Debates of May 11th, 2006

Opposition Motion—Kyoto Protocol

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Very quickly, Mr. Speaker, yes, I agree wholeheartedly. That is why we have a plan to address climate change.

We cannot cherry pick air quality or water quality. We have to look at the whole package. We have to look at energy policy. We have to look at how we live, how we transport our goods and how we transport ourselves.

I talked about all the effects in Canada. If I had more time, I would talk about the whole global situation, the effects on poverty and the effects on development. Yes, we must look at it from a much wider scope. That was a great question.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I have good news for the member who just spoke. We are prepared to forward the full package to clean up the environment and clean up greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Lévis—Bellechasse.

I am surprised by this particular motion from the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie because it is ironic. I was not aware that the Bloc had actually signed on to the Constitution. I was very glad to hear that because my understanding is it is a separatist party, but the Bloc included that in its motion so I take it to mean that either I missed something or, indeed, the Bloc will be signing it in the near future and respecting the Constitution.

Nevertheless, I have had the privilege in the past of sitting on the environment committee with many of my colleagues here in the House. I have enjoyed that time. I have actually written a thesis, believe it or not, on the enforceability of judgments on cross-border pollutants. I participated in the Kyoto implementation study with over 50 stakeholders from private, public and non-government organizations. I have had the privilege of visiting Iceland for the Arctic Council on Climate Change. I saw the results of that.

I am an avid outdoors enthusiast. I would actually lay claim to the term “environmentalist”. I spend a lot of time outdoors. I am interested in a future for the environment not just for the present generation, but for my children, for my grandchildren, for all Canadians and all people who live on this planet Earth. I am very interested in that.

Although I am Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, a title which I am very honoured to have, I actually have a keen interest in the environment.

I have read the Pembina Institute report on oil sands fever, greenhouse emissions and chemical contamination in the last two weeks. I even had the privilege of meeting with Elizabeth May, who at the time was the executive director of the Sierra Club. We talked about greenhouse gases and what we could do in northern Alberta. I met with a representative from the David Suzuki Foundation, Dale Marshall, in the last two weeks.

I have done all that because I am interested in the environment, just like everyone on this side of the House, every Conservative here. We want a solution.

There is no question that our Earth is changing, and it has been changing for the last however many years that it has been around. We know it changes. Temperatures fluctuate, and they have fluctuated since the beginning of time. In fact in this very place we sit today, I guess the place was not here, but a huge layer of ice was here at one time, thousands of years ago. So things do change, and things are going to continue to change.

But what does create greenhouses? What is contributing to climate change is not just the natural function of the Earth, but it is also things like forest fires, which have a great impact on greenhouse gas emissions. It is automobiles that people drive back and forth to work. It is factories. It is electrical generation utility companies that provide electricity for us. It is manufacturing facilities. It is natural resource extraction processes. It is even the use of any kind of fossil fuel. Those things cause greenhouse gas emissions. It is just about everything we do that causes some form of greenhouse emissions.

In fact in this House today and every day since I have been here, there is a lot of hot air that goes up all the time. I am hoping today though with this particular speech we will not have much of it. I am hoping that some people will be interested.

I do want to identify one particular thing in history, and that is it was actually a Conservative government that took the first step on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Indeed, that very gentlemen, the right hon. Brian Mulroney, the former prime minister, was the first person in this House to bring forward legislation to deal with greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

Brian Mulroney was honoured recently as Canada's greenest prime minister. I am very proud of the fact that he was from a Conservative caucus. Indeed he introduced a very good plan. It was called the green plan and the name itself speaks volumes. He committed to do something that the Liberal government never did. He actually set targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He actually had ideas on how to do it and he set plans. But that was prior to 1993 and that was prior to the Liberal government.

Guess what happened in 1993 and subsequently until a few months ago. The Liberals cut not just health care, which we saw immediately, not just the military, not just infrastructure, but they shelved that plan. They killed the green plan. Not only did they do nothing for 13 years, but they killed the 10 years before that which were actually starting to add something to greenhouse gas emissions reduction and climate change reduction.

We had 13 years of Liberal ineffectiveness and incompetence, quite frankly. There was a lack of accountability, no reporting mechanisms and plans to spend $13 billion of taxpayers' money on a plan that had no chance of working and effected no results.

What were the results of this money? Some money was spent. I can assure the House that we have not had great results. Our greenhouse gas emissions have gone up roughly 35% since the Kyoto targets the Liberal government set, and are 43% above those targets currently. So we have gone backwards in time, not just for the 13 years, but for the time before that when there was a Conservative government that introduced the green plan.

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is currently conducting a fair value for money audit and I am looking forward to those results. They will be coming out in the fall of 2006 and I really look forward to that audit. We do not want to blame people because we can do that all day. We want to ensure that we do not make the same mistakes again that have been made by the Liberal government in the past. We want to find what worked and what did not work, and do an appropriate audit to implement the things that can work and to fix those things that did not.

I am from Fort McMurray in northern Alberta and I am proud to be from that area. I keep hearing that the oil and gas industry is bad, bad, bad. I am pretty sure everyone here drives a car to work. I am proud of the industry because I have seen what it is doing. Syncrude Canada, for instance, a company in my area spent $2 billion recently on reducing greenhouse gas emissions by cleaning the pipes that exhaust the steam. I am proud of the role the private sector in Alberta has played and it is taking great steps.

In fact, the companies are taking steps beyond what is required by the government. Their children play with my children. The CEOs of those corporations are working there. They do not want to see health effects and side-effects. They want to create change to work toward a more positive environment for all of us.

As a government we will be focusing on achieving a better and stronger public and private partnership, something that was not done. We are not going to implement tasks that cannot be done. We are going to find solutions that we can work toward together. If the NDP and the Bloc had their druthers on this, they would close down all the factories and shut down all travel by car. In the wintertime, I am sorry, it is minus 30°, but we would have to turn off the heat and huddle in blankets. That would be their solution.

We are not going to take that approach because it is not helpful. We know that something has to be done but let us look at the realities. Here in Canada we have cold weather, some of the coldest weather in the world. We have long distances. We travel 25% longer than any other citizen of other countries on average. We have a very low population density and yes, we have a resource-based economy. I want to ensure that the members on the other side of the House heard that. Our economy is driven on the basis of natural resources.

This Conservative government will integrate the economy and the environment. We are going to put our money to work for the environment. We are going to work on our environment to help our economy. The two are not separate. They are not mutually exclusive. They are together and this government is going to ensure that we keep them together.

We are going to recognize energy as a key economic driver. We have lights on here today and probably some air conditioning, I am not quite sure about that because it is a little hot, but we use electricity and all Canadians use electricity. We have to recognize that energy is a key economic driver and we have to respect that.

Most importantly, something that was not done before, we have to have better management of government finances. We are the biggest company in Canada and we have a fiduciary duty to taxpayers to take care of their money. We must do a better job of that.

In the budget we have honoured all of the promises that we made in the election campaign, something that is different than any government has done in the last 10 or 15 years. We are going to follow through on our promises. We are going to enact a clean air act. We are going to work toward fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. We are going to have more energy security and innovation in our marketplace. We are going to make the difference.

We are going to protect our Arctic. We are going to ensure that we have sovereignty over our soil and the safety of our northern citizens as well as ensuring that we keep their aboriginal culture intact. We are going to invest in research and clean air technology.

We have an economic factor that gives us a huge and competitive advantage. Other things that are going to take place include: innovative technologies such as clean coal, carbon capturing sequestration and hydrocarbon extraction techniques. Those are things we are going to look at and work on.

We will use NAFTA as a tool and other international tools to ensure we receive the cooperation of the United States. The Prime Minister and the government is going to deliver a Canadian solution for Canadians that will help the environment. I am proud to be a part of that government.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for speaking up. He is one of few from that side over there who rose to speak. The environmental file is such an embarrassment for the Conservatives. His speech was certainly a valiant attempt.

I am delighted with the number of things the member mentioned that the Conservatives will be doing. We are already doing those things and the plans are in place. The Conservatives can just pick up the activity in those areas.

My first question for the member is related to the oil sands. The second previous NDP speaker said the people he had talked with in Fort McMurray did not want that type of rapid and uncontrolled development. Does the member have any comments? This is actually his constituency.

Scientists have explained that very dangerous gases in the air are coming to Canada from other countries. Canada has been doing some great work by helping China improve its air pollution. However, the Minister of the Environment suggests we should not be investing money overseas. My second question is, if we should not be investing money overseas, does the member say we should not be investing money in Afghanistan as well because we are protecting Canadians by doing that?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I believe the member has the first sentence mixed up. It was the Liberals that were embarrassing. The Liberals caused nothing but economic and climate chaos in this country for many years.

I am happy to answer the member's question about Fort McMurray. I can assure him that the development itself is good. Unfortunately, as a result of certain initiatives, one in particular the price of oil going up so dramatically, the quality of life for people in Fort McMurray must be improved.

We need to invest more in northern Alberta. We need to invest more in the people there. We need more schoolteachers and more doctors. We have the lowest doctor to patient ratio in the country. We need more roads. We have a highway with many fatalities. We need a lot more infrastructure.

I am looking forward to all the members of the House supporting this initiative. We have had huge growth in northern Alberta of 8% over the last 8 to 10 years, and we are projecting 8% more over the next 15 years.

On another point, Canada has 2.5% of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the world. The Liberal plan is to get Canada involved in 180 countries with Kyoto which only account for a small portion on a large scale of emissions. We have the United States, China, India and Australia, 70% to 80% of greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 and the Liberals do not want to be part of that. I do not understand. Those countries did not sign Kyoto. Is there any logic in that?

The Conservative government is going to find solutions that work. We will participate and cooperate with those countries that are causing the emissions. We are not going to cause problems for people and companies in Canada. We will find solutions and those solutions are going to work.

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

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the parliamentary secretary referred to my political opinions. I may be a sovereignist, but it is not my party that is going to cover Canada in shame on the international scene by reneging on its commitments. Canada signed the Kyoto protocol, which was ratified in this House. Today, by refusing to vote in favour of the Bloc motion, it is the objectives of the Kyoto protocol, and by extension, the protocol itself, that this government is refusing to implement.

It is also going to make Canada look even more ridiculous by keeping the Minister of the Environment as the chair of the Bonn conference, when the other countries will all see that the chair only wants to sabotage the protocol.

That is appalling, but what is even worse is the reason they give us for not wanting to implement the Kyoto protocol. The government says that it will be incapable of complying with the agreement. What an admission of incompetence. This is the first time that I have seen a government justify itself by saying that it will be incapable.

I have a question for the parliamentary secretary. It is true that the Liberal government was incapable of complying with the agreement. Does the only difference between this government and the previous one lie in the fact that the current government knows that it will be incapable?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing. The Constitution is good when Quebec needs to use it, but it is not good when Quebec wants to leave. It is absolutely ironic. Quebec became part of Canada before Alberta and yet, what if Alberta wanted to leave Kyoto, and I am not saying it wants to. However, we are going to find the mechanism that works. If Quebec wanted to leave Kyoto, it is not good for Canada, but it is okay for Quebec to leave Canada. I do not understand dual roles.

We are going to work cooperatively and find solutions. We are going to use whatever mechanism, not just one mechanism on a piece of paper. We are going to find solutions and results for Canadians.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since January 23, we have had a new government in Ottawa, a Conservative government, a government which has already demonstrated a different way of managing and conducting government business.

One need only look at what took place with the softwood lumber agreement, or with the budget, or even last week, in the red chamber, with the agreement on Quebec’s place within UNESCO.

In any case, we see that, in less than three months, the Conservative government has made some commitments that it is fulfilling pragmatically and realistically. This is what we have had here for three months, and it is what we call turning a new leaf. We have a government that fulfils the commitments it makes. That is what it is all about today. That is why I am not able to support the motion presented by the Bloc Québécois. This government wants to make commitments it can keep.

I would like to reassure my colleagues in the House, particularly Quebeckers. The members of the Conservative government are concerned about environmental issues. That is why we are unable to support this motion. It is easy to say that we are going to support it and say nice things and make fine promises, but for 13 years, that is all we have heard concerning the environment. We see the results today. Staggering figures prevent us from respecting our commitments; we have overruns which, according to one of the environmentalist groups, result in proportions beyond control.

I care about the environment. I had the good fortune of working in this area for many years, in wastewater treatment and in the processing of pig slurry. I am also a member of RÉSEAU environnement, the largest Canadian movement, the largest organization of environment professionals in the country, and I salute them. These are people from all over, especially Quebec, I must say, who work on the development of solutions and technologies to make us more competitive, so that we can seize the opportunity represented by climate change to contribute to our economic prosperity.

The reason why we cannot support this motion is that there is a plan, which we cannot support. You will understand why. You will understand why Quebeckers and Canadians deserve better. I have the quote here. The previous government's plan was actually written on the back of a paper napkin on the plane en route to Kyoto: “There was no long term planning. There was no real negotiation with the provinces or with industry sectors. In fact it was a last minute, hastily drafted agreement”.

Do you think that today in this House, I am going to endorse a motion that supports that plan and those initiatives? Canadians certainly deserve better than an agreement written on a scrap of paper when we are talking about our children's future. And that is exactly what we are talking about today.

As you know, this government promised an effective plan to address climate change. That plan will be introduced shortly. Of course, our friends will have to wait patiently for a few more days, but Canadians have been waiting for 13 years, so I think we can give this new government a bit more time to deliver a plan that will produce tangible results.

Let us talk about that other plan. Today people are telling us that we should support it. Let us even talk about the Kyoto protocol targets. I have an article from Équiterre, written late last year, that refers to that famous plan written on a napkin. The article, which was written after the famous Liberal plan was unveiled, asks whether the federal plan to implement the Kyoto protocol, announced in April 2005, will allow Canada to reach its targets.

While the environmental experts wish it success, a number of analysts in the environmental community doubt that this is possible.

My colleague from Alberta and I are not the ones saying that the targets are not realistic. It is environmental experts who are saying it, experts who recognize that the targets are difficult to achieve. To all intents and purposes, those targets are the ones we hope to be moving toward. That is exactly what this government wants to do. We hope to move in the direction of Kyoto and we hope to move toward it more broadly and more exhaustively, so that we can reach the targets for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change. Canada contributes about 2% of global greenhouse gases. Some countries contribute more. Those countries have to be part of the solution.

For 13 years we were promised a lot of things. I would now like to talk about a party that did something for the environment. I would like to talk about a party that signed an agreement on acid rain. I would like to talk about a party that in 1987 signed the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances. I would like to talk about a party that in 1988 recognized the importance of the Brundtland report on future generations, Our Common Future. In 1988, the environment was not as popular a topic as it is today. I would like to talk about a party that created a priorities and planning committee to ensure that attention was given to environmental concerns in every department. I would like to talk about a party that the United Nations Program described as a model for the world, whose government was in Rio in 1992, whose government made the commitment to clean up the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. That party is the Conservative Party. It is that party that today, in this House, is saying that it is preparing a plan to combat climate change.

That party invites the members of this House to support it when the plan is presented. Canada deserves to have an effective plan to combat climate change.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member with great interest. I appreciate the sincerity and the depth of his comments, but I would just note that the characterization of Kyoto and the implications of climate change are far more than are given justice when it is suggested that they were developed on the back of a napkin.

I have a question for the member. The best available science indicates that climate change is related to human activity. That is an established scientific point of view that is sustained by all credible organizations internationally. Kyoto is the only international treaty we have that calls for integrated, sustained and international action. The previous government, it has been shown, was unsuccessful to some extent, but it put forward a plan with memoranda of understanding with the automotive sector, with targets that had been established and with a plan through technology and through partnerships with provinces. There was a whole series of initiatives.

Does it make sense for us at this point to try to reinvent the wheel in light of the compelling evidence put forward? At least Kyoto is an international regime that would take us in the same direction to do something which would change the legacy that most assuredly is going to be disastrous in terms of natural disasters. We have seen the evidence. Does it not make sense to at least agree to the treaty and continue our initiatives within the framework that has been provided, inasmuch as there is no other international framework that exists?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

When these debates are over and the bills are passed, there will still be a concern. Even if we could stop all greenhouse gas emissions and if we could achieve the Kyoto protocol objectives, global warming would still be a scientific phenomenon that, according to different interpretations, is now launched and looms over us. It is very disturbing and the environmentalists will confirm it.

All day long, the government was extremely clear. It said that it wanted to continue to work toward the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in cooperation with all the signatories to the Kyoto protocol. The government even wants to go further, with other partners that are not signatories.

We cannot keep the previous plan because the main thing that is wrong with it is that it is sticking taxpayers with the bill rather than tackling major emitters. Ultimately, taxpayers are footing the bill even if the objectives are not necessarily achieved.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the motion for the benefit of my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse who did not have the opportunity to read it before coming to the House. In part b), we ask to:

publish, by October 15, 2006, an effective and equitable plan for complying with the Kyoto Protocol that includes a system of emission objectives for large emitters along with an exchange of emission rights accompanied by a bilateral agreement with Quebec and the provinces that want it, which could be based on a territorial approach.

There is no reference to “napkins” or any other document. We ask the government do come up with a plan and to meet the commitment it made in Kyoto to the international community. We also mentioned what a former Conservative government did in the past. That was before the Alliance and, at that time, members from Quebec stood up and took a stand. They did not cave in to the pressures of the oil lobby or others.

What I wanted to ask the hon. member is if he will ponder the issue over the week-end, take a stand, listen to and work for Quebecers who want to see Kyoto implemented and if he will vote with us next Tuesday.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I want to inform the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse that his colleague left him 10 seconds to answer the question.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am already here, standing in my place to serve Quebec and Quebecers and to fight climate change.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, time permitting, I will share my time with my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber.

I am pleased to speak today in this House during the opposition day of the Bloc Québécois on the motion calling for commitment to the objectives of the Kyoto protocol, an effective plan and an agreement with Quebec.

I note with satisfaction that all the opposition parties seem to want to support this motion by the Bloc Québécois. It is tangible proof and a clear expression of the importance most parliamentarians in this House give to the question of the environment, especially the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

There is, however, doubt as to the sincerity and real desire of the Conservative government with respect to the environment. In the latest federal election, their election platform contained three lines on environmental matters.

On December 17, 2002, Canada, following a majority vote in this House, made a commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2012 by 6% on average over its 1990 level. Clearly, before the world, Canada made a commitment to meet the greenhouse gas reduction objectives defined in the Kyoto protocol.

It must be said that at that time, the decision greatly met Quebeckers' expectations. Everybody knows that Quebeckers are very concerned about the environment and its preservation. Rarely has an issue like the Kyoto protocol been the subject of such a large consensus in Quebec, with 90% of Quebeckers supporting it.

Here, in the House of Commons, I represent the riding of Beauharnois--Salaberry. The people of my riding have been at the forefront of the fight against greenhouse gas emissions, strongly opposing the building of the Suroît thermal plant in the city of Beauharnois. They won the support of Quebeckers, some 70% of whom rejected the Suroît thermal plant. This plant alone would have increased by 3% the annual production of greenhouse gas emissions in Quebec, when the province had committed to reducing them by 6% by 2012.

A tremendous mass movement such as only Quebec can produce, and such as we had not seen for a long time, swept through our territory. It must be said that Quebeckers have a great environmental conscience and are very worried about the future they will leave to their descendants and to future generations of the entire planet.

On November 17, 2004, Quebec's natural resources minister announced that the Suroît thermal power plant project would be dropped. The people of Beauharnois—Salaberry thereby allowed the rest of Quebec to take a long hard collective look at their energy consumption.

These people and people from all over Quebec were forward-looking by their resounding and unequivocal opposition to the Suroît thermal power plant project in Beauharnois. I want to mention that I am very proud of them. They said no to greenhouse gas emissions. In the same breath they said yes to the Kyoto protocol. They reiterated their support for the production of renewable energies such as hydroelectricity and wind energy.

Opposition to the Suroît project in Beauharnois, and everything that followed, is the epitome of the difference in Quebec's approach to the whole issue of greenhouse gases. Collectively we want Quebec to be green for our health and the health of all humans on this planet.

Pardon my personal aside about my riding, but it helps me express that the step backward the Conservatives are taking concerning the Kyoto protocol is perceived in Quebec as a lack of leadership and a lack of political interest in the environment.

Nonetheless, this perception is increasingly shared in Canada and soon might be by the rest of the world.

Two days ago in Le Devoir, Louis-Gilles Francoeur reported that a group of international ecological organizations has decided to criticize the Canadian position on the international scene.

I would like to quote one of the members of the group, Stephen Hazell, acting executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada national office, whose comments about the Conservative government's position were reported in Le Devoir.

He said, and I quote:

—if the Conservatives are short of funds to finance their tax reductions, why do they not cut the $1.5 billion given to the oil and gas industry or the $200 million to Atomic Energy of Canada?

As far as I know, he is not a member of the Bloc Québécois. I even suspect we are not alone, fortunately, in thinking like that in Canada. Quite the contrary, more and more Canadians are lining up behind Quebec's vision of a more environmentally responsible society respectful of the other residents of this planet.

The Bloc Québécois believes in and advocates a more responsible method of governing, that is, going beyond a political horizon of a few months and establishing the conditions required to ensure the safety, health and prosperity of the public for years to come. The Conservative government is doing just the opposite. It is following a short term political agenda. It hands out treats, like the 1% cut in the GST, increasing tax by .5%, handing out $1,200 cheques to some parents and not others, hoping thus to attract votes. Sad reality this petty and mercenary political jockeying logic that appears to be guiding this government. All too often, without an economic incentive to bring about change, nothing is done. The government has to change course, its actions need bite and must result in accountability and obligations for all of the polluting industries and all elements of society.

Thus, the Bloc Québécois is asking Ottawa for an implementation plan of the Kyoto protocol allowing for a reduction of 6% below the 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. We are asking for a series of measures in its jurisdictions: strict standards for the automotive industry in order to improve energy efficiency in vehicles; rebates for people buying green cars; financial support for the development of renewable energy sources, especially wind energy; the repeal of the tax benefits for the oil industry; subsidies for organizations which contribute to reaching the targets of the Kyoto protocol.

As required by the motion, Canada must take the necessary measures to meet its objective for greenhouse gas reduction established under the Kyoto Protocol. It must do so in an equitable manner, while respecting the constitutional jurisdictions and responsibilities of Quebec and the provinces. It must publish, by October 15, 2006, a plan for complying with the Kyoto protocol.

The Government must first establish targets for its polluting industries. Large industrial emitters of greenhouse gas will be responsible, by 2010, of close to 50 % of all greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, it is important to quickly establish equitable regulations for large emitters.

To conclude, I would remind you that, with the experience of the Suroît power plant, we were able to clearly see the true values of Quebecers. I know that these environmental values and the desire to improve our environment are very much shared by a growing number of Canadian citizens. Act before it is to late. The Bloc Québécois in giving you an opportunity today. Act in a responsible way and vote for this motion.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It being 6:27 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.

Pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, May 16, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

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

Mr. Speaker, on May 4, I rose in the House to ask the Minister of National Revenue a simple question regarding tax policy for small business owners. Rather than allow the revenue minister the opportunity to reply, the finance minister stood instead and provided a flippant response that had absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.

While I do not see anyone from finance here to apologize to small business, I must say that small businesses deserve--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member must be reminded that we are not to mention the presence or absence of members in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, while I do not see anyone who can give small businesses any response, I think small businesses and indeed Canadians deserve better.

After reviewing budget 2006 in detail, most economists agree that it sharply departs from sound fiscal and tax policies and descends into nothing more than a convoluted and confused fiscal mess.

Let me give the House an example.

The Conference Board of Canada, the very same organization that the Conservative Party paid to back its campaign platform, recently published its own analysis of budget 2006. The Conference Board concluded that the government “has not put forth the optimal plan for boosting Canada's long-term prosperity”.

Rather than draft a solid budget, the Minister of Finance has instead come up with a bunch of gimmicks that Conservatives hope will catch Canadians off guard.

Let us start with the so-called employment tax credit. This is not a new idea. In fact, it is the tax credit that was eliminated in 1988 by the former Conservative minister of finance, Michael Wilson, the father of the GST. Coincidentally, this former minister recently received a plumb patronage appointment from the Prime Minister without any consultation with Parliament.

So why was the employment tax credit eliminated by the Conservatives in 1988? Because it was a dumb tax measure. Why have a tax credit for employed Canadians and subsequently deny self-employed Canadians that same benefit? Do not self-employed Canadians work as hard as anyone else? It makes far more sense to give all working Canadians the same credit or, in other words, level the playing field through the basic personal amount that each person can earn before paying tax.

Today, however, the new Conservative finance minister has resorted to recycling phony tax categories in a lame attempt to fool Canadians. Canadians deserve better and they will not be fooled by old style politics.

Although budget 2006 is entitled “Turning A New Leaf”, this shoddy document is turning the stomachs of hard-working Canadians. The Conservatives say that parents would receive $1,200 for children under the age of six, but they do not say that this benefit would be taxable. This makes no sense. Why promise parents a certain amount of money only to claw it back at tax time? Budget 2006 will eliminate the Canada child tax benefit's child supplement.

In conclusion, budget 2006 has left Canadians wondering why the Conservatives are recreating fictional tax credits rather than adhering to the sound fiscal legacy and the healthy budget surplus left to them by their Liberal predecessors.

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

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the difficulty that the opposition is having in finding anything to criticize in this budget presented by my colleague, the hon. Minister of Finance.

In addition to reducing taxes for all Canadians, this budget contains significant measures for business, and especially small business. The reaction from small business has been positive. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has been more than enthusiastic. Let me read for members directly from the CFIB news release on our Conservative budget:

This budget exceeded our expectations. Small business owners should love this budget. It is clear that focusing on small business priorities not only makes good economic sense, it makes good political sense. All political parties in this minority government should support these initiatives.

What else did the CFIB have to say about the budget? It also said:

The budget hits virtually all of our members' tax priorities: maintaining most of the personal income tax cuts previously announced; raising the small business corporate rate threshold from $300,000 to $400,000; extending the business loss carry-forward provision to 20 years; lowering the small business corporate tax rate to 11 per cent; lowering the general corporate tax rate and lowering the GST rate to 6 per cent July 1, which gives business owners suitable time to adjust to the new rate.

Those words are directly from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Small business wanted the government to provide time to prepare for the implementation of the GST cut. The CFIB is satisfied with the time being provided.

The agency does not anticipate that businesses will have difficulty in applying the reduced rate. Retail stores will need to adjust point of sale equipment such as cash registers. Other businesses may need to update pre-authorized payment details. I have spoken to small businesses. They say that in many cases it will take a matter of only hours to change this over, so it is in fact a very accurate reflection.

However, the budget has proposed straightforward implementation rules and in most cases the changes will be minimal and straightforward. Whatever costs a business may incur will be deductible as routine business expenses. The agency has already posted information on the website about how to apply the rate reduction. Anyone with questions about this rate reduction in any specific situation can call our dedicated toll free phone line. The line is open weekdays from 8:15 a.m. to 8 p.m. locally.

The CFIB release notes that it is very important to small business that debt reduction remains a government priority. The budget projects a decline in debt to GDP ratio to 31.7% by 2007-08 and to 25% by 2013-14, something else small businesses very much welcomed.

The budget contains a number of specific small business initiatives. The CFIB announced that it strongly supports these measures, which include: allowing fishermen to claim the $500,000 capital gains exemption; a new employer tax credit of up to $2,000 to hire apprentices; and allowing tradespeople to claim a $500 deduction for the cost of tools.

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

Mr. Speaker, in spite of what the hon. member has to say, the fact remains that budget 2006 represents nothing more than a lame attempt to firmly affix the hands of the Conservatives in the back pockets of working Canadians. For example, increasing the income tax from 15% to 15.5% is a difference of $178. To get the same benefit, a person would have to spend $17,800.

Economist Dale Orr points out that the Conservatives have miscalculated the benefits or understated the cost of the 1% GST by $700 million per annum.

The Conference Board of Canada, paid to provide and review the campaign of the Conservative government, has called the employment tax credit “in practice almost identical to an increase in the basic personal amount”. So why are people who are self-employed excluded from this tax benefit? Self-employed people work as hard as employees.

Canadians are left wondering why the Conservatives have their hands in the pockets--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I explained a few minutes ago, the budget presented by my colleague, the hon. Minister of Finance, provided a number of measures that effectively addressed the needs of Canada's small business community. The reduction in the GST rate on July 1 will leave more money in the pockets of all Canadians. Consumers will have billions of additional dollars to spend in their local stores and to purchase services from their local businesses.

The Canada Revenue Agency expects that most businesses will have no problem applying the reduced rate. Everything that is subject to the GST or the HST today will be subject to the tax on and after July 1. The only change is that businesses will collect and remit at a rate of 6% instead of 7%. The small business community asked for time to prepare for the new rate. The new rate goes into effect July 1, providing two months' lead time for businesses to prepare.

The business community wanted to ensure that information would be available from Canada Revenue Agency. If any questions come up, it is making preparations.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:38 p.m.)