Debates of May 18th, 2006

Agricultural Marketing Programs Act

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Health

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Health.

The committee has studied Bill C-5, an act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada and amending certain acts, and has agreed to report it to the House without amendment.

Overseas Military Memorial Sites Student Visits Assistance Act

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-308, An Act to propose and examine a program giving financial assistance to high school students visiting overseas military memorial sites.

Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, we have about three World War I veterans left and we lose about 75 to 80 World War II and Korean veterans every day in this country. Fairly soon, the history of those two battles and the Korean War will be lost due to old age.

What I am attempting to do in the bill is have the federal government work with the provinces, the school boards and the private sector to set up a fund that would enable students the one-time opportunity to travel to overseas gravesites so they themselves can stand on the sites to witness and understand the historical nature of what they mean.

I can assure the House that any of us who have had that opportunity have been extremely moved by that experience.

In order to keep the remembrance of that service alive and of the words “lest we forget” alive, we need to keep passing it on from generation to generation. I believe this fund would be well worth it in the end because it would teach our children and future generations the history of our brave men and women in our military.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Business Development Bank of Canada Act

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-309, An Act to amend the Business Development Bank of Canada Act and the Canada Student Loans Act (student loan system).

Mr. Speaker, a lot of students are on the cusp and cannot access student loans because, according to the rules and regulations, their parents make $1 too much over the minimum in order to achieve this.

All students in this country have the right of access to university, post-secondary education and vocational training. We should not restrict access to student loans and opportunities for students to upgrade their skills in order to assist us in the future economies.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committees of the House

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I move that notwithstanding the order adopted Tuesday, April 25, public safety and national security be the committee for the purposes of section 145 of the Anti-terrorism Act, 2001.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The parliamentary secretary needs unanimous consent to do this at this moment because there was no notice. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

Immigration

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition on the subject of immigration policy signed by residents of the Fraser Valley, including some of my constituents.

The petitioners desire a substantial revision of Canada's policy on accepting refugees.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed, from May 15, consideration of the motion that BillC-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, and of the motion that the question be now put.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has already made known that it intends to vote for this budget.

As the hon. members know, one reason is that the Conservative Party promised in writing to correct the fiscal imbalance. We will make sure that it keeps its promise to Quebeckers.

We are particularly concerned because late last week, in the media, the Prime Minister was already backtracking, and his commitments seemed less firm. We hope that this was simply a moment of weakness and that he will keep his promises.

The Bloc Québécois had been proposing a number of other measures for quite some time, and we worked hard to get them. We got $1 billion for post-secondary education, $800 million for affordable housing, assistance for farmers and a tax exemption on bursaries. The Bloc Québécois had been calling for that for a long time, and we are glad to have obtained that gain for Quebec. As well, we obtained a tax credit for public transit users, something we had also long been calling for in this House. We are happy to have gotten the excise tax lifted from jewellery and to have obtained a tax credit for tools and a reduction of the tax on the landing fee. While we would have preferred that this tax be completely eliminated, this is a step in the right direction.

That said, the budget includes several negative measures that we do not agree with. I have already spoken in this House about all the government's continued and new intrusions into the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec. The $1,200 child care allowance is one example. We had suggested a refundable tax credit, which would have respected the provincial and federal jurisdictions, but the government did not want this.

The budget talks about creating a Canadian securities commission. Again, the Government of Quebec has always refused to allow any interference in its exclusive jurisdictions.

The annex on the fiscal imbalance cites notions of accountability, of Canada-wide standards. They say they are driven by considerations of the social union, but Quebec has always been opposed. As far as the fiscal imbalance is concerned, it is simple. All we need is an unconditional transfer of tax fields to Quebec.

This budget also talks about new research foundations, which is yet another overlap. It talks about a cancer strategy, which already exists in Quebec. The money should have been transferred. In connection with immigration the issue of refugee credentials is another good example. The government is interfering in something that is none of its concern. This area is one of Quebec's jurisdictions. Furthermore, when it comes to looking after its own jurisdiction and setting up a Refugee Appeal Division, which would require only $10 million, the federal government is not assuming its responsibilities. It is quite sad and I have seen the impact this has had in my riding.

As hon. members know, Abdelkader Belaouni is currently in a presbytery in Pointe-Saint-Charles. He did not have the opportunity to appeal the arbitrary decision made by a commissioner. All Quebeckers are allowed to appeal decisions they disagree with, but new arrivals are not allowed to do so.

This budget still contains far too many encroachments on jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec.

In addition to being an interference, the allowance for child care services is very unfair in its proposed format because it will be taxed based on the lowest income and not on the family income.

I have two examples to illustrate this point. In a family of four, only one person works and earns an annual income of $213,500—a federal minister, for example. The other adult stays home with the two children. The tax on the allowance will apply on the lowest income, which is zero dollars in this case. This family will receive the entire initial sum and will not pay any tax on it.

On the other hand, the head of a single-parent family who earns $28,000 will have to pay an additional $800 in income tax whether in Quebec City or in Ottawa.

Our proposal was to solve this problem by introducing an income tax credit based on family income and a decreasing contribution based on income. The cost would be the same. Frankly, we have a hard time understanding why the government did not consider our proposal. This still has not been explained.

It surprises me that during the debates we have held in this House, not a single Conservative has ever explained what is wrong with our proposal. They are always trying to avoid the issue, always handing us the same old lines. They talk about choice, but what about Quebeckers' choice?

Quebeckers have chosen to have child care services that they pay for through their income taxes. But then they are penalized because when they fill our their federal tax return, they declare lower child care costs on line 214 than other Canadians. That means the federal government saves money every year because Quebeckers chose to set up their own system. The government is $250 million a year to the good on the backs of Quebec parents, who are paying for these daycares with their income tax dollars that go to the rest of Canada.

If the federal government really wants to respect the choices made by parents and by Quebec society, it will give the $250 million it is saving thanks to Quebeckers back to the Government of Quebec.

As far as older workers are concerned, we have often asked for an assistance program to be set up for older workers who lose their employment following a mass lay-off . Sometimes this affects two people from the same household who have worked for the same company for 20 or 30 years. The day the company closes, these people have difficulty qualifying for other jobs. They end up having to spend all their savings and going on welfare until their retirement at age 65. What a sad way for them to end their career after being contributing members of society their entire lives.

This program was not expensive. We know what we would be getting into since it already existed. The federal government did not include it in its budget, but opened the door to it in the Speech from the Throne. We hope this will be a done deal as soon as possible.

There is nothing in this budget on the Kyoto protocol. We understood why last Tuesday. It is because this government is against the Kyoto protocol. What were this government's arguments? It said it was unable to keep this commitment. Rarely have we seen a government cite its own incompetence for not moving forward. Essentially what the Conservatives are saying is that they are not competent enough to do the job.

The argument that our reduction goal of 35% would mean shutting down the transport sector, simply does not hold. That would be like a person who lives a lavish lifestyle drinking alcohol and partying being asked by his accountant to cut his expenses by 35%. That person could retort that this would cut into his rent and that he would end up on the street. Of course, everyone would tell him to cut from his excesses. The same goes for the federal government.

This government has not met Quebeckers' expectations. In the case of the Kyoto protocol, it chose the oil industry over the interests of Quebeckers. We will be watching this government over the next year.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments by the hon. member on the environmental aspects of the budget and what was and was not in the budget. In fact, the Green Budget Coalition has said that there is virtually nothing in the budget to make good on the government's throne speech commitment to tangible reductions in pollution and greenhouse gases. The coalition stated:

Furthermore, the federal government missed a great opportunity to announce the phase-out of the $1.4 billion in annual subsidies to the oil and gas sector, and the over $150 million annually to nuclear power. For decades, these “pollution subsidies” have contributed to market failure, industrial inefficiency, unsustainable energy consumption, and unnecessary pollution and health damage.

Could the member comment on why he thinks the Conservative government kept those $150 billion worth of subsidies to the oil and gas industry in its budget?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is what we are asking for.

We have often criticized subsidies and gifts given by the Conservative government to oil companies. We had every reason to expect the Minister of the Environment to demonstrate a true desire for change in this first budget. We wonder whether she is not, in fact, the “minister of oil and gas”, since this budget provides nothing for the environment.

As for the budget overall, we will support it because it promises to correct the fiscal imbalance, which is something the Bloc Québécois has worked on for quite some time, as it is in the best interest of Quebeckers. Nevertheless, we will remain vigilant throughout the year.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the new member. I know that he is a very passionate individual and I wish him luck in his career in the House of Commons.

His comments are interesting. He has done a good job exposing the problems and shortcomings of this budget. I find it very interesting that he wants to remain vigilant, yet at the same time, he supports the Conservative government in spite of the problems that he himself has raised.

As for the NDP member's comment regarding the nuclear industry, personally, I do not believe that this industry causes pollution.

I would simply like the member to explain how he can, ironically, support a budget that, according to him, is not really a budget since it has so many holes and gaps. Is it not strange that he supports this budget, although his speech clearly indicates that he opposes it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to clarify something: I am not here to make a career in this place, only to support the cause of Quebec sovereignty.

I am not very surprised that the Liberal Party plans to vote against the budget. The Liberals never even acknowledged the fiscal imbalance. For 13 years, they demonstrated arrogance and scorn toward Quebeckers by refusing to recognize this problem and by refusing to give Quebec what it needs to reach its potential.

We will support this budget because it includes a promise about the fiscal imbalance. This is a transitional budget. We will see whether the Conservative government keeps its promises to Quebeckers.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there were a couple of things couched in my hon. colleague's comments on which I would like some clarification.

The oil and gas industry is very much a part of my riding of Yellowhead. Some of the comments about the subsidy were rather extreme. Alberta has actually allowed a 1% royalty until recovery of cost of project. To deem that a subsidy, I would challenge. After it redeems its cost of recovery, the royalty is then 25%. The majority of that goes not to Albertans, but to the federal coffers and, likewise, across the country, including Quebec.

The member commented on the child care provisions. The budget provides $1,200 for a child under the age of six, and 125,000 new day care spaces. I have a difficult time discerning how that challenges Quebec's provincial child care program. It actually helps it. How does this challenge Quebec's program?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. Through their income taxes, Quebeckers are already paying for a child care system in Quebec. This enables them to pay less out of pocket, but means they get fewer income tax credits from the federal government. The federal government puts away $250 million of Quebeckers' money every year because the people of Quebec made this choice. The Canadian federation is unable to take this choice into account and to respect it.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk today about how the budget affects Canada and my province of British Columbia, particularly my riding of North Vancouver. There are a number of areas I would like to address.

The first is affordable housing. I had the pleasure a week ago of attending an affordable housing forum in North Vancouver. The people involved in the delivery of housing in my community raised concerns that the federal budget would only to deliver $1.4 billion for affordable housing, reduced from the $1.6 billion that was announced as part of the Liberal's Bill C-48 last year.

Nearly 1.5 million Canadian households are in core housing need. They are living in housing that is inadequate for their needs. It is either in poor repair or it is unaffordable. High rents are the single largest factor in the escalating use of food banks.

The CHRA proposes that the federal government provide resources to develop 25,000 units of housing per year for the next 10 years. Yet the promised one-time funding in the budget will only see perhaps 20,000 units. We need predictable, stable and ongoing funding.

We also need to look at the EnerGuide program for low income households. This program provided for retrofits to help address rising energy costs. We need to retain what we had for the marketplace and for reducing the cost of energy related to rental buildings. We also need to help individual owners. For example, under the EnerGuide program, Canadians who had their homes renovated to save energy could qualify for an additional grant of thousands of dollars. About 300,000 people have used the program since it started in the late 1990s.

A home retrofitted under the program saves its energy costs by an annual cost of about 30%. However, EnerGuide has now had its budget slashed by $227 million over the next five years. In other words, the program is now gone.

I also will talk about the film industry. The film industry, both domestic and foreign, is one that affects just about all parts of Canada, certainly Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary. These areas are the centres of the film industry. In my riding we have Lions Gate Studios, a major film producer in Canada and around the world.

For British Columbia alone, the film industry produces over $1.3 billion to our economy. In my riding it is $100 million to the North Vancouver economy, employing over 6,000 people. I see nothing in the budget to provide any assistance to the film industry. It is going through a very challenging time as the dollar rises. Although we have a good base of skilled workers in Canada, the dollar is very important to the film industry. We also see a growth in the area of animated films.

There is a company called C.O.R.E. Digital Pictures. The chief executive officer, William Shatner, a well-known Canadian, better known as Captain Kirk in the Star Trek series, said that the opportunity for animated films in Canada was enormous. He said that the strategy was to sell itself to Hollywood studios based on the track records of films, did such as The Wild . Because of Canadian tax credits, a lower Canadian dollar and expertise in animating these television shows, it had the ability to produce films less expensively.

The problem is, with the rising Canadian dollar, the ability of tax credits becomes even more important. When this issue was raised with the film industry a few years ago, the Reform/Alliance/Conservative response was that it amounted to corporate welfare. It is not considered welfare by the 6,000 residents in my community who depend on the film industry and its viability. Remember the film industry is like tourism dollars. It brings in fresh money, particularly when we bring in foreign films, which is primarily what we do in British Columbia. It enables us to build a base of expertise to continue to develop domestic films, as we have across Canada.

The other area of concern is shipbuilding. It is an area that is now in crisis in Canada. We are talking about the loss of one of the major shipyards in Canada, the Davie shipyard in Quebec. It produces 50% of the Canadian capacity. It is now in bankruptcy. On June 12 its assets, the cranes, the tools and everything, will be sold off at auction and it will effectively cease to function.

We need to help the shipbuilding industry in Canada and there are two vehicles that we have used in the past: the structured financing facility, otherwise known as the SFF; and the accelerated capital cost allowance, which is the ACCA. Under the current regulations companies have qualified either for one or the other. What they really need is both. We need to provide that incentive.

The Allied shipyards and the Washington Marine Group are in my riding. Then there is Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax. We have now three Coast Guard vessels for the west coast, three for the east coast and three for the Great Lakes. We need to ensure that these vessels are built in Canada. We need to help the shipbuilding industry position itself so it can effectively compete internationally against Korea, China and Europe.

I have spoken already about the situation with aboriginals and the need to help aboriginal communities across Canada to develop their own fiscal economy, their ability to be self-sustaining. The Tsleil-Waututh First Nation and the Squamish First Nation are in my riding. The Kelowna accord, which they saw as a benefit, has effectively been gutted by the budget. It is down to 20% of what was agreed to after a historic accord between all provinces and first nations. This would have enabled first nations to get the economic base to provide employment and to deal with the social and economic problems on reserves. It is a shame.

In addition, Capilano College is in my riding. The Conservative budget is basically providing $80 in textbooks instead of the $6,000 proposed by the previous Liberal government, $3,000 tuition tax credit in the first year and $3,000 in the final year. That was a real incentive to help young students across Canada. When I spoke to students during the campaign, they said that was where they needed the help. They are not getting the help they need from this budget.

I have already spoken on the issue of the Pacific Gateway. I am the critic for Pacific Gateway. In the previous government, I worked with my colleagues in developing the Pacific Gateway strategy and initiative. This was to enable Canada, in particular western Canada, to benefit from trade from the Asia-Pacific Rim and to recognize that British Columbia, through the ports of Prince Rupert and Vancouver, would provide this opportunity for increased movement of goods and people to assist both the import and export of goods to and from Canada.

The Pacific Gateway program under the Liberals would have provided $590 million over five years. In fact, during the campaign, when the Prime Minister spoke in Prince Rupert last December, he said that a Conservative government would deliver at least the Liberals' commitment of $590 million over five years. What we have now is a commitment of $591 million over eight years. Again, it has been delayed and diluted.

In fact, in year one the Conservatives have only proposed $19 million. The Liberal plan for Pacific Gateway would have seen $190 million worth of projects begin almost immediately with a further $400 million to be allocated by a Gateway council, which would have consisted of representatives of the four the western provinces and stakeholders interested directly in the port operations.

When we take the amount over five years, under the Liberal plan we would have seen $590 million expended. Under the Conservative budget, by year five we will see only $239 million. It is what I call the Tory Pacific Gateway gap of $351 million. That is not good enough for western Canada. It is not good for Canada. It is not good for British Columbia. We need a budget that recognizes the importance of the economy, the importance of jobs and the importance of the Asia-Pacific, China and India in the growing markets.

Therefore, I am very disappointed that the budget has neglected the areas of concern for the people of my riding, the people of British Columbia and, in my opinion, the people of Canada.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments of my colleague across the way. We are both fellow British Columbians.

The Pacific Gateway part of his speech was especially disturbing. I would like to ask the member if he recalls that there were only 41 words in the proposed Pacific Gateway project that came forward from the previous Liberal government. There were no plans and no details, just 41 vague words about what it was planning to do.

As a Conservative government, our extension to five years is to cover the fact that there will be very many projects that could not be completed in such a short timeline. It is a consideration that has been given to the projects to make certain that they are completed and funded by the Pacific Gateway project and not to shorten the projects. We are trying to expand them and to allow for them to actually occur.

I wonder if the member opposite would like to comment on the fact that there was no money for the Pacific Gateway funding in any of the Liberal budgets that were put forward before and if he would agree that it was simply a Liberal promise.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Pacific Gateway initiative by the Liberal government was more than a promise. In fact, it was a commitment. It was a commitment to the people of Canada, to western Canada and to British Columbia.

There were specifics included in the Pacific Gateway initiative. For example, I talked about the $190 million, $35 million of which was to set up the Pacific Gateway Council. It was going to include more than the existing stakeholders that are involved currently in promoting trade to Asia-Pacific. It would have included representatives from the four western provinces to ensure that we really did address the economic opportunities for the four western provinces that are represented through the Pacific Gateway initiative.

More particularly, there were specifics. There was $90 million for the Pitt River Bridge and the Mary Hill Interchange Project. There was the Deltaport road grade separations project. One of the problems is getting access to and from the port for containers coming in. We are the second busiest port in North America. I do not know now, after the flooding, but Louisiana was number one because of oil and Vancouver was the second busiest port in North America.

Goods that come from China, for example, can arrive at Vancouver one to two days faster than any U.S. port with which we are competing. That gives us the opportunity, through rail, to get goods into Chicago, into parts of the United States and Canada up to two days faster. That is an economic advantage. We were going to talk about improving the rail access to grade separations.

There was a third detail. In North Portal, Saskatchewan, more road and rail grade upgrades worth $3 million and intelligent transportation systems deployment worth up to $2 million. Those are specifics. We said that $400 million would be available for the Pacific Gateway Council to then apply for other projects. We agreed, for example, to an environmental assessment of the south perimeter road needed for Delta Port. We know the priorities of British Columbia and we responded to them.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the Pacific Gateway initiative as well because I do agree with the member for North Vancouver that there is a Pacific Gateway gap in the current budget. I also want to ask him about the project itself.

Many people in my constituency are concerned about the plan to twin the Port Mann Bridge and widen Highway 1. We know we cannot build our way out of traffic congestion and this will only dump more cars on to our roads.

A key part of the Pacific Gateway project that has not been addressed either by the Conservatives or the Liberals is the federal government's railway bridge across the Fraser River, a swing bridge which causes a huge backup in rail traffic. If we want to improve transportation, we have to fix that bridge. Why is that not part of the Pacific Gateway project?

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to the Port Mann Bridge twinning, which I know is a concern for some of the communities in the lower mainland. When that issue was raised, the position of our government was that it was not one of the projects to be included. It is a priority of the provincial government in its Pacific Gateway initiative. We said that, in terms of the improvements of road and rail, this would really come from the Pacific Gateway Council.

I agree absolutely with the importance of improving the rail bridges, the rail access, and that is what the Pacific Gateway initiative was attempting to do.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today not to oppose the budget but to propose alternatives.

The fundamental flaw in this budget is the absence of a long-term vision. Given the fiscal capacity of the government, it would have been possible to invest in crucial sectors to serve as Canada's engines in the new economy. Health, education, worker training and the move towards a green economy all require investments in order to achieve prosperity and sustainability. This takes courage and leadership, as well as fiscal capacity.

Instead, by deciding to manage the country through tax credits, the Conservatives are wasting their fiscal capacity, shirking their obligation to provide leadership and a long-term vision, and allocating surpluses to the wrong priorities.

Conservatives talk a great deal about competitiveness and productivity. They have a rather narrow view of competitiveness, even when I make allowance for the fact that my view is quite different than theirs. I believe that the key to our prosperity is an educated and motivated labour force, excellent educational institutions for our youth, learning and development opportunities for children, a healthy environment and a well-established social security system, which includes health care and child care. Thus, you can imagine my disappointment with this budget.

We have the extraordinary opportunity to invest an enormous surplus in sectors that will develop our human capital, protect our natural capital, and narrow the gap between rich and poor in Canada. The budget tries to do quite the opposite with $7 billion in tax cuts, $100 per month for day care expenses—where $800 is needed—and one free textbook for students. These are not investments. This is not a vision; it is a lost opportunity.

The doublespeak in the Speech from the Throne would make even George Orwell turn in his grave with expressions like investing, standing up for ordinary Canadians and getting results for working families. When we look at the outlook for budgetary revenues, we can see that the government is investing less in families and more in corporations. When we look at personal income tax going up by 12%, judging from the projections of 2007-08, and corporate income tax going up by something like 6.5%, we can see where the real investments are going.

My NDP colleagues and I believe that true competitiveness is built with a fair taxation system, of course, and by investing in those areas of natural and human capital that are truly sustainable for the long term. Investments are made in literacy, post-secondary education, lifelong skills training, health care and the environment.

On post-secondary education, we missed the opportunity to reinvest in stable, long term core funding of our colleges and universities to enhance accessibility and quality, to reduce tuition and class sizes, and to hire more professors and provide better resources. Instead, the Conservatives opted for minor tweaking that does not help the majority of students.

Paying one-third of the current deferred maintenance costs of institutions does not even begin to address the needs of institutions that are struggling to maintain and enhance the quality of education. One free textbook does not make university more accessible to low income, rural or aboriginal students. Exempting scholarships from income tax does not help the majority of students who do not even use all of their existing tax credits. Students do not want lower taxes. They want smaller class sizes and less debt when they graduate. This budget profoundly misunderstands the true needs of today's students.

Just as the deficit has been paid on the backs of working Canadians, cities and provinces, new growth continues at the cost of our environment. Canada committed to lower its greenhouse gas emissions by 6% over 1990 levels, as we all know.

The Liberals have done Canada and the world a tremendous disservice. First, they refused to require their corporate friends to reduce emissions, not even getting anything in exchange for the tax cuts, and they allowed our greenhouse gas emissions to rise to 35% above 1990 levels. Now, a Conservative government is in denial and is ready to cut and run, as the expression goes, on the problem that will have the largest impact on our children's future.

The Conservatives now believe that the Kyoto targets are impossible when in reality, although they are daunting, they are still eminently achievable. I hope that the minister would look at the NDP's Kyoto plan, which is realistic and fully costed. Its innovative ideas may not appeal directly to the interests of the oil patch, but according to a late April survey, 90% of Canadians want to see real investments in sustainable solutions like renewable energies and green industry, not more tax giveaways to the oil industry.

Finally, I would like to speak to child care, an area in which the NDP has proposed a concrete, realistic alternative to the $1,200 Conservative plan. In Victoria this week, a large rally was held by child care stakeholders, including parents, at the B.C. legislature. Their signs read: “Find me quality day care for 70¢ an hour” and “$100 a month pays for child care all right, in 1986”.

In British Columbia, 85% of children aged six months to five years living with a single parent are in some form of child care, and 73% of children with two working parents are in child care, a drastic rise since the mid-nineties.

In Victoria, child care can cost up to $800 a month, and there remains a desperate shortage of spaces, with long waiting lists. B.C. parents waited 13 years for the Liberals to act as the crisis developed. Finally, in a minority Parliament pressure forced them to act, albeit hastily. This allowed the Conservatives to come in and uproot the whole process, setting us back more than a decade.

There is no choice in British Columbia and it is no way for a government to help parents along the difficult path of raising children. Yesterday I introduced a genuine alternative to the Conservative plan, the NDP's early learning and child care act, which enshrines in law the principles of quality, accessibility and universality, among others. It recognizes that the government has a responsibility and an opportunity to make it easier for parents to raise their kids.

In summary, this budget is a wasted opportunity. It could have been a historic long term vision document that would launch Canada into the new knowledge and green economies, to overcome the initial fiscal hump of transition to environmentally, socially and economically sustainable economies, and to show bold leadership for Canada. Instead, it is business as usual, managing by tax credit. This is no way to run a country. That is why I cannot in good conscience, as a mother, a teacher and a citizen, support this fundamentally flawed budget.