about $70 million to help older workers just by altering the employment insurance plan. This government has slashed social programs in the last little while.

I would like to know why is the government attacking the most disadvantaged in our society when it has such a large surplus?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent question. Based on the reasoning of the hon. member, the government would never cut anything; the government would never look at a program and decide that it had done its job or it was not doing its job, and because the government had allocated money to it, that was it and it was going to exist forever.

This government does not operate that way. We look at all programs to make sure that they offer value for money and that they are delivering the services they are supposed to deliver. If they are not delivering the services they are supposed to deliver, then it is time that they be ended. I make no apologies for that.

I think the government, no matter which party is in government, should be looking at ways to make sure that taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently and effectively and that they are not wasted on programs that are not producing the results they are intended to produce. The programs may have good intentions when they are first developed, but if they are not coming through at the end, it is up to the politicians of the day to decide it is time to move on and develop new programs that will deliver the answer they are looking for.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure working with the hon. member on the government operations and estimates committee. We were sorry to lose him to another committee.

My question for him concerns rail service. The people of Canada own a passenger rail service which has worked hard to boost its ridership. It is an environmentally friendly form of transportation. It is the preferred form of transportation, and the only form of transportation for many Canadians, yet we have neglected our VIA Rail passenger service. We have neglected to invest the funds to renew the infrastructure and to maintain this form of transportation at a time when many other countries are heavily investing in passenger rail service as one of the preferred forms of transportation.

I would like to ask the hon. member whether his committee considered further investment in VIA Rail and what is he going to be recommending on this.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the kind words about working with her on the government operations committee, but I do not miss it.

I will be frank. I do not believe we got into absolute detail in terms of VIA Rail. I may have to check my notes on that. I will say that I was a passenger on VIA Rail a couple of weekends ago. I used it to go to Montreal and back. In terms of a mode of transportation, railway does play an important role in this country. I think it deserves, as part of the greater infrastructure money and review of what we need to do for infrastructure and for the environment, to play a role in the future budgets. I think it will play a role in future policy, both environmental and infrastructure, for this government.

The member mentioned VIA, but I also want to mention GO. In my riding of Burlington GO train and VIA Rail play a very important role. A track is actually added as we speak to provide more rail service to my riding and my community. I am very supportive of that. I have actually been working with them. I had a meeting with VIA Rail not that long ago to talk about noise issues and some other things that have been dealt with in a different bill.

To summarize, I think rail and all transportation needs to be looked at as to what is best for the environment, what is best for the communities and what is best for the infrastructure for people and for business to be viable in this country.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the member said that the existence of a surplus represents overtaxation. I wonder if the member could explain to the House how we pay down the national debt without having a surplus.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that there should not be a surplus. I think if the member was listening carefully, I said that there should be a cushion and part of that cushion is a view. This government has through its advantage Canada plan identified that there is a net debt program that we would like to pursue.

There is a plan, the first time this country has ever had one, to pay down our net debt. It will require tax dollars to make that happen. It is part of our cost basis. in my experience as a municipal politician, we always had a surplus that we built in--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, flipping through the report and looking at the recommendations, it is a good report and is pretty comprehensive. I know a lot of work went into it by all the members of the finance committee.

One recommendation that is important to my riding is the one on mental health because there is a mental hospital in my riding. I want to see more investment into our mental health system. I would like him to comment on that and also on infrastructure needs in rural communities which seem to be at a bit of a disadvantage compared to larger urban centres. I want to hear from him on that and how important it is to the overall economic growth and prosperity for all Canadians.

This probably being the last time I am going to be up, I want to wish everyone a merry Christmas.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first on the mental health issue, I absolutely agree with my fellow member. We had some great presentations on mental health. There is a recommendation to put a plan together for mental health which does not exist now and did not exist in the past. We are asking the finance minister to fund that to make it happen. We did have a report from the other house which talked about mental health, how it should be funded and a number of things.

On infrastructure, there are both rural and urban infrastructure needs and they need to be looked at in balance. This presentation talks about infrastructure and hopefully it will look at solving some of the rural and urban problems.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the most distinguished member for Laval—Les Îles.

It is a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to speak to the prebudget recommendations and in fact what we hope to see in the next budget, budget 2007. I did have the opportunity to be a member of the finance committee. Along with colleagues from all the parties, we produced this report, which I think is very comprehensive and has many good recommendations in it.

I would like to echo what some of the other members of the committee have said, that we did work quite well together as we travelled across Canada. We went from Whitehorse to St. John's, and I was particularly pleased that when we were in my home community of Halifax, we had a little reception on board the HMCS Sackville, which is Canada's naval memorial and a fitting tribute to the many Canadians who have served this country so well. I know that all the members enjoyed that.

I would like to very quickly just preface my comments on some of the specific recommendations by saying that I think the actions of the government so far, particularly the billions of dollars worth of cuts to women's groups, student employment, seniors, minorities and the voluntary sector are wrong. I think they are wrong to most Canadians. Certainly, that is what we heard as we travelled the country. People were very concerned about what the government had done so far and I hope budget 2007, in particular, will provide the government a chance to show that vulnerable Canadians actually count in its plans.

I would like to take members through some of the recommendations that I think are particularly important. As we have heard, there were 43 recommendations.

The first one was on the whole issue of health promotion and wellness, which is something that is very important. It is one of the issues that brought me into politics. Coming from Atlantic Canada, we have a very high incidence of chronic disease. Diabetes is out of control along with cardiovascular diseases, arthritis and cancers. There is an issue here.

I will not read the whole recommendation, but it actually gets to having an impact on health promotion. It indicates that the government should continue to allocate funds for the national immunization strategy, which was an initiative that came out of our public health agency. When the member for St. Paul's was the minister of public health, this was one of her babies and she really did a great job on it, but it needs to be renewed. It is imperative that the government renew the strategy, so that all children in Canada get the immunizations they need.

Further to that, we have recommended that a dedicated fund be established of $300 million over three years for future immunization programs. There are some very exciting new vaccines being developed. Merck Frosst has one for the human papillomavirus that can virtually eliminate cervical cancer. It is very important that we invest in these vaccines, in this case for Canadian girls and Canadian women, that will virtually eliminate cervical cancer.

One of my colleagues mentioned mental health. We have a recommendation here for the creation of a Canadian mental health commission. I do not need to go into that a lot. Senator Kirby and his group from the Senate have put forward a very comprehensive proposal, which I hope the government follows up on, not only with vague commitments but with specific dollars attached.

Recommendation No. 6 is to amend the Income Tax Act to increase the value of the Canada child tax benefit. There is not a specific dollar associated with this, but a lot of anti-poverty groups, such as John Murphy from the National Council of Welfare and others, suggested $4,900. The Canada child tax benefit was an initiative of the previous Liberal government that a lot of people give it credit for. There is way too much child poverty in Canada, but the child tax benefit is the kind of policy for which an enlightened government takes responsibility and says that it is going to do something for our kids to ensure that all kids have some access to the resources that they need as they grow up.

One of our most important recommendations was around student financing. Just over a year ago, the previous government introduced a very important update that included huge, sweeping investments in access for students, low income families and persons with disabilities. It recognized that the federal government does have a role to play. Specifically, we are recommending in this report that the Canada millennium scholarship foundation mandate be renewed. This again was an initiative of some years ago.

It needs new money. It needs an indication very soon that it will continue. It is imperative that we do that and also expand Canada access grants. These are grants that provide direct support for students who do not have the means to go to university. We are recommending that those grants be upgraded to all four years of an undergraduate education. That is very important.

The topic of our whole budget discussions was competitiveness and productivity. We cannot discuss competitiveness without putting the people in the picture. The people are the kids in Canada, the young people in Canada who absolutely need assistance in getting to university. Access is a huge priority for them and it should be for the Government of Canada.

Recommendation 9 is to reduce personal income taxes. That one speaks to itself. Rather than investing $5.5 billion or $6 billion in GST cuts, which disproportionately favour those who do not need the assistance, reduce personal income tax for the lowest income Canadians, raise the personal exemption and make a difference in the lives of Canadians.

Recommendation 12 is to reinstate the programs and funds that have been eliminated. These are the cuts to the Status of Women, the law commission, the court challenges, volunteerism and things like that.

Another recommendation, recommendation 13, is for SCPI, the supporting communities partnership initiative. This is very important to Canadians. No one came to our committee and said that was a good move. Lots of people came and said that it was dumb and it had to be fixed. A very important recommendation of our committee is reinstating those cuts.

Recommendation 21 is that the federal government study the feasibility of a tax measure that would recognize and reward the hours of volunteer activity. This is a complex recommendation and I understand that. There are some templates at which we can look. For example, Ron Colman and the GPI, which is the genuine progress index based in Atlantic Canada, looks at the quality of life not just in terms of dollars, but in terms of volunteerism activity and quality of life and environment. A truly enlightened society goes beyond just the economics. There is a holistic approach to life and we need to do that. Recognizing the huge value that volunteers provide is a good start in that direction. Cutting the volunteerism initiative is sending the wrong signal.

Recommendation 22 is to increase funds allocated to the arts and culture. We get so much from arts and culture. Every one of us in the House can look to the artists in their community. In my case we have new artists like Matt Mays. We have artists in Nova Scotia, in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, people like Tom Forrestall. We also have dancers.

We cannot only look at a budget and say that all we will do is health and economic development. Arts and culture provide so much of what makes us unique as Canadians, makes us unique as Nova Scotians, makes us unique as Dartmouth—Cole Harbour residents as well.

Recommendation 25 is to amend the Excise Tax Act in order to ensure a full rebate on the GST paid by universities, colleges, school boards and hospitals. We heard quite a bit about that. It makes eminent sense that we do not want to be penalizing behaviour that leads to increased productivity for Canada.

A very important recommendation was on research. I have mentioned before that in the late 1990s Canada underwent a transformation in research and innovation. We were not the only ones in the world doing it, but we did it as well as anyone. It became kind of a template for success internationally. It put something in the order of $13 billion into research and innovation.

We developed and created CIHR, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research out of the old MRC, Medical Research Council. We have put huge amounts of money into CIHR. That money leverages so much more. It has not only done basic biomedical and clinical research, but has looked at population health and health systems. How do we impact the health of aboriginal Canadians? How do we impact the health of Atlantic Canadians, of women, or groups within society? They have leveraged so much money. It is very important that we continue that.

CIHR has made a very strong case for increased funding of $350 million, and that is in the report. Increasing the indirect costs of research is also in the report. For quite a while the research institutes in Canada have said they need 40% indirect costing. They now receive in the range of 25¢ on the dollar. Last year's economic update proposed to go to 40%. That was cancelled by the new government when it took power. We need to follow through on that.

One item that was missed in our report was the very important issue of research done by health charities, the Heart and Stroke, Cancer Society, Diabetes Association. They also need indirect costs and the government has to find a way to ensure they are not penalized.

GrowthWorks Atlantic came to see us a number of times and indicated that the federal government should amend the Income Tax Act to increase to $1,500 the labour sponsored funds tax credit. That is very important for venture capital.

International development is critical. At some point in time we have to do more than we are doing. Canada has been very supportive internationally of development work in continents such as Africa, Asia and Central America. We should commit to the 0.7%, the Pearson standard in international development.

While members of Parliament are preparing to go home to our ridings for a comfortable Christmas, and most Canadians are going to have a reasonable Christmas, half the world suffers in extreme poverty, with much disease. As a nation, we have to get our heads around the fact that we have a responsibility to the rest of the world. It is very important that we hit that 0.7%. The government should takes some steps in that direction.

In conclusion, the most important advice that I ever got about politics was from my mother--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I am sorry. I am very conscious of the fact that the member's colleague wants to get up.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member intently. I was surprised he did not mention our advantage, the new advantage the finance minister has given to the nation. To me, it is a very good statement and it looks ahead. All the things he has said show up in that and they will come in the future. We will be doing lots for our seniors and for those who live in poverty.

This year my daughter gets married on New Year's Eve. While she is making her wedding plans, I will be helping make plans with the government for her future. Right now I know she loves the working tax that will be implemented. I know she will like the child benefit in the future.

There are very many advantages to our plan. We are looking into the future. I also want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas, including those who oversee the chamber and are here with us so many times in the evening. To our pages and to everyone, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Could the member opposite offer my daughter a better plan than we have offered?