Debates of May 10th, 2006

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I hope the hon. member for Hamilton Centre was not implying anything that the Speaker had done. He knows he is supposed to address his comments through the chair. We will move on.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for London--Fanshawe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hamilton for sharing his time. It gives me the chance to raise some important issues regarding the impact on women by the Conservative budget.

I must say that despite the admonitions of the Minister of Justice today in question period that his government respects the equality rights of women, I have little faith that the words match the actions.

Besides the $450 million that the Conservative government has allocated for aboriginal education, women, children and families, water and housing, there is no mention of money in the budget specifically allocated toward advancing women's equality. The budget does touch on issues that affect women, like child care, tax cuts, security, housing, immigration, aboriginal peoples and pensioners, but again there is nothing in the budget that specifically refers to the government's funding plans to address women's inequality.

The Conservatives' child care plan does not address the child care needs of working women. Twelve hundred dollars a year does not come close to covering the cost of child care. Families in my riding of London—Fanshawe have made it clear. They need child care spaces, not a taxable $100 a month. The budget does not provide funds to create more child care spaces until 2007-08. We need to invest in our children now. To invest in children is to invest in our future.

The provision of child care is not about pitting one family against another with regard to child care choice; rather it should be about providing quality early learning. Whether a parent stays at home, works part time or full time, families are still looking for early childhood education to provide their children with the opportunity of socialization and the advantage of educational stimulation.

While the Conservatives claim that $1,200 will provide a choice, I must argue that when no child care spaces are created, there is no choice. It would be ideal if all working families could afford to have one parent at home, but the reality remains that many families can only survive on two incomes. The government's child care plan reinforces gender inequality because the Conservative funding plan assumes that one parent, in many cases the woman, will stay at home. These women may well suffer the same inequity as their grandmothers. Fifty per cent of Canadian women 65 years of age and over live in poverty because they were not engaged in employment outside of their homes.

Another issue I have with the budget is that there is no EI plan to address the inequalities that women face. Because a large percentage of women work in part time jobs, marginal jobs and self-employment arrangements, many women are not eligible for EI. This creates two problems. These women are unable to access EI if they lose their jobs and these women are also ineligible for maternity leave when they decide to start a family.

I feel the budget shows very little support for women and suggests that the Conservative government's priorities lie elsewhere. The Minister for Canadian Heritage and Status of Women claimed in the House that the government would stand up for the equality of women. She said:

I can assure the member and all women in Canada that this government will stand up for the equality of women and their full participation.

The budget does not reflect the words by either the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women. It is clear that women are not a priority.

In order to comply with its international obligations and truly stand up for women in Canada, the government needs to fund research, legislation and programs in order to address the 26 recommendations made by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, CEDAW.

Funding for Status of Women Canada according to the estimates has stayed relatively stagnant, except for about $1 million transferred to the Sisters in Spirit initiative through the Native Women's Network to raise awareness of the alarmingly high rates of violence against aboriginal women in Canada.

Status of Women Canada needs more funding to address women's issues, especially those outlined in the CEDAW recommendations.

According to the estimates, the promote public policy program is being cut by approximately $5 million, while there is an increase of about $6 million for building knowledge and organizational capacity on gender equality. The large cut to the promote public policy program will prevent the development and implementation of federal initiatives that narrow the gap between women and men and expand opportunities for women. This cut in funding also means that there is only about $2 million left to address the CEDAW recommendations.

Twenty-one million dollars is dedicated to develop the knowledge and capacity of a number of stakeholders so that they are better informed and able to address gender based issues of significance to Canadian society in a coordinated manner. Ten million dollars of this money is dedicated to grants.

While women's organizations do need funding, the large adjustment between the two programs indicates that the government would rather have a hands-off policy when it comes to promoting women's equality instead of funding federal programs with direction and cohesion.

Again, this budget illustrates that women are not a priority for the government. Clearly it does not believe that government should promote women's equality. Instead, responsibility is passed over to the non-profit community.

I also need to speak about the budget's lack of funding for housing.

The one time payment outlined in the Conservative budget was in the NDP budget, Bill C-48, last spring. It is money that was already committed to be spent and falls $200 million short of the budget which was passed last June.

I am very concerned as there is no mention in this budget about who will oversee the funding and ensure the money is spent by the provinces on much needed affordable housing. Previous allocations to the provinces and territories, about $474 million, was never spent because the money had to be matched by the province.

My question remains, who is it that will oversee that money and make sure it is spent on affordable housing, and how is “affordable” defined?

Housing costs have reached an incredible high. According to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the cost of housing in Calgary has increased by 29.6% since last year. The cost of housing has increased across Canada. When compounded with rising mortgage rates, housing is becoming more and more inaccessible for many working families. According to a CBC report today, housing costs are expected to grow again next year. With rising costs, the need for affordable housing is not an option, it is an essential.

There is also no mention in this budget of a national housing plan that would ensure affordable housing is available in the long term. The government has no long term solution and Canada remains one of only two G-8 countries without a national housing strategy.

The Conservatives say they plan to make new housing affordable. The 1% cut in GST is their example. Their own numbers clearly show that the tax break will not make housing any more affordable, especially for those who need it most. Buying a $200,000 home, and in my riding the average home is $300,000, would provide a tax rebate of about $8.25 a year over a 25 year mortgage. This does not make any home more affordable, nor is it a saving for those who even can afford to buy a house.

The housing money allocated to reserves is not going to address the housing needs of the first nations people. The $450 million allotted may cover repairs needed on current stock, but it will not address the overcrowding or relocation needs in communities like Kashechewan.

We are pleased to see money from the NDP budget go to off reserve first nations housing. The money can be used to ease the current housing burden, but spread across the entire country, it will not come close to addressing the needs of those who most need it. Too often, aboriginal people have seen money disappear into programs with no corresponding improvement in their standard of living.

This budget is not much more than sleight of hand. It pretends to help working families and women, but upon closer inspection, the so-called savings simply disappear into thin, cold air.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I see quite a few members rising for questions and comments. If we could keep them rather brief, we could accommodate more members having the opportunity to speak.

The hon. member for St. Catharines.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the two previous speakers, the member for Hamilton Centre and the member for London—Fanshawe. They both served in the Ontario legislature with the Bob Rae government, where we saw a social contract that gave 60,000 Ontario civil servants less money. When the NDP ran from office in 1995, that party left over 200 tax increases, $14 billion in debt, and worst of all, 1.5 million people on welfare.

When the member for Hamilton Centre said that his spine was cold, I would really like to have asked him how cold was his spine when he sat in cabinet and supported each and every one of those measures.

I ask the member for London—Fanshawe, how does she feel to go down that road in this country with what happened in the province of Ontario under that government? What kind of benefit would that be to the people of this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to have the chance to set the record straight. I was a member of a government that was suffering through the worst recession that this country has ever known. We have since found out that particular recession was something that even the international community did not fully understand and has not fully understood until the present time. The world was reeling and Ontario was in terrible trouble because it had lost half a million jobs due to a free trade agreement that a certain Conservative government had put in place.

In order to maintain the services of the province, the NDP had to do remarkable things. We could not rely on the federal government because the Conservatives and then the Liberals did nothing but cut, cut, cut transfer payments and reduced our ability to help. In fact, the Conservatives promised that there would be a training allowance for people who lost their jobs. We never saw a dime. In order to make sure that when the recession ended in 1994 there was an Ontario left, the NDP did what it needed to do. It--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I apologize to the member but we have to allow for other members to participate.

The hon. member for Brampton West.

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wrote down what I was going to say but after listening to all this about going backward, I decided to change my mind. I would like the hon. member to know that I think that Bob Rae did a fine job given the circumstances.

The one thing we fail to realize in this House and one of the downfalls of this House is the arrogance of thinking that we all have the monopoly on knowing what is honourable, right and decent. None of us has the monopoly. You with the big silly grin may feel that you are much smarter than I am and that you are--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I do not think I was grinning. I remind the member for Brampton West that members are supposed to address all comments through the Chair, not directly to other members in the House.

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also think the NDP is being intellectually dishonest. We had a Liberal-NDP budget, as much as we did not like it to be called that. If the NDP had waited three months, the day care would be in place.

However, I would like hon. members to know that for most women who go out to work, it is not a matter of choice and $100 a month is going to do absolutely nothing to further their options to stay home to care for their children or go out to work.

I would also like to remind the NDP that on corporate cuts, we have to remember that one thing corporations do is create jobs. If people work, they can pay taxes and we can afford more programs.

I would like the Conservatives to please think about the mothers who do not have a choice and to think about the parents. The member spoke of the car, the sports and the rebate. What about those who cannot afford the sports or the car?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member raised a number of points. I do not believe I have time to address all of them, but I would like to refer to one point and that is in regard to tax cuts.

About 18 months ago the World Economic Forum issued a report which said that if one wants to improve an economy and build a community, one does not invest in corporate tax cuts because that does absolutely nothing. Most of that money disappears offshore. If one truly wants to build a country or a community, one invests in the things that make that community strong: child care, education, working families.

Unfortunately, we have seen absolutely none of that in this budget. The only group to come out ahead in terms of this Conservative agenda are the corporations. In the months to come, families will start to realize that these so-called tax credits disappear, as I have said before, into cold thin air.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

We probably only have enough time left for one speaker before we have to take the vote. I know many members are anxious for that, but if we could try to have a little bit of decorum for the next speaker and allow the Chair to hear the speech, that would be very much appreciated.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

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

Mr. Speaker, in case you find it in your heart to find some extra time, I will be splitting my time with the member for Brant.

When in opposition, most members of the House start their speeches by criticizing the government and in turn, members of the government will always begin their speeches by endlessly praising whatever piece of legislation is passing through the House at that given time.

As former chair of the finance committee, I will try to highlight and speak about what I heard from Canadians during last year's pre-budget consultation process and about how well the government's budget responds to the needs raised during that process.

As you perhaps are aware, each year the Standing Committee on Finance usually presents to the House of Commons a report on the prebudget consultation. Occasionally, this is not possible and this was the case for 2005. Given the political circumstances, the committee was unable to present a report on the prebudget consultation.

To put the pre-budget consultation process in perspective, the committee held over 100 hours of hearings and heard from almost 650 witnesses representing 420 groups, individuals or organizations. Name it and we heard it. I heard every single word spoken except for one session in Winnipeg which I did follow up on and read the minutes of the meeting afterwords.

The purpose of the hearings held by the finance committee is to provide Canadians with an opportunity to tell the government what they would like to see in the next budget. While it can be exhausting for members of the committee, the pre-budget consultation is a vital exercise because it represents what is best about our democracy. Canadians from coast to coast to coast consult with elected members of Parliament who sit on the finance committee which in turn helps shape a great vision of Canada, a Canada that addresses the different needs of all its people.

This is a vision that is not a simple one but a necessary one for Canada to reach its potential. I am sad to say that the big plans for Canada spoken about during the pre-budget consultations have been turned into small potatoes by the Conservative government.

During the pre-budget consultation sessions, Canadians asked for national, comprehensive and long term strategies to reduce income taxes and to make Canada more competitive. They did not ask for an election budget filled with superficial tax cuts at the expense of solid programs, but unfortunately, that is what they received.

We started the pre-budget consultation process by hearing from economic think tanks of all stripes, economists who sit on both sides of the political spectrum and who represent Canadians from all walks of life. Not one economist advocated a reduction in consumption taxes or the GST.

The GST is not levied on mortgage payments, rent, savings, food purchased at grocery stores, medical expenses, or many other essential items. For low-income families, a very small percentage of expenditures are subject to GST. Thus, Canadians with low incomes will benefit very little from the 1% reduction in GST.

These economists spoke about reducing income tax and instead the Conservatives raised the lowest income tax bracket from 15% to 15.5%. Did anyone suggest a reduction in income taxes, corporate or individual? Everyone did, even some of the more social groups who are realizing who is paying the bills in this country, the middle class.

We heard from cultural groups who stated over and over that in order to truly flourish, the Canada Council for the Arts should have its funding doubled from $5 per capita to $10 at a total cost of $300 million. Instead, the government has chosen to only add $50 million to the council, a sum that will not nearly be enough for Canada's arts sector. Increasing the council's budget to $300 million seems simple enough, but I suppose we must remember that the government's priorities lie elsewhere.

Culture is not about negotiating. It is about the council needing $300 million to preserve the Canadian arts and provide the opportunity for culture to grow and be part of the Canadian vision. It is not about simply throwing $50 million at the cultural world and hoping it will go away.

The committee also heard from student groups who asked that the federal government lighten their debt loads, so that they could graduate without being thousands of dollars in debt. There are students in this country who begin careers as much as $30,000 in debt, with post-graduate students easily having double the debt.

What our party proposed during the last election campaign was a visionary solution to offer a 50% rebate on tuition fees during the first year and then only in the last year of a student's university education would another 50% rebate kick in on tuition fees. This again is about a vision, a vision that speaks volumes.

How does the government help? It helps by offering a paltry $80 credit on books. While this $80 credit may be useful to students for a week, it will not nearly be enough to solve student debt troubles that we heard about during the pre-budget consultations.

Universities also appeared before the finance committee and asked for more research funding. The Liberals heard their calls and set aside $2.5 billion for university research. This is consistent with a vision for Canada to continue to be a world leader in research and innovative initiatives. The answer from the Conservative government is to provide a mere $200 million.

In an era when 70% of all new jobs being created will require more than a high school diploma, the Conservatives are once again demonstrating that they are oblivious to the need to invest in new innovative and productivity-enhancing technologies. How will their simple plan help them once they realize that Canada has lost its place in the world? Their simple plan will be what? I ask: Why is the government's vision for Canada so short-sighted?

During the pre-budget consultations, the finance committee heard from environmental groups who highlighted the imminent dangers of climate change. Climate change is a reality and the government has a responsibility to its people to safeguard their health and the health of future generations. Why then has the Conservatives gutted the $5 billion Liberal investment in environmental strategies in climate change in favour of $400 million of local programs that are, according to the budget document, still being developed by the minister?

Climate change is one of the biggest challenges faced by humanity and the Conservative government has responded to that challenge by ignoring it, and using that money to pay for its small potato tax credits. What is the government's plan for climate change? It is not even a plan.

The Conservatives say they want to increase public transit use, but their simple solution to increasing public transit use is to give public transit users a credit on their monthly bus passes that the transit companies will likely clawback through increased fares. How does this help people in rural Canada that the Conservatives claim to know so much about when in fact many small communities do not even offer public transit. I am not sure, but it does not sound like much of a climate change plan to me. It sounds like attractive politics over sound policies.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry to interrupt the member.

It being 6:27 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of Ways and Means Motion No. 1.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #6

The Budget

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the putting of the question on Ways and Means Motion No. 5.

Motion No. 5

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

moved that a ways and means motion to implement certain provisions of the budget, tabled in Parliament on May 2, be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?