Debates of May 15th, 2006

Budget Implementation Act, 2006

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Yes, if there was more money. It was conditional. Well, now there is nothing: zero, less than nothing.

Furthermore, let us look at pages 278 to 280. In this budget that the NDP supported, there is the matter of a measure for cutting $2.5 billion from the employment insurance budget. The NDP voted in favour of that cut. Not just that, it fought the misappropriation of $48 billion, but supported a cut of $2.5 billion.

Before addressing this matter, I would like my colleague to double check what he voted in favour of. If he does not know, I cannot help it. Nonetheless, that is truly what happened. It absolutely happened that way.

Why did we not negotiate? Because we do not get involved in those types of negotiations. We are honest with our electors. We tell them whether things are good or bad and we tell them so right away.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand today and talk about the budget and the implications it will have on Canadians. It is quite interesting also to listen to the discussion and debate that goes on by different members in the House on who sold out who and so on. The reason we all here is that we want to build a great Canada. That is the reason I asked to make a few comments today in the budget implementation debate.

I would like to begin my remarks by reminding Canadians that the Conservatives inherited from the Liberals the strongest economy and the best fiscal situation that any newly elected government in the history of Canada has ever been fortunate enough to receive. I wonder what will happen over the next period of time, whoever forms the government, and whether they will ever have an opportunity to inherit such a rich surplus as the Conservatives had in contrast to what was left to us by the Conservatives in 1993, which was one huge mess.

Under that last Conservative government, the Canadian economy was in serious trouble. Conservative spending was wildly out of control. Annual deficits had skyrocketed to close to $40 billion. Overall federal debt had ballooned to nearly 70% of the gross domestic product. Interest rates were very high. All of us felt those. The federal government itself had become a heavy burden on money markets, thus driving up borrowing costs for provincial and municipal governments as well as businesses, consumers and our constituents.

There was no real economic growth or job creation happening. Unemployment rose into the double digits. Consumer and business confidence was very low. That was a very difficult time for Canada. With the encouragement and the steady support of thousands of Canadians, the Liberals set out in 1993-94 to turn things around, and that is exactly what we did.

We cleaned up the nation's finances. We re-established the federal government's ability to invest properly in Canadians' leading social and economic priorities, while balancing the books, and we succeeded in that. We balanced the books in 1997 and brought down eight consecutive surplus budgets following that. We reduced the federal debt in absolute terms by more than $63 billion and as a proportion of the total economy by 45%. The debt is now on a steady downward track, scheduled to decline to 25% of the GDP by 2015 and then to no more than 20% of the GDP by 2020. At least that was our plan.

Inflation declined, interest rates came down and have remained low and stable. Federal taxes have been reduced by more than $100 billion since 2000 and another six-year $50 billion tax cut plan was initiated in 2005. Unfortunately, it was abandoned by the new Conservative government.

The Canadian economy has generated more than 3.5 million new jobs since 1993. Participation in the labour market is at near record high levels while unemployment has plummetted to a 32-year low, which we all can enjoy in this country. Canada enjoyed 12 straight years of unprecedented economic growth under the careful management and the fiscally responsible Liberal government.

The Liberals are very proud of our fiscal record. In fact we boast the best fiscal performance in all the G-7 group of world leading economies and the best fiscal record of any Canadian government since 1867. When my colleagues across the various parties throw jibes and words and all kinds of comments around, they should realize that all of us worked hard, all of us as Canadians, to get where we are today.

This brings me to my many concerns about the Conservative budget that we are going to deal with today. This budget clearly lacks any vision for Canada to take us into the future. It is a simple case of some short term gain and long term pain for a great country that we have all worked so hard to build over the last 13 years.

The government inherited the best fiscal situation in Canadian history and is failing Canadians by neglecting the future challenges and moving us forward.

The budget fails to address climate change and, clearly, is cancelling Kyoto and our commitments to Kyoto. It fails to provide a real child care choice for parents or a plan to create child care spaces, yet it has money to build more jails. It fails to maintain fiscal responsibility by not investing carefully in innovation. It fails to provide tax relief for low and middle income Canadians. In fact, it increases taxes for low and middle income Canadians. More important, it fails to exhibit any vision for Canada's future prosperity, with no significant investments in education or innovation, nothing to lead us forward.

Unfortunately, the budget neglects to make any significant investments in those areas. The Liberal government had a concrete vision that would have helped put us at the forefront of competitiveness and innovation.

This lacklustre and visionless budget contains virtually nothing in this regard. For example, for university research our last fiscal update provided $2.5 billion. The Conservative budget provides $200 million.

For student aid, our plan, which we were able to offer because our fiscal house was in order, provided $6,000 per student for tuition over a four year program. That was a huge help for students to encourage many coming from low income families to go to school. The Conservative plan provides $80 for textbooks.

Under the Liberal government, the best and brightest flocked to Canada due to our sound investment in research and development. How will Canada compete on the world stage in the future with a visionless budget and a visionless country? How can Canada continue to nation build when it is stuck with a government and a budget that cares more about politics than sound fiscal management?

The fiscal irresponsibility of the budget is completely unacceptable. The government is throwing fiscal prudence out the window and spending savings from program cuts before it even has the money in the bank. This approach will bring Canada dangerously close to a deficit position again.

The budget also puts ideology before economics and policy and fails to provide a sound economic vision for the future.

The budget also fails to provide real tax relief for low and middle income Canadians. Eliminating Liberal income tax cuts in favour of a 1% GST cut has been panned by every serious economist in the country as a plan that will benefit higher income Canadians at the expense of those who need it most.

The Conservatives are actually increasing income taxes, which means many people who received a refund in the 2005 year will probably end up paying more in 2006. The budget actually raises income tax rates in the lowest tax bracket. Despite the government claiming to be helping Canadian families, it has raised the tax rate from 15% to 15.5% for the lowest income Canadians and then denied it did it. Low income families need our support, yet the government is quietly raising its taxes. Did it think no one would notice?

The Conservative government has also quietly cancelled the program which helped low income households cope with high energy prices and cut greenhouse gas emissions. The EnerGuide program for low income households, a five year program initiated by the Liberals in November and endorsed by all parties in this House, was making a real difference for low income families in my riding of York West, and I am sure in many other ridings across this country.

Worse yet, the government chose to hide the cancellation of this program. I found out when a constituent called. When my assistant phoned, we were told the program had been cancelled. At least the government should have had the courage to tell us upfront what it was doing when it was cancelling it.

Nothing is more important to Canadians than our children and our grandchildren. We must lay the foundation for our country's future prosperity and success. As members will know, the Liberal government successfully negotiated agreements with all the 10 provinces last year. Through these agreements, the federal government would transfer almost $5 billion over five years to the provinces and territories, based on the principles quality, universal inclusiveness and accessibility.

We will notice that in the five priorities there was no new money to go into the health care system. Where will that money come from when we talk about a guarantee for long term wait times and elimination of those waits?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for that member, but she has again repeated a myth that many people are buying, and that is the Liberals somehow left this government in a wonderful financial position. I would like to set the record straight.

If we look at the financial accounts of the country over the years, we will find that the deficits were due totally to high interest payments in those years. We could probably fault the Conservative government of the day for not taking fast short term measures to reduce that debt and hence the interest payments. Instead, it addressed the long term problem and brought in a number of policies that the Liberal government, over the last 12 years, was able to use to reduce those deficits.

The Liberals did bring down the debt. After they let it go up about another $80 billion, they brought it down about the same amount. I believe that is right.

I see some members over there laughing. As I recall, when the Liberals took over in 1993, the debt was very close to $500 billion and it is still $500 billion. It did go up in the first three years of their regime and then it went down after that. It was a Liberal legacy that left us the debt. This government has actually addressed this issue.

To the credit of the Liberals of the day, they--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. member for York West.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to wonder what people, who are watching this at home, think about all of us. We are tossing around all of these numbers, but Canadians know what the numbers are. They know that when we became government in 1993, there was a huge deficit. I heard many comments about the fact that at that point Canada was on the verge of bankruptcy. It took all Canadians, led by our prime minister and finance minister, to make a huge amount of cuts to get our finances and our country under control. We have the opportunity now to reinvest in our children, in our housing, in our seniors and, more important, to ensure that we reinvest in our young people.

We talk about the child care issue as if it is some kind of babysitting service. Child care is about investing in early childhood education. If we are going to be competing with Switzerland and all of the other countries, we have to ensure that our children get an early start to education. This is not about babysitting. It is a really important issue.

We had a plan going forward that would have ensured that all children in our country, who wanted an opportunity to learn early, would have that opportunity. They would then be well positioned to compete with others. Giving $25 a week for babysitting, is a pretty big insult to all women. More important, it does not move us forward as a country. We are supposed to be investing in innovation and all of these issues. That means we need to give women the opportunity to give their children early childhood education.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member talk about the former government's grand plan for child care. I recall many elections ago when the same plan was being promoted. Was that plan delivered? No. Not one day care space was created by members opposite.

During the election, we made our plan clear. We were going to give families $1,200 per child, per annum, and that was going to be addressed fairly across all families. We delivered on that promise.

Having had 13 years to implement a day care program in Canada, why did she and her government never deliver on the promises they made repeatedly during election after election?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we had gone into government with the kind of surpluses that the Conservative government has been fortunate enough to get, we would have been able to implement it quickly. Instead, it took us four years just to get things balanced again.

Giving a family $100 a month, or $1,200 a year, through a tax change could be done overnight. That is real easy. Getting an agreement with the provinces to deliver early childhood education is not about getting a day care space. It is about setting up a program with all of the provinces as partners.

After the Conservative government has been in office a few more months, I am sure it will find out how difficult it is to reach an agreement with all of the provinces, which have to discuss the plan with their municipalities. We cannot just tell families how it has to happen. We have to work with our partners across the country to get a plan that meets the need. We also need money to do that. As a result of our good fiscal plan, we have only had that kind of money to do it now. The Conservatives are throwing it away by giving people $25 a week. What are they going to do with it? They will not be able to do much.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as we go through the debate on Bill C-13, the budget implementation bill, it strikes me as I listen to the debate that we seem to be missing the big picture here.

We hear a lot of specifics about various minutiae of the budget, but I have with me a chart that shows total family incomes, adjusted to real 2004 dollars, from 1989 to 2004. This bridges some Tory years, but it mostly shows Liberal years. I was shocked to see that the real family income or take-home pay during that period of time for the lowest quintile, the lowest 20% of all Canadians, actually went backwards by 9%. We actually slid by 9% over 15 years. Even though the economy grew and the business climate was favourable for many of those years, the redistribution of wealth did not reach the bottom quintile.

There is that common yarn we hear about how a rising tide lifts all boats, but the rising tide did not lift the boats on the bottom quintile. It did not lift the boats of the second quintile either. The families in this column made about $26,000 or $28,000 a year. Their real family incomes went down by 4% from 1989 to 2004. That was a lesser amount, but they were still going backwards.

In the next quintile, for those making around $45,000 a year, on average their real earnings and real family incomes, all adjusted to 2004 dollars, went down 3%. It is only when we get into the fourth quintile, those making about $65,000 or $70,000 a year, that real family incomes, their real earnings, went up by 2%. In the highest quintile, the wealthiest of Canadians, real family incomes went up by 15%.

I do not know if it is the goal or the objective of either the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party to elevate the wages and living conditions of all Canadians. That is the stated objective of the NDP. I do not know if it has been a priority or if those parties had other competing interests and priorities, but if that was their objective, if that was their economic strategy, it has not worked for the last 15 years. This goes back to 1989.

I think that maybe this is what we should be reflecting upon in this debate. We live in the richest and most powerful civilization in the history of the world, but we are not sharing the wealth. We are not showing a meaningful increase in the financial quality of life of fully 60% of Canadians, and the other fourth quintile only marginally. It is only the very wealthy who got richer. It is almost a cliché that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, but unfortunately that is the empirical evidence to date of the economic strategy of the last many years in this country.

All the other issues that we are complaining about here kind of pale in comparison to this failure in what we in the NDP see as the single most important thing: sharing the wealth, sharing one's birthright as a Canadian, and growing forward. The next generation will be the first ever to not have the economic well-being that their parents did. I did not state that very well, but members get the idea.

I am going to move on to something that I think should have been in this budget. We did hear quite a bit in the budget about tax cuts. I will concede that there were many, many small and medium sized tax cuts, but there was very little about tax fairness, and there is one point I want to raise.

I am reading a book called Pigs at the Trough: How Corporate Greed and Political Corruption Are Undermining America. I argue that the same applies to Canada. This book talks about a trend that is very popular in corporate Canada and America. It is called tax motivated expatriation. It is a chartered accountant's term for what I say is a sleazy, tax-cheating loophole, where businesses use offshore tax havens and actually become tax fugitives. They set up dummy companies offshore so they can funnel the profits of their activities and avoid paying Canadian taxes.

During the Liberal years, the Liberals tore up 11 such tax treaties with offshore tax havens, but they left just one. The one they left in place is the one where Canada Steamship Lines has nine such paper dummy companies used as a tax haven for corporate tax fugitives. It is estimated that between $7 billion and as high as $15 billion a year in tax revenue is lost just because of that one remaining tax haven that people use.

I thought the Tory government in its first budget may have wanted to address that. I am optimistic that the Tories might want to revisit this at some time. If the Conservatives are going to lower corporate taxes, and I accept their word that they believe that is the right way to go, they should at least ensure that those remaining corporate taxes that are still left are paid, that the application of their tax regime is fair and that there are not people being tax fugitives in tax havens.

The last thing I will address is the corporate welfare bums. The former leader of the NDP, David Lewis, coined the term. We in the NDP are not fans of this and we are against corporate handouts. It seems contradictory, especially with the current government, whose political philosophy is to let the free market prevail, to not prop up failing enterprises, to let them rise and fall based on their merits and their abilities. Yet we still see, beyond reason, what we in the NDP call “corporate welfare” being doled out to specific sectors, especially sectors that do not need the support.

There is a time when we may want to support certain industry sectors to stimulate growth because we are trying to develop a certain region or sector, but the oil industry? It boggles our minds in the NDP as to why there is still $1.5 billion in subsidies to big oil when it is going through a period of such record profits. We do not believe that big oil needs that economic stimulation and we think it is wrong.

The other one is the asbestos industry. A lot of people would be shocked to learn that Canada is still third largest producer and exporter of asbestos in the world. Even though it is a deadly product and no good can come from being exposed to even a single fibre of asbestos, we still export 200 million tonnes per year.

We do not use it in our own country. We do not use it in the European Union or any of those countries that have banned asbestos completely, such as Japan, Australia, Great Britain, the entire European Union and even South Africa. They banned asbestos because it is deadly.

What we do is export it to developing nations and third world countries.

This is an industry that should die a natural death because it is killing a lot of people. There is no market for it anywhere in the developed world. Anywhere safe handling practices have to be applied makes it uneconomical, and the health costs compound to the point where people are made sick by it to such a degree that there are other cheaper alternate products available.

For some reason, though, the federal government continues to prop up, support, underwrite and promote asbestos in developing nations where there are no safety rules and regulations. Or if there are safety rules and regulations, they are not enforced at all. In fact, there is not just the direct subsidy to the asbestos industry. The government spends tens of millions of dollars sending lawyers around the world to challenge any country that may want to ban asbestos. When France wanted to ban asbestos, the federal government went to the WTO to argue that France was interfering with our ability to market this product. Fortunately for the French people, Canada lost the appeal and France did the right thing and banned asbestos.

There were 120 conferences to promote asbestos put on in 60 different countries and paid for by the Canadian government, the most recent one in Indonesia, where the Canadian embassy hosted this, paid for by the Canadian taxpayer, to foist this killer product on the poor people of Indonesia. Another one is to be hosted in Montreal on May 23 as we speak, to try to deny the fact that asbestos is deadly, to try to say that there are safe uses of this horrible, horrible mineral.

We should be out of the asbestos industry. There should be no more corporate welfare for the asbestos industry, these corporate serial killers. The asbestos industry is the tobacco industry's evil twin. We should not be subsidizing the development of this horrible product.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the member for Winnipeg Centre and hear his criticisms, what he calls his anti-corporate rhetoric, his criticism of the corporate agenda and what he calls corporate welfare and the like. I cannot help but think when I listen to his rhetoric that it really echoes to another era. It is an era that many other social democratic parties, countries and provinces have moved beyond.

For example, the New Democratic government in Manitoba sees provincial corporate tax cuts as an important part of its overall agenda. Over the years, the Labour Party in the United Kingdom, under that prime minister, has moderated itself and has not embraced its anti-corporate and anti-business rhetoric of the past. They are social democratic parties, while the Conservative Party is not in that vein, and they have realized they need to work with industry and business to balance the public good with corporate interests. That is the best way forward as they see it.

Would my colleague from Winnipeg Centre comment on whether or not he sees a need for the federal New Democratic Party to do the same thing and to move beyond that and into balancing not only the public good but also corporate interests?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for an opportunity to perhaps clarify my remarks. At no point in my speech did I really say much about corporate tax cuts or corporate taxes, other than that it would be wrong to allow corporate tax havens and these tax fugitives who do not pay any corporate taxes and in fact gain an unfair competitive advantage.

There are two negative things about these tax havens. First of all, these people are not paying their fair share of taxes in Canada. When I say “fair”, it is whatever the government says that tax rate should be. If it is brought down to 10%, so be it, but I want them to pay it in Canada.

The second thing is that profits that are funneled through tax havens are taxable only when they are brought back into Canada, so they are not brought back into Canada. There is an added incentive for that business to then invest those profits further offshore and never repatriate that money.

That is what we are talking about when we mention tax motivated expatriation of dollars. It does not benefit the Canadian economy if that money leaves the country in the avoidance of paying Canadian taxes, gets further invested offshore and is never repatriated. That does not grow our industries and it does not grow our job base.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am always interested to hear what the member has to say. He is multi-tasking. I think the member should also have an opportunity to comment on the complete abandonment of the climate change file by the government with the budget.

The fact is that all the government can boast about is a monthly transit pass credit, which is only going to benefit existing transit riders. The fact that it will not have anything whatsoever to do with climate change shows how bankrupt the government is in terms of ideas, in terms of what we are going to do about dealing with the severe problem of greenhouse gases and their effect on climate change. I wish the member would get on the bandwagon as well, with his colleagues and everyone else in the House, just simply to reaffirm what a travesty this is in terms of the whole environment file.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will briefly add my support for this idea. This budget really does disappoint the whole population. It disappoints the global movement to try to address climate change.

I remember when Nelson Riis, a former NDP colleague of mine, had the transit pass idea as a private member's bill. It then became an opposition day motion in the House and was passed back in 1998, I think, when we all agreed that there should be a tax deduction for transit use to encourage more people to do so. This is not a radical and revolutionary idea. Drastic change is required and then bold action is required. There was a paucity of that in the budget.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I begin my debate I want to say that as a country we are in the best fiscal shape since 1867. We have been through a lot.

As members know, the Liberal government inherited a half a trillion dollar debt after nine years of Conservative rule. During that time the debt grew from $200 billion to $500 billion. If the Conservatives had been in power another 13 years I would guess we would have probably had $1.5 trillion worth of debt.

[An hon. member]

We would have been bankrupt.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

There is no question that the nation was on the verge of bankruptcy. There was a lot of despair in the country. Industries were being torn down. Unemployment rates were up. Interest rates were up. There was a general funk in the land.

What we need to look at is where we arrived as Canadians. In all those years we got to the point where, not only did we deal with the fiscal deficit and make strategic investments, but we ended up having the best economy in the G-7 and a post-secondary education sector that was paying huge dividends.

We will be going through the experience of a Conservative government once again. It is important to look at some of the senior folks who came in from the province of Ontario because it tells us a whole lot. Some of these folks are the finance minister, the President of the Treasury Board and the health minister, all of whom occupied senior positions in the Progressive Conservative government in the province of Ontario.

Those of us from Ontario know the record. We know the record of Ipperwash and of Walkerton. We know the record of messing up on hydro. We know about the sale of Highway 407 for a fraction of its value. We know how the government savaged universities and hospitals and eliminated social programs. It also promised a balanced budget and delivered a $5 billion to $6 billion deficit. I think that is telling.

I want to start off with what happened to the Kelowna accord. It is not unlike us to talk about what the Conservative government's dealings were with our first nations and aboriginal peoples. It totally trashed an agreement that was agreed to by the territories, all of the provinces and the federal government. The first nations and aboriginal peoples were pleading with members of the New Democratic Party not to bring the government down because I think they saw what was going to happen. Now Premier Campbell is carrying on the fight with some other premiers.

In the area of education, the Liberal government put a huge emphasis and priority on it. It really spoke to our values. We invested billions of dollars into research, student aid and the millennium scholarship program. We were going to make post-secondary education accessible to all Canadians. A strategic plan is when a government plans for the future but that is not in this budget.

The billions that were put into research and development will not be dealt with by the government opposite.

One of the most important features of the strategic plan was the early childhood education component. In my community we are losing child care spaces because the money that was promised will end this year. The dreams of single mothers and people in need of early childhood education have been shattered. The money will no longer be there and spaces are being cut back right now. The Conservative Party is proud and happy about that.

The Conservative government will hire 1,000 more RCMP officers and it will build more jails. Let us look at 1,000 RCMP officers and then look at the number of early childhood educators we could have. We could have, dare I say, at least 5,000 given what the early childhood education folks get paid. One can just imagine how many child care spaces could be constructed with the money being used to build penitentiaries.

The party opposite needs to recognize that the United States of America practises the kind of philosophy it wants to make happen here. However it does not work. The state of California spends more money on incarcerating people than it does on post-secondary education. Would anyone in this chamber say that the U.S. has safer communities? Far from it. The U.S. incarcerates more people per capita than any other country in the western world. It is one of the few nations that still executes people and that kind of approach does not work. It breeds violence, it makes society less secure and it wastes money.

With the money it costs to keep a young offender in jail for one year we could pay for a master's program for that individual. Do we want to invest in sending somebody to jail? We can call it post-secondary education for crime because that is what it is. Or, do we want to invest in them by giving them opportunities to train and become educated so they can become productive members of our society which, in turn, produces a safer community?

Prior to coming into Parliament, I used to work in crime prevention and crime prevention really does work. The general rule is that $1 invested pays off $7 in dividends. If we look at what happened in the province of Ontario where the get tough on crime approach was taken up, more problems arose, particularly in the inner cities where programs that were meant to deal with youth at risk were destroyed by that government. This is essentially the same road that the federal government is heading down.

We have heard a lot of talk on the issue of citizenship and immigration in the last couple of days. The government opposite mentioned that it would cut in half the right of landing fee. The Liberal government was going to eliminate over a number of years the right of landing fees. It was in our platform. I know my friends opposite do not like it but that is the reality. We put more money into settlement and integration funding than the Conservatives did with this budget.

In terms of credential recognition, we actually did something about it. In the last election the Conservatives promised that they would set up an agency to deal with credentials and now we learn in the budget that they will be studying it for two years. They will have to learn to watch their rhetoric. This is a cynical budget.

In terms of the environment, Kyoto is dead. The Conservatives killed Kyoto. Many have asked why our emissions are up. Our emissions are up because the production of the tar sands is up and the tar sand production goes to the United States as an export. That could be solved very easily. It could be solved by taking $1 per barrel of oil from the tar sands and buying the credits that we rightfully should and quit giving the Americans a free ride.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, budget 2006 invests in many areas that the hon. member questions. We have acknowledged that the previous government did make some reinvestments in post-secondary education through the Canada social transfer, which was $17 billion in tax transfers and cash. We supported that program which is why budget 2006 continues those measures.

The budget contains measures to continue with $5 billion in direct support for students through tax credits and other direct grants and loans. We support that program and we will be building on it. Budget 2006 contains additional measures to help students with the cost of their textbooks and to assist those wanting to enter the skilled trades.

However, the previous government often promised great things but it failed to deliver on them. For years aboriginal Canadians have been suffering some of the worst living conditions in our country and yet the previous government never delivered additional money for it. Budget 2006 delivers new additional money, the first new additional money in years for aboriginal communities.

The same thing goes for child care. The previous government promised for 13 years to put in place a child care system and failed to deliver on that. Budget 2006 delivers on it.

Despite the economic record of the previous Liberal government and despite the fiscal and monetary position the country is now in, why did it fail to win the faith and the confidence of the Canadian people?

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will touch on the last part of the question. One of the problems we had in the last campaign was that the Conservatives were very good at borrowing from the Americans and practising drive-by smears and our party failed to respond appropriately.

All any objective observer has to do is read a book entitled, On the Take: Crime, Corruption and Greed in the Mulroney Years. If they ever put that open to a kind of Gomery inquiry, instead of using the criminal standards that were used in one defence, that would prove to be the mother of corruption of all time. We could add up all the other corruption and they would be tiny compared to it.

Let me touch on post-secondary education. My riding has two universities and a college. They were very happy with the performance of the Liberal government but they are very sad about the budget produced by the Conservative government. When they get the chance they will express the same wishes again.

In terms of child care, we delivered. We got spaces but spaces in the Waterloo region are now being closed down because they know there will be no funding for those spaces next year. You as a government should be ashamed--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would remind the member for Kitchener--Waterloo to address his comments through the Chair.

Questions and comments? The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be relatively brief because I know time is limited.

The new government decided to cancel the program that we had created for day care and early childhood development. I ask my colleague if it is true that, by cancelling this program, the government has also abandoned workers--who might have received better salaries--as well as the day care and early childhood development infrastructure that would have allowed them to acquire more recent manuals.

We must not lose sight of the fact that the program would have allowed parents to benefit from reduced costs. Would my colleague agree that, by cancelling the $5 billion program, all of these people have been abandoned: young people, parents, grandparents, and child care workers? This is unacceptable.

I would like my colleague to confirm that this is true--that by its actions the government has abandoned all of these people.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is 100% correct. We are not investing in the youth of this nation.

As I mentioned before, hiring police officers and building more jails is not going to solve the problem. This is the problem with the government. It is the same spirit by which the Conservatives gutted the Kelowna accord. It is not strange to us on this side and it is not strange to progressive people in our country that the neo-cons have destroyed programs that invest directly in people and are strategically important to move our country forward and maintain the kind of prosperity that we have.

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

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the last throne speech was generally accepted to be the worst throne speech in history. Of the hundreds of priorities for the problems and initiatives in the federal government, the Conservatives only dealt with five. The budget could easily fund that if there was almost nothing there.

I want to address one of the omissions from the budget and throne speech. Members have talked about a lot of omissions, but I particularly want to talk about the Arctic and the north. They are not even mentioned in either the throne speech or the budget. There is nothing new for the hundreds of critical issues, problems and priorities for the north and the Arctic. What about keeping the commitment to the protected area strategy, to the protected areas in the Mackenzie Valley so the pipeline can go ahead smoothly?

What about land claim implementation? The Auditor General pointed out problems with land claim implementation in both Nunavut in the Northwest Territories. In Yukon we are in the process of a nine year review. There are concerns about federal negotiators having adequate mandate. Hopefully, the minister, who has good experience in this area, will look into this.

What about the Teslin Tlingit council justice negotiations? Today John Pierce, Georgina Sydney, Richard Sydney, Peter Johnson and Victoria Fred are visiting us. The problem is they keep coming back again and again. They have the ability in their land claim and self-government agreement to take down justice, so let us just get on with it and smooth it through. Let us get on with this new pilot project, which will be a great example for the rest of the country.

When I asked this question in the House of Commons in question period, the Conservatives had a very embarrassing answer. I do not blame the parliamentary secretary because he was not here at the time. However, they have given him things to announce that we had already announced, for instance, funds for helping communities for the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. That was already announced by Anne McLellan in July.

What are the new Conservative initiatives? What new vision, what new programs, what new solutions are there to help solve some of these problems? In the throne speech and the budget the government took away some very bold promises that they had made during the election campaign. For instance, the three Arctic icebreakers and the deep sea port vanished when the budget came out.

Another promise by the leader of the Conservatives at the time wrote to the three territorial premiers and said, yes, that he understood per capita funding did not work in the north and that they needed more. Then when the budget came out, in two cases at least, on page 111 and 115, it said that programs were funded on an equal per capita basis. Three MPs, senators from the north and the last two prime ministers had a passion for the north and they provided unprecedented attention to it.

What are the Conservatives going to do that is new. Please do not include in the answer the initiatives that we already started, including the 10 following initiatives: $500 million for the Mackenzie Valley; increased northern transfer payments; northern strategy or northern economic development funds; northern contaminated sites cleanup; northern marketing with the winter games; the international polar year; northern search and rescue planes; northern homelessness money; and northern infrastructure projects.

I thank the Conservatives for continuing on with all our initiatives because they are good ones. What are their new initiatives, programs, visions to deal with the very complex north, a very important part of Canada?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to the northern communities and that has been confirmed in our budget.

The budget contains significant funding for northern housing with new investments of up to $300 million to increase the supply of affordable housing in the north.

The budget demonstrates clear support for the Mackenzie Valley gas project with $500 million in assistance to communities that will be affected if the project moves forward.

The budget provides major new investments in National Defence that will contribute to enhancing northern sovereignty and security.

Finally, we were pleased to announce a one time adjustment of $1.9 million to the territorial formula financing grants.

These are significant investments. The $300 million in funding for affordable housing in the three territories will assist in relieving some of the most severe housing pressures in a region that is home to a significant number of aboriginal people. The $50 million each will go to Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut, plus an additional $150 million for urgent needs in Nunavut. Housing in the north is a priority and this government is delivering.

The Mackenzie gas project has the potential to make an important contribution to economic sustainability and self-sufficiency for aboriginal and northern communities. This budget establishes a $500 million socio-economic fund over 10 years. This fund will be used to support initiatives from local communities and to mitigate any socio-economic effects arising from the Mackenzie gas project.

It is important to remember that the Mackenzie gas project is currently undergoing a rigorous and comprehensive environmental assessment and regulatory review. Funding will be linked to the project milestones and is conditional on the project moving forward. All northerners will also benefit from other measures announced in the budget in areas such as child care, infrastructure and tax relief.

To demonstrate his commitment, as one of the minister's first courses of action, he travelled to the north to meet with partners and discuss opportunities to work together. He went to listen and to learn more about the north's needs and aspirations. He met with the three territorial leaders, aboriginal leaders across the north, the Aboriginal Pipeline Group, environmental and industry groups and many others.

Our government recognizes the tremendous potential of the north and the important role it will play in Canada's future prosperity. Let me sum it up simply. Our government is committed to the north. We are improving housing, enhancing sovereignty and security, and providing important support to the communities impacted by the Mackenzie gas project.

This government is moving forward on devolution of land and resource management responsibilities, and negotiating resource revenue sharing arrangements. We will improve the regulatory regime, balancing environmental protection with economic prosperity. As we move forward, we are working with northern governments and aboriginal organizations to ensure that quality health care, education and economic opportunities are available to northerners. What I have outlined today clearly demonstrates our government's commitment to the north.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the parliamentary secretary did exactly what I asked him not to do, which was reannounce a lot of things that we were doing already. In fact, I mentioned them in my list, although I am glad he mentioned that he is working with the NWT on resource revenue-sharing because I know that is a high priority for the NWT.

However, on northern defence and sovereignty, I guess the jury will just have to stay out for awhile until we see these things in action because the equipment that they were talking about for the north has vanished. It is not in the budget. There are just some vague references.

A lot of the items relating to aboriginal housing, for instance, were in Bill C-48 which Parliament passed last June 23. I am delighted that the minister went to the three territories in the north, but once again the jury is still out. What are the results going to be of those meetings?

Although we did not get anything particularly new tonight, at least the parliamentary secretary says he is in strong support of the north and hopefully we will see progress in the future from at least that support.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's statements and I would have him know that as a former northerner, although I guess one is always a northerner, I know that members on this side are very interested in supporting the north.

Our government's commitment could not be clearer. These are not just words. They are actions. The budget has committed funding to the north that includes $300 million for housing, $500 million to support the communities affected by the Mackenzie gas project, money for families, communities and infrastructure, and important tax relief.

I believe that there is money in this budget for the north and the government is working to improve the quality of life not only for all northerners but for all Canadians.