Debates of May 12th, 2006

Budget Implementation Act, 2006

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

moved that Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour to stand and introduce Bill C-13, the budget implementation act. The purpose of Bill C-13, of course, is to implement the measures announced in budget 2006.

The measures contained in this bill were outlined by the finance minister in his speech in this House on May 2. These measures will make a real difference to Canadians, because in implementing this year's budget, Bill C-13 focuses on our new government's promises and priorities, delivers real results to people and lays a solid foundation for Canada's future.

Before I talk more about how budget 2006 and the measures in this bill fulfill our promises to Canadians, it is important to note first that this government is aware of the variables involved in budget planning. I am talking about variables such as changes in commodity prices, especially in the energy sector, or the variable of an appreciating dollar under pressure from global current account imbalances, reflecting, for example, developments in the U.S.

That is why our new government's budget plan is based on and delivers fiscal discipline. It does this by providing a clear, responsible agenda to build a better Canada, starting by addressing the five priorities set out in the Speech from the Throne. These priorities are: cleaning up government by improving accountability; lowering taxes for working Canadians; protecting Canadian families and communities; supporting parents' choice in child care; and delivering the health care Canadians need by developing a patient wait times guarantee with the provinces.

I would now like to illustrate just how budget 2006 has supported each of these priorities and the promises we made to Canadians with respect to the priorities. At the same time, I will also show how the proposals contained in this bill fit into the big picture of helping to build a solid foundation for Canada's future.

First, budget 2006 responds to this government's priority of improving accountability. This budget builds on the reforms of the federal accountability action plan, the very first piece of legislation introduced by our new government.

Improving accountability means, for example, that our budget decisions will be implemented over the next two years. In contrast, Liberal plans were spread out over five years and most of the measures barely took effect until the back end of those five years. Of course, anything or nothing might happen if promises are made that will not be kept for five long years. By contrast, measures in the bill before the House today have been introduced by our government because they are affordable now, ready to be implemented now and will take effect by next year, not half a decade from now.

Also, budget 2006 proposes to restrain the growth of spending, which exploded upward to increase nearly 15% a year under the Liberals. It commits to a new approach to overall expenditure management. We are determined to ensure that programs are not just feel-good programs thrown out there for show in some kind of smoke and mirrors exercise, but that they really focus on results and deliver value for Canadians' hard-earned money.

To achieve better expenditure management, the President of the Treasury Board will identify $1 billion of savings in 2006-07 and in the next year, 2007-08. That is only one-half of 1% of total government spending in savings per year, but we think it is important that we continue to look for ways to save Canadians money. In the fall, in just a few weeks' time, the President of the Treasury Board will report his findings of where these savings can be achieved.

Also, our budget plans to reduce the public debt by $3 billion each year. As a result of this plan, the goal of lowering the debt to GDP ratio to 25% will be achieved one year earlier.

Budget 2006 also announces that the government will consider allocating a portion of any year-end surplus over $3 billion to the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan. Of course, one of the main benefits of this action would be to improve fairness for younger Canadians by lowering contributions in the future for future generations of workers, and it would also help to fund the huge unfunded liability in those plans.

Financial reporting will be improved, with one example being federally funded foundations, which are now hidden from the taxpayers who fund them. This will be consistent with recommendations from the Auditor General.

This government recognizes that Canadians pay too much tax. According to the Fraser Institute, while the average family's income has gone up 1,100% since 1961, its taxes have shot up a whopping 1,600%, outstripping the growth in income. Budget 2006 delivers more tax relief for people than the last four federal budgets combined. It puts twice as much resources into tax relief as it does into new spending.

We feel this is only fair to Canadians who work hard to fund the programs of governments. In fact, 90% of the tax savings that we offer in this budget will go to individual Canadians and their families.

We just have to look at the budget measures proposed in Bill C-13 that will put more money in the pockets of Canadians. To begin with, this bill delivers on the government's commitment to cut the GST by one percentage point, down to 6%, effective this July 1. This GST cut will benefit all Canadians by close to $9 billion over two years from that one reduction, even those who do not earn enough money to pay personal income tax. Very importantly, to provide relief to low and modest income Canadians, the budget keeps the GST credit at current levels even though the GST is being cut.

That is not all. Bill C-13 also proposes a comprehensive plan to reduce personal income taxes for all taxpayers, starting with an increase in the basic personal amount. That is the amount that an individual can earn without paying any tax. We want to make sure that this amount grows each year and remains above the currently legislated levels into 2006, 2007 and beyond.

In concert with this plan, Bill C-13 also proposes to permanently reduce the lowest personal income tax rate from 16% to 15.5% effective January 1, 2006. It also confirms that the rate will be 15% from January 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006. Together, these measures will provide personal income tax relief of almost $2.8 billion in this coming fiscal year, 2006-07, and a further $1.9 billion in 2007-08.

We need to affirm and remind ourselves that working Canadians are the foundation of Canada's economic growth. However, choosing to work also means additional costs, costs for everything from uniforms to safety gear to home computers and various supplies. In recognition of these costs, budget 2006 will introduce the Canada employment credit. This is a new employment expense tax credit for employees' work expenses. The credit will significantly increase the amount of income that working Canadians can earn without paying federal income tax, to almost $10,000 by 2007.

Taken together, these measures will deliver almost $20 billion in tax relief for people over the next two years. As a result, about 655,000 low income Canadians, or two-thirds of a million Canadians, will be removed from the tax rolls.

Budget 2006 also recognizes that creating an environment for more and better jobs and for strong economic growth depends on having a competitive tax system. The engines of our economy, our wealth creators, both large and small, should not have to go into the market square with the ball and chain of heavy taxes tied around their ankles.

Budget 2006 proposes the tax relief that we promised to Canadians. In fact, the same promises were made by the former government, but they were never delivered. We will deliver tax relief that will enable Canada's businesses to go into a fair fight with their competitors. Bill C-13 proposes a significant business tax relief plan that will reduce the general corporate income tax rate from 21% down to 19% by January 1, 2010. The bill also proposes to eliminate the corporate surtax for all corporations in 2008 and eliminate the federal capital tax as of January 1, 2006. That is two years ahead of schedule.

These proposed cuts will allow Canada to regain the solid statutory tax advantage that we had prior to the 2004 tax changes with our biggest competitor, the United States. We are lowering taxes for working Canadians and also for Canadian job creators.

Another of our government's five priorities is to protect Canadian families and communities. Canadians are proud of our country and our country's tradition of safe and security communities. We will take vigorous measures to keep our streets safe and our borders secure. To ensure that Canada remains safe and secure, budget 2006 allocates funding to hire 1,000 more RCMP officers and additional federal prosecutors to more effectively deal with drugs and gun smuggling. The budget also proposes to arm border officers and eliminate work alone posts. We want to stop the bad guys, not provide them free passage into our good country.

The budget provides needed funds to further improve Canada's pandemic preparedness. On top of that, budget 2006 commits to a total investment of over $5 billion to strengthen Canada's security forces, starting with more than $1 billion coming over the next two years.

Perhaps the priority that is most widely talked about in the 2006 budget is the universal child care plan. Hon. members will no doubt all agree that one of the most important investments government can make is to support families as they raise their children. That is why budget 2006 announced the kind of investments that will make a real difference to parents by providing more choice in child care for families with young children.

As a result of these budget measures, total direct federal support to families will be approximately $11.7 billion for this fiscal year, with the vast majority of benefits directed to low and middle income families. An integral part of that support for families is contained in Bill C-13. Specifically, it proposes $3.7 billion in funding over two years for the universal child care benefit, which will give all families $100 per month for each child under six. This benefit will help some 1.5 million families with over two million children. As well, budget 2006 proposes to invest $250 million each year, starting in 2007, in a new planned and practical initiative to actually increase the number of child care spaces for those who need them, by 25,000 each year.

The fifth priority of the new government is to ensure that all Canadians receive necessary medical treatment within medically acceptable waiting times. Budget 2006 includes a commitment to work with the provinces and territories to develop a wait times guarantee for medically necessary services.

Budget 2006 also announces new allocations of the $11.3 billion in equalization and $2.1 billion territorial formula financing for this year. These new allocations are based on the latest available fiscal and economic data. They give certainty to the provinces and territories and ensures that they will all benefit.

Six provinces and one territory will benefit directly from this decision compared to what they were advised, back in November 2005, they would receive. The government is also providing one time adjustments to fully offset the equalization and territorial formula financing declines that would have been experienced by two provinces and two territories under this decision. Bill C-13 sets out payment levels based on this new data and provides the funding for these one time adjustments.

Budget 2006 goes above and beyond our five priorities. For example, the government recognizes the difficulty some Canadians face when they must deal with a disability. In 2003 the technical advisory committee on tax measures for persons with disabilities was established to provide tax advice for persons with disabilities. The committee released its final report entitled “Disability Tax Fairness” in December 2004. It made 25 policy and administrative recommendations.

The government endorses the work of the committee. Budget 2006 proposes to fully implement these policy recommendations. Indeed, the bill goes beyond the committee's recommendations. Here are the measures proposed in Budget 2006 to assist Canadians with disabilities.

Bill C-13 proposes to increase the maximum annual child disability benefit, effective January 2006. This benefit is a supplement to the Canada child tax benefit for children in low and modest income families who meet the eligibility criteria for the disability tax credit.

Effective July 2006, the bill also proposes to extend eligibility for the child disability benefit to middle and higher income families caring for a child who is eligible for the disability tax credit, including now all families that are currently eligible for the Canada child tax benefit base benefit.

We will also increase the maximum amount of the refundable medical expense supplement for the 2006 taxation year. The supplement improves work incentives for Canadians with disabilities by helping to offset the loss of coverage for medical and disability related expenses under social assistance when recipients move into the labour force.

The government understands the challenges that families can face when dealing with a disability. The Minister of Finance will appoint a small group of experts to examine additional ways to help parents save for the long term financial security of a child with severe disabilities. We have asked these experts to provide their recommendations very quickly, within six months, because we intend to move ahead to support Canadians with disabilities.

On still another front, this year's budget works to improve the environment in which we live. This includes funding to assist and build support systems. For example, Bill C-13 encourages charitable donations by eliminating the capital gains tax on donations of listed securities to public charities.

Unlike the previous Liberal government, which talked a lot about the environment while greenhouse gas emissions rose under its watch to 30% above the target, our government is committed to concrete actions that will deliver real results in Canada. We do not believe in spending billions of dollars offshore to keep on polluting here at home.

We will preserve natural areas by proposing to exempt donations of ecologically sensitive land from the capital gains tax.

These are only a few examples of the ways in which this new Conservative government is keeping its promises to stand up for Canada and for working class Canadians.

As members can see, the government's first budget takes real action to keep promises and address core priorities. The measures contained in the bill would make a real difference to Canadians.

In summary, budget 2006 focuses on the priorities of Canadians, the measures they elected this government to deliver. The budget does deliver real results for Canadians and does so in a financially and fiscally responsible way. I therefore encourage all hon. members to accord the bill swift passage in the House of Commons.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the day after the budget, my office received a call from a constituent from the riding of Brandon—Souris. He was very puzzled why the budget said his income tax rate would go down when in fact it would go up. He had called his constituency and was told that he had been duped by the media, and in fact the tax rate would go down. He said to my office that he had been duped into voting Conservative in the last election, but as a consequence of this lie, he had been un-duped and would subsequently no longer be voting Conservative.

Real Canadians do not care whether tax rates are legislated or done by ways and means or orders in council. This is Ottawa talk. What people care about is the taxes they actually pay. As sure as day is day and night is night, if we look at our tax form, if we read the budget, it is abundantly a fact that Canadians will pay a 15% tax rate at the lowest rate in 2005 and 15.5% next year. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

Will the parliamentary secretary, at least in the interest of transparency, honesty and accountability, acknowledge this basic fact?

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to say that under this budget every single Canadian will have lower taxes. In fact, the budget delivers twice the tax relief even if the Liberals had kept their promise, which they rarely were able to do.

What the member likes to do is torque one little piece of our package and make some assumptions on that instead of doing the honest thing, the true thing, and looking at all the measures taken together. All these measures taken together leave working class Canadians far better off, and they know it. In fact, the budget delivers $20 million in tax relief over just two years back into the hands of Canadians.

The member likes to twist numbers and talk about them in isolation. He knows, and Canadians know, which is even more important, that middle and lower class income Canadians are better off under this plan because it contains real tax relief and a number of other measures instead of being robbed for wasted projects by the Liberals. We are going to be fiscally responsible in a way that provides real tax relief to all Canadians.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Tory budget seems long on corporate tax cuts, and I count three or four specific items, but short on corporate tax fairness.

In the first Tory budget, why did the Conservatives not do something about what is called, in the language of accountants, tax-motivated expatriation? This is a nice way of putting what are considered to be sleazy, tax-cheating loopholes where corporate tax fugitives create dummy companies in corporate tax havens so they do not have to pay their corporate taxes in Canada. The most egregious example about which most Canadians know is our former prime minister. He very conveniently tore up all the tax treaties with all the other tax havens except for the one country where he himself had all the dummy companies of Canada Steamship Lines so he could be a corporate tax fugitive and avoid paying his fair share of corporate taxes.

Why did the Conservatives choose not to plug this last corporate tax haven, which is being exploited? My figures are that it is costing Canadians $15 billion worth of lost revenue?

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will set aside the temptation to talk about the former prime minister, but I will say it is important for us to remember that both small and large corporations in this country are the engines of wealth creation and they are job creators. It is important that they have a fair tax regime in order that they continue their work to build the Canadian economy and provide a higher standard of living and prosperity for our country. We want to make sure that is done.

We want to make sure that our tax regime is fair for the companies doing business in Canada because there is a huge incentive for them to move elsewhere. Capital is now international and we have to balance the need for fair taxation in our country with the need to attract investment and attract job-creating activity, wealth-creating activity. We try to strike the right balance.

My friend and I might have some debate about the right balance and whether we have struck it. I think that is a very important and fruitful discussion, but balance is important. That is what we strive to deliver and I believe this budget goes a long way toward doing that.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary mentioned the tax reductions in the budget as being larger tax cuts than what were in the last two budgets of the Liberal government.

She failed to mention that in 2000 the Liberal government introduced and implemented the largest tax cut in Canadian history of $100 billion. That was focused at income tax reductions which every serious economist in this country has said is the way that we should proceed, that if we are going to reduce taxes, we should reduce income taxes. The Conservative government has decided to reduce the GST because it is politically expedient.

The member also failed to acknowledge the economic performance under the Liberal government. She was not very gracious in her remarks about that. I wonder if she would reflect upon that and recall that during our Liberal government tenure we had consistent economic growth of 3% per year. We introduced and implemented the largest tax cut in Canadian history. We paid down $55 billion in debt. We eliminated a $42 billion deficit. The economy produced the lowest level of unemployment in Canada's history in the last 40 or 50 years.

I am wondering if the member has forgotten those particular elements because we hear often about the last 12 or 13 years of the Liberal mandate.

Maybe the member could acknowledge those in her remarks when she replies, but if she does not, I wonder if she would comment on the two year horizon that the government is working on in terms of its fiscal plan. Is that because the Conservatives do not really want to outline for Canadians what their plan is beyond that? Certainly the press and very good analysts are speculating that another $20 billion in cuts are coming from the government. I am wondering where those cuts are going to come from and is that the reason the current government is on a two year horizon instead of a five year planning horizon?

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would advise Canadians to be extremely wary of opposition speculation. It is seldom either accurate or fair. The opposition has an agenda to scare Canadians. We have seen this over and over, especially during the election, and usually not based on a shred of truth.

The two year planning horizon is because Canadians are tired of promises down the road, that five years from now they are going to really get something, but hardly any of it happens now. Canadians want to know that if the government promises something, it will be now and they can count on it, that it is going to be this year, that it is going to be in the next few months. That is reasonable. The Liberal promises are made for half a decade down the road, but anything can happen; there are all kinds of variables. If the promises are made and kept now, quickly, then Canadians know they can take them to the bank. That is important.

The member bragged about the fiscal record of his government. I would be very careful if I were the member. Under the Liberal government spending increased 15% a year. In the last year how many Canadians had a 15% increase in their incomes so they could fund that kind of spending increase by the Liberals? If the spending increase had given them something useful in some respects, that might have been a different thing, but what did the public see? They saw money squandered and wasted for cronyism, pork-barrelling and corrupt practices.

When Canadians see that government is not managed in a fiscally sound way using their money overall, they get concerned. They are not willing to send money to Ottawa to be wasted, squandered and mismanaged in schemes that are not fair to all Canadians.

The member has a lot to answer for as part of a government that really destroyed Canadians' trust in many ways in the operations of government. That is why the Conservatives are keeping their promises now. We are keeping them in a short timeframe. We are putting into place good fiscal management, sound fiscal practices and more transparency and accountability so that taxpayers can actually see that their money is being properly used. I would ask the member opposite to applaud that because it is right for Canada.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the remarks of the parliamentary secretary made abundantly clear, this is a dishonest budget. It is a visionless budget. It is a mean-spirited budget that tries in a blatant way, and it will be unsuccessful, to play to the Conservative political base.

I think few things are more important than basic honesty. As a constituent from Brandon—Souris discovered on budget day, the budget contains a lie. It says that his income tax rate will go down when in fact it will go up. Whatever the dollar amounts involved, that is irrelevant compared to the basic honesty of a budget document and speech which is entirely lacking from the basic point that it said the tax is going down when the tax is going up. Nothing else matters except for the budget which does not tell the truth. There are other ways in which this is a dishonest budget.

The Indian affairs minister stands in question period in his sanctimonious way and defends his funding to aboriginals when a finance official said only in the last couple of days that the government will have five billion additional dollars, approximately, as a consequence of its reneging on the Kelowna accord. The Conservatives did it. It is confirmed by the officials and they do not admit it. That is dishonest.

They have reneged on the Canada-Ontario agreement. They have reneged on the EnerGuide program, which is a highly efficient program and which really hit one low income individual who had already committed to $3,000 and the government is not following through.

In terms of the point my colleague made, it is disingenuous of this budget to ignore the $100 billion tax cuts delivered in 2000. The Conservatives say that the Liberal government would not deliver over a period of five years. Every penny of that $100 billion has been delivered to Canadians in lower tax cuts. That is a fact. Check the budget documents. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the Conservative government has given more tax relief than the Liberals did.

If the numbers are calculated correctly, one will find that in the years since the government balanced its budget in 1997, the Liberal government tax relief amounted to $16 billion per year as opposed to this budget's $6 billion per year. Those are facts. The $16 billion has been delivered. It is not a fiction and so I think the Conservative government is once again being disingenuous with this dishonest budget.

The Conservatives are breaking promises. Many Canadians were looking forward to capital gains relief. Nowhere is that to be seen in this budget.

[Larry Bagnell]

A promise is a promise.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Well, they have broken their promise on this and in many other areas. That is my first point. It is a dishonest--

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The House knows how reluctant I am to rise on points of order, but the Standing Orders explicitly state that one cannot cast aspersions or imply the dishonesty of other members. By the words the member is using, he is doing that to our Minister of Finance. I think, Mr. Speaker, you should at minimum ask him to desist, or at least you should ask him to withdraw the previous words and get on with a proper debate on the budget bill.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I will hear the hon. member for York South--Weston on the point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, they characterize the whole Liberal Party as dishonest. At least the member, if it is true, was only alleging that one member was dishonest.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the same point of order.

I was just about to rise to add my voice to that of the hon. member from Edmonton. I have actually been counting and my Liberal colleague started by using the word “lie”. He used the word “dishonest” three times. He used the words “does not tell the truth” twice. He used the term “government is not following the truth” twice. I do not know how much closer one can get to using unparliamentary language. He certainly crossed the line from my standards and from the standards of the NDP caucus.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I have been listening quite closely to the speech the hon. member made. I know the hon. member for Edmonton--Sherwood Park is, as he says, reluctant to get up on points of order.

In this case the member for Markham--Unionville has been careful to avoid calling the minister dishonest or suggesting that somehow the minister had lied. It appeared that the budget was the thing that to him was offensive. That is the test in my view. Documents can be incorrect. Budgets include more than a speech in the House. Budgets include quite a lot of material that is published with them and tabled with them. The hon. member is helping me out by waving the book in his hand. Yes, those are budget documents and there may be things that are not accurate in them or things which in the hon. member's view are dishonest. That is what he has stated and he was very careful, in my view, to avoid saying that any member of this House was dishonest, which would have got him into real trouble.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre said that the member is very close to the line, and I agree. It would be better if members refrained from using this kind of language, but we do have freedom of speech in this House and members are able to use it and we have had it bandied about in the House for some time now. I caution hon. members, of course, to make sure that they are not making these statements about other hon. members because those comments would be unparliamentary. I do not believe the member for Markham--Unionville has quite crossed the line in his comments.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for confirming my view that the budget is not an hon. member, dishonest though it may be, though it is in fact.

I will move on now to the second theme, that the budget has no vision. It is a dishonest budget without any vision. When the parliamentary secretary says that the budget creates an environment for growth in a competitive tax system, that is a total joke.

A responsible budget must answer the following question: how can a country of 30 million people compete with the world's giants like China and India? This budget says nothing about that.

In the area of taxes, this budget does the opposite of what should be done. In all other areas the budget does absolutely nothing.

As far as taxes are concerned, the only difference between this budget and our plan is that income tax will go up so that the GST can go down. Every economist in this country, except perhaps the Prime Minister, agrees that increasing income taxes and reducing consumption taxes is the worst policy in the world. If we want to have a productive economy, full growth, savings and investments, if we want to be competitive in the world, this is the worst thing we could do, period.

This issue has another dimension. In reality, Canada will not be able to compete with China's and India's low salaries. That is not our vision. That is not what we want. What we need is our brains, research, innovation and new ideas. The budget provides nothing for this.

This budget is nothing but an insult to students in post-secondary education and to those working in research and innovation. While the Liberals allocated $2.5 billion to research and development over five years, this budget allocates only $250 million. It is an insult. It is nothing.

The insult is worse yet for students pursuing post-secondary studies. This is what we would have done: grant $6,000 to each student taking post-secondary education over the span of their four years at university or college. What is this government doing? It is giving a tax break on text books needed for university studies to the tune of $80 a year. We are talking about $6,000 compared to $80. That is the difference in how much this government and the Liberals value students and their parents who work hard to pay for tuition fees.

There is nothing in this budget to support the Canadian economy, which is facing intense competition with the world's new giants.

The third point is that this is a meanspirited budget. It plays to the political base of the Conservative Party. I believe it will fail. It is a crass attempt to take money from people who are unlikely to vote for the Conservatives and put money into the pockets of those whom they hope will vote Conservative. It is as simple as that.

For example, can members in the House please tell me why it is only the lowest income tax rate that was increased? This is the only way to hit those who earn $35,000 or less and it is the lower incomes that were hit by the tax hike because they are less likely to vote Conservative.

Can members tell me why it is only sports playing families as opposed to music loving families that get the tax break? I suppose the sports playing families are more likely to vote Conservative, but even they will not be very happy when they find out that their $500 tax credit is not worth $500; it is worth more like $80.

The social engineering by the Conservative Party favoured activities like sports, which get money, yet unfavoured activities like music do not, let alone the person who has a difficult time even affording to buy a basketball.

Why do the aboriginals get shafted? Why is their $5 billion taken away? I suppose it is because they are not likely to vote Conservative. Better to put the money into the pockets of the Conservative base.

Why do the Conservatives take away money from the supplement to the child tax credit? The lowest income, mothers of young children, get much less of the $1,200 because the supplement is clawed back. Again, they are not likely to vote Conservative, are they?

Why, apart from the fact that the finance minister wants to put homeless people in jail, does the budget talk about cutting off their funding? I suppose, apart from the government and the minister thinking they should be in jail, the homeless will probably not vote Conservative.

Why does the government skate close to the edge on returning to deficit? It takes away the prudence, that cushion, to protect us from going into deficit. It is less kind to future generations, the ones who benefit from the debt paydown. Any responsible economist knows that in a time of an aging population, it is even more important than normal to pay down the debt. Why do the Conservatives not care about future generations? It is simple. Future generations will not vote in the next election.

The Conservatives do not care about the environment. Why do they slash and burn expenditures on the environment? Everything except the special measures with direct benefit to the brother of the Minister of Finance. That one gets money, but everything else is slashed. I supposed the environment will not vote in the next election.

This is a dishonest budget. It does not tell the truth, the black and white truth about what is happening to income tax rates. It is a visionless budget. It does nothing for the future of this country. It is a meanspirited budget. It takes money out of the pockets of the least privileged, simply because they are unlikely to vote Conservative, and put the money into the pockets of the Conservative base.

My last point is that it will not work. It will not work because Canadians, like that gentleman from Brandon--Souris, are intelligent. The government underestimates their intelligence. Canadians will know when they get their pay stub in July that their income tax rates have gone up. They will not believe this dishonest budget because they will see it in black and white on their pay slips.

This dishonest budget will not resonate with Canadians. Indeed, polling shows that two-thirds of Canadians question the motives of the budget. Two-thirds of Canadians already believe that the budget is designed to get a majority, and not designed to be good for Canada.

I believe that Canadians will react negatively to this dishonest budget. Canadians will react negatively to a fiscally irresponsible and socially destructive budget that contains no vision for our future and that risks returning into deficit.

Finally, Canadians will react extremely negative to this crass, politically opportunistic budget which takes money from the homeless, the aboriginals, and the lowest income Canadians, to put it into the pockets of the Conservative base.

Canadians have a basic sense of fairness, decency, and a desire for vision for this country. We as Liberals are delighted, come the next election, to fight the Conservatives on a visionless, dishonest, unfair and duplicitous budget. We are convinced that Canadians will be with us.

[James Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting after hearing a speech like that, when the purpose of the House is to actually have intelligent debate about legislation. All the member opposite for Markham—Unionville did is attack motives with black helicopter conspiracies about why we put forward this budget.

The fact is that this budget will help Canadians. It is good for the economy and it is good for every region of the country. The government is lowering taxes for every Canadian in every income group through lower sales taxes and a lower income tax that is going from 16% to 15.5%. Net taxes for every single Canadian will be lowered.

The member is right in one sense, Conservatives are pushing forward this budget to speak to our base. Our base is the entire country and the Canadian people. The polls show that the country is responding well to this budget.

This is one thing that I found very interesting. Since January 23, when we have been on this side of the House and the Liberals are now on that side of the House, perhaps for hopefully a very long time, the Liberals all of a sudden have all these great ideas.

We have noticed in question period and in their speeches, such as the one we just heard, that the Liberals say that they promised to do this and the Conservatives are doing that. It does not matter what a Liberal promise is, it matters what gets delivered. The Conservative government is delivering to Canadians.

I see the member for Malpeque promising, while in opposition, with vim and gusto about what a great plan the Liberals now have for agriculture. For 13 years, when he was on the government side, the Liberals and he failed Canada's producers and agriculture sector. In the budget we put $1.5 billion into the agriculture sector. This is good for Canada's economy.

The member for Markham—Unionville talked about how the Liberals had all these great plans for Canada's youth. We are giving a $500 tax credit for the cost of amateur sports, to encourage physical activity, to help youth and support Canadian families.

I know the Liberals believe in a government run nine to five day care. We believe in empowering parents, so that they have more power and choice in how they want to raise their kids, and how they want to build their own families, not a government run bureaucratic day care empowered by the Liberals to manage people's families.

My question for the hon. member is, why does he not get it, Canadians support this budget? It is going to become law and Canada is going to be the better for it.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the budget will become law because the Bloc members would otherwise lose so many seats that they will support it. That is a fact. It is also a fact that two-thirds of Canadians question the motives. They believe that the government is acting only to get elected and not for the good of the country.

I am saying to the government that this will not work. Canadians will not believe the government. The member has once again repeated the fiction, the terminological inexactitude that income tax was cut, when in fact the gentleman from Souris and all Canadians, when they get their paycheques in July, will know that it went up. The member cannot even tell the difference between up and down.

I am not sure that Canadians like the “government knows best” social engineering characteristic of the government. The government is making value choices for families. The government says sports are worth--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. I know hon. members are enjoying the debate, but we must be able to hear the member who has the floor.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the member for Markham—Unionville that this is a meanspirited budget. It does very little for hard-working families. The member is right. It is clearly an attack on the most vulnerable in our community.

I think the Conservative government has simply taken a page out of the Liberal government's record on how to write a budget. The Liberal government has never presented a budget that was any more friendly for the vulnerable in our community. I am thinking about the hard-working seniors in my community. They have worked hard all their lives. They have done everything right and yet they are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet.

There is nothing in the budget for seniors in any of our communities. Yes, the government talks about some income tax credit that will benefit very few seniors in my community of Hamilton Mountain. Where is the real increase to public pension benefits? Where is the increase to CPP? Where is the long awaited increase to the OAS and the GIS? Those are things for which seniors have been clamouring for years. They did not get them under the Liberals. It is another missed opportunity under the Conservative government as well.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some of what the hon. member has said makes sense, but she is a little bit short on facts. The Liberals did increase the GIS in a substantial way, so she does not know her facts.

It is also the case that the NDP members have lost all credibility in this area because they have sacrificed the child care system, the aboriginals and the environment for the sake of 10 seats in the House of Commons.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

We will move on now to statements by members, but members need not worry. We will have four and a half more minutes of questions and comments when the debate resumes later this day.

Agriculture

[Bill Casey, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Farmers Council, the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture and the Nova Scotia Agricultural College made a proposal in January 2005 to the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food to establish the Atlantic alternative energy centre to determine ways to reduce energy costs and harmful emissions, using agricultural products.

If approved, this group will take the lead in coordinating regional research, which will help farmers in reducing costs and energy consumption while also reducing pollution and greenhouse gases.

The new Conservative government has committed to have every litre of gas and diesel fuel contain 5% alternative fuel. This organized research effort would go a long way toward achieving this goal in Atlantic Canada.

The Minister of Agriculture recently showed great support for the Atlantic Canadian farmers when he made his announcement about the moratorium on CAIS clawbacks. By giving his approval to this application for an alternative energy centre, he will give another great boost to the environment and to the agricultural industry in Atlantic Canada. I urge him to do so.