House of Commons Hansard #27 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment from the government whip. We share a lot of interests in this issue. I appreciate the conversations that we had in the past on this. I look forward to the government, with his influence, implementing such a program.

I did not leave my former party to be more effective. My former party left me.

I will give the hon. member some examples of that because he came from the same roots as I did, reform. I can ask him some rhetorical questions. How can tolerate the cluttering of our tax system and the increases in taxes to the poor? How can he tolerate the undemocratic ways of his government, the muzzling of his ministers, the muzzling of his MPs and the thin legislative agenda on five points? Given his reform roots, surely he cannot condone the undemocratic measures which his government is putting in. Quite frankly, true Reformers would be rolling over in their graves to know what the current Conservative government is doing, which is not the Reform Party of old. In fact, it is violating some very basic principles on democratic reform, which the members who voted for the Conservative Party would find egregious.

On the head start program, we had an early learning child care program. The early learning program was not simply a place for children to be put in a room for six hours to eights a day. It was a place where children would get quality early learning, where a lot of the influences would occur and where parents would be involved.

As the member probably knows, because we come from the same province, the early learning program put forward by the former minister was an individual program per province. Flexibility was built into the program for every province. I spoke to our provincial counterparts in British Columbia and that was the quid pro quo for our success in signing on so many provinces. The early learning program we had was not simply a day care program; it did involve an early learning component.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

1:05 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to speak Bill C-13, the budget implementation act. The bill intends to provide the legislative framework for the budget that was introduced on May 10 to many cheers from this side of the House, but far fewer down at this end.

Ultimately, it cannot be said enough that this is a budget of missed opportunity. After more than 12 years of broken promises from the Liberal government, this was an opportunity to reinvest in the priorities of Canadians. The only real multi-year plan in the budget is for corporate tax cuts. There is no multi-year commitment to child care, education, training or the environment.

The Liberals hid their broken promises behind claims of huge deficits long after the deficit was under control. The Conservatives are now ignoring the $8 billion surplus expected this year, not to mention the $83 billion surplus expected over the next five years.

These surpluses represent a massive fiscal capacity, a capacity to invest, an opportunity to invest. Instead the Prime Minister and the other members of the House chose to squander over $7 billion in corporate tax cuts.

While we pay record prices at gas pumps as prices continually spike, the Conservatives chose to keep the subsidies to oil and gas companies. The people of my riding know that this is a budget of missed opportunity. My constituents see the loss of federal funding for the best start program, which raised hope and expectation for the people of my community that affordable, accessible, child care would soon be available.

At the same time, as less affordable accessible child care spaces are available, working families will see the elimination of the young child supplement and will see the promised $100 per month taxed down to very few real dollars. They see no real money to fight for the environment such as the Hamilton harbour after decades of industrial pollution.

For Stelco and Dofasco workers, who have been through months and years of uncertainty, there are no changes to EI and no new retraining efforts that will help them as the industry continues restructuring and changing to meet the new challenges.

For students at McMaster University and the parents and families who support our youth getting a post-secondary education, the budget does not propose affordability. The Conservative's solution for the post-secondary crisis is an increased opportunity to acquire debt for education, but no investment to lower tuition fees or introduce grants.

Instead of the steps outlined in Bill C-13, we should be seeing a plan for child care that invests in children and their families. Seventy per cent of children under the age of six have a mother who is in the workplace. There are only enough regulated child care spaces for 15.5% of these children.

In my riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, the best start demo project area would have reached out to over 3,000 children and their families. Cancelling the child care agreements with the provinces amounts to a grab back of $3.6 billion in investment in our communities. Between 2005 and 2008, this was to represent an investment of over $93 million in our province alone.

What does the Conservative government budget cost the families of Ontario? It costs $30 million every year, $30 million that could have created spaces that are desperately needed, $30 million that would have been well spent on a partnership with the parents of Ontario's children.

Health care is the number one priority of Canadians, including the people of my community. It has been completely ignored. In the bill there is no investment to start a national pharmacare program, even though in a few short months our first ministers on health are expected to report back on the issue. In a recent series of mailings to my community, a large number of constituents wrote back to me asking for a national pharmacare program.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Niagara Falls Ontario

Conservative

Rob Nicholson ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, first, let me give my apologies to the member. It is surely not my intention to interrupt his comments, and I will be pleased to yield the floor to him very quickly.

I am rising with regard to the point of order that was raised by the member Ottawa—Vanier and to the question posed by the House leader of the official opposition as to whether the Prime Minister should table a document that he used to respond to a question posed by the member for Laval—Les Îles during oral question period on May 17.

As you noted, Mr. Speaker, there is a provision that documents quoted are to be tabled, but there is also a provision that briefing notes prepared for ministers are not required to be tabled. If you review Hansard, it is evident that the Prime Minister did not quote, cite or refer to any document in his response. Citation 495(5) of Beauchesne's 6th edition states:

To be cited, a document must be quoted or specifically used to influence debate.

The Prime Minister was using the document as a briefing note and as you noted, Mr. Speaker, there is no requirement to table briefing notes.

As the House leader for the official opposition noted, the document the Prime Minister was using was also a cabinet document. However, the authorities are clear. Citation 495(2) of Beauchesne's states:

It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the Table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interest.

I can attest that the tabling the document would be contrary to the public interest on the grounds that it is a confidence of cabinet, dealing directly with national security measures, and I am not prepared to release this document as it could compromise the safety of our soldiers.

Again, I offer my apologies to the hon. member for the New Democratic Party.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Mr. Speaker, first, it shows that the Minister of Transport does, indeed, need glasses, as he was sitting next to the Prime Minister at the time and he could not recognize that it was a cabinet document.

Nonetheless, I gather you had taken this matter under advisement, Mr. Speaker, and you told me earlier today that it was still there. I will wait for your ruling on this matter. As always, there is an inherent trust in your judgment.

Should your judgment, Mr. Speaker, be in accord with what the House leader has just said, then I hope this would be a lesson for the Prime Minister. To recite and to read from a document which he is then not prepared to table for whatever reason, if it may be judged valid, leaves the House somewhat in a perplexing situation. If the Prime Minister is quoting comments in response to questions from the House and we cannot have access to those documents, then there is a bit of a quandary there.

I am sure Mr. Speaker will find a way around that.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I know the hon. member for Ottawa--Vanier always displays the patience of Job and will await the decision of the Chair on this matter in due course. In the meantime, I will continue to take the matter under advisement.

I thank the government House leader for the submissions he has made, which have clarified the matter somewhat, and the Chair will get back to the House in due course.

The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, who kindly permitted this interruption in his remarks, can resume his remarks. He has about six minutes remaining in the time allotted.

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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, and of the motion that the question be now put.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

1:15 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the apology.

Drug costs have doubled since 1985 and, after hospitals, are the second biggest category of health related costs in our country.

Almost four years ago, Roy Romanow in his commission recommended catastrophic drug coverage as a start. Not only does Bill C-13 not make preparations for pharmacare generally, the government cannot even act on a four year old recommendation for catastrophic drug coverage.

In the budget there is no funding for home care, something many seniors and their families rely upon. There is no funding for the training of health professionals so that people at the Henderson, St. Josephs' and General Hospitals in Hamilton do not have to wait as long to see a doctor.

The Conservative government could also have taken the opportunity to introduce measures to adjust seniors' pensions to help those seniors who have expressed concern to me about having to decide what to buy: hydro or food. However the government did not take that opportunity to invest.

For the many seniors living on fixed incomes and in poverty in my community and across Canada, a 1% GST tax cut or an income tax cut that only applies to a higher tax bracket means very little. It likely will not even cover the increase in home heating oil or hydro costs this year.

Not only will oil and gas companies get big tax cuts, they also continue to get the estimated $1.4 billion in subsidies; $1.4 billion for gas companies, but only $500 million in the budget to fight pollution. That is the same amount that the NDP put in its budget last year for low income housing energy retrofits, money for people with lower incomes to do renovations that would help green their homes, help them fight pollution and do their part.

The budget cancels that NDP investment. The budget not only does not fight pollution, it is taking away the help the NDP wanted to provide to low income families for retrofit.

By opting out of Kyoto, the Conservatives think they can do better than the years of consensus building in the international community. They will make their own plan but they do not have a plan yet. It is not in the bill we are debating today. The government tells us that it is under development. Canadians have heard that story before. The Liberals promised a Kyoto plan for years. When they finally did introduce something, it did not even try to meet targets set at Kyoto in all areas.

The budget means pollution will go up. Just like the Liberals, the government has no plan to invest in what we need to do to cut greenhouse gas emissions and reduce pollution.

We often hear governments, businesses and people talking about economic innovation, greening the economy or products. We do not have to be political scientists to know that the world is changing around us, and with those changes, particularly in the economic arena, come many new challenges. However it is worth stating that with those new challenges, challenges like those faced by steelworkers in my riding and people working in manufacturing industries across the country, come new opportunities.

Manufacturing as a sector was mentioned at least 10 times in the preamble of the budget when it was presented in the House, mentioned because of the huge losses expected in the sector. Yet, in the Conservative budget plan, the only mention of the manufacturing sector is that it will be getting some of the proposed corporate income tax cuts that we see presented here in the bill.

If we can get in on the ground floor, we can become world leaders in these technologies, manufacturing processes and knowledge.

The Conservative budget does nothing for the manufacturing sector, even though the dollar is now hovering around the 90¢ mark.

However, these changes do not just happen overnight. We need more training and retraining opportunities. Training is the clearest example of how we can invest in working families to improve real life opportunities and to boost our dropping productivity rate. While there are some positive changes for training here in the bill, they are very limited and specific to apprentices and a small tax credit for trades people who buy their own tools. There is nothing for training and immigrant settlement programs even while more and more people are facing underemployment and lower paying jobs.

Instead of a vision for an integrated training role in the 21st century and a strategy to get us there, the Conservative budget gave us a few ad hoc fragments but no strategy.

The budget also did not broaden the EI program. Even though all workers pay into EI, fewer than 40% of them qualify for support. The greatest percentage of those who do not qualify are women who are most often in the part time, lowest paying and least secure jobs.

In the 1990s, 75% of workers qualified for EI benefits. Now, only 38% of workers qualify for EI. This bill, this Conservative budget, does not change eligibility requirements or benefits, which is another lost opportunity.

I was pleased, however, to second a bill that was proposed to make some changes in the EI program. It was put forward by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst a few weeks ago in the House and I commend him on his work in this area.

Bill C-265 would modify the employment insurance program so that benefits can be calculated on the basis of the best 12 out of 52 weeks. The private member's bill will also see the eligibility requirement at 360 hours for all benefit recipients in Canada. With a $49 billion surplus in this program, it is long past the time for these changes.

This bill is equally disappointing when we look at post-secondary education. Instead of keeping the tuition lowering oriented funding of the NDP budget at $1 billion, this bill proposes to convert that funding into one time education infrastructure funding. When four out of ten university students are unable to graduate on time because they dropped courses to work, we all lose. When 70% of high school graduates want to go to college but cannot, and list finances as the main reason for not getting a further education, we are all losing. We are losing out on the increased contributions that these graduates could be providing communities like my home town of Hamilton and others across the country.

This Conservative budget does nothing to address the most pressing financial issue related to students: the need to reduce debt loads. This budget does provide a few positive changes, such as removing the income tax on bursaries and scholarships and textbook credits. If the government will not invest when it has billions in surplus and corporations are not reinvesting the breaks they get through tax cuts and subsidies, who will invest?

That is why I stand with my NDP colleagues in opposition to this budget. It is a lost opportunity to invest and I do not believe it reflects what Canadians have asked us all to do in the House.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

1:20 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to reflect on a budget that did after the election precisely what was promised during the election. We promised we could cut the GST. Done. We promised we would deliver a $1,200 choice in child care allowance. Done. We promised we would take taxes off of educational scholarships. Done. We promised we would bring in a tax credit to help with the exorbitant costs of university textbooks. Done.

We promised we would give a tax credit to help parents with the cost of putting their children in sports so they can keep their kids active, healthy and out of trouble. Done. We promised a tax credit, which the NDP once supported, for public transit, to encourage people to get out of their cars and into public transit in efforts to reduce traffic and pollution. Done.

We have gone further and faster to deliver to the people who elected us precisely what we promised them. Why will the member not rise in the House of Commons and say that while he may disagree with what we have done, at least he can admit that we have done what we said we would do?

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

1:20 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that the Conservatives have, without a doubt, done what they said they would do, but they have done it for 30% of the people who voted for them, excluding the 60% who did not. When one does not earn enough income to qualify for the tax breaks that are being offered, they are no good. The average students have been abandoned by the government because they will not even qualify for those tax breaks.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

NDP

Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, one of the areas my colleague talked about was his home town and how the men and women who work in the industrial sector have been affected. I would like his comments about the missed opportunities in this budget.

As we in our party have said, we should not just oppose but propose. I would like his ideas on what was missed in the budget but also what we can do to help the men and women in the manufacturing sector who are having a hard time, particularly those in his riding.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the population in the manufacturing sector the one thing that will strike us very quickly is that the shade of the hair is very much like my own. It is an aging population. Many of the people who have seen their manufacturing jobs collapse on them, and there have been many in the area of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, are lost. The Levi plant left recently and hundreds of people lost their jobs. Other plants have also moved on.

There has to be training and retraining with a particular emphasis on the older worker who sometimes has a harder time readjusting to the new technologies and the new work of today.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Is the House ready for the question?

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The question is on the motion that this question be now put. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

An hon. member

On division.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between all the parties present this afternoon and I think if you seek it you could find unanimous consent to see the clock at 2:30 p.m.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Is it agreed?

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would seek clarity. I would think there needs to be one more vote taken, which we would agree to on division. and then we would certainly concur with the suggestion of the chief government whip. I would not want Canadians to think that we were seeing the clock as 1:30 on division but I want to be clear as to the vote.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The Chair is seeking clarification from the chief government whip. Is he seeking the consent of the House to the motion for second reading of Bill C-13?

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

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

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.