Debates of May 8th, 2006

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Surrey North.

First, I would like to thank the people of Acadie—Bathurst who elected me for the fourth time to represent them in this Parliament.

At the same time, this is my first official speech in the House of Commons in this Parliament. That does not mean I did not raise any questions. I want to thank the people of Acadie—Bathurst who gave me my fourth mandate to represent them in the House of Commons.

We will be talking about not what the federal government did, but rather what it did not do. It is unfortunate that in this budget it is offering a national child care program that requires the provincial governments to abandon the agreements signed with the federal government. NDP has worked very hard in this respect. My colleague from Sault Ste. Marie has done a lot of work on child care to focus more attention on the issue.

The government has decided to give Canadians $1,200, saying that they will then be able to do what they want with the money. Certainly we all like to do what we want with our money. On the other hand, we have to take the whole community, and the problems it directly experiences, into consideration. Today in many families both husband and wife have to work. Therefore, they need child care. We can congratulate the Government of Quebec for establishing child care centres charging $35 a week. The system there genuinely helps working people, far more than a $1,200 allowance to families that is taxable by the federal and provincial governments. At the end of the day, there is absolutely nothing left.

The budget provides for $7 billion in tax credits for big corporations. On the other hand, the poorest and most disadvantaged people will get a tax increase of 0.5%, when the rate goes up from 15% to 15.5%. The government has decided to cut taxes for the richest people and raise taxes for the poorest. This is totally unacceptable.

For education, the budget provides $1 billion to assist institutions and pay for administration, while students themselves will get no reduction in their debt.

We were proud that the previous government’s budget, Bill C-48, provided money to reduce students’ taxes. It provided for $1.5 billion to reduce student debt throughout Canada and Quebec. That budget also provided for $1.6 billion to assist in the construction of social housing units for people living on the street. It was a good budget. It also gave $900 million to municipalities and communities for infrastructure, $500 million to developing countries with high levels of poverty and $100 million for workers so that they could get appropriate training in order to keep their jobs in Canada.

The most regrettable aspect of this budget is its failure to provide even one cent for employment insurance. I would like to quote the very unfortunate comments of a few Bloc Québécois members. My dear friends in the Bloc Québécois surprised me. I recall the comments of the member for Chambly—Borduas last year with regard to Bill C-48:

Our friends in the NDP thump their chests and say they got $4.3 billion in the negotiations over the budget.

In fact it was $4.6 billion.

However, the Prime Minister said that only $1 billion of this is new money. When we do the math, it becomes clear that it was the unemployed who were sacrificed.

Today I am asking the NDP members who are going to vote to take a close look at that. Tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, or the day after the vote, I would ask them to explain their decision to the unemployed—

I would ask the Bloc Québécois today to explain its decision to vote with the Conservative Party to the unemployed, when there is nothing in the budget. It does not, unlike the previous budget, provide a total of $4.6 billion, or $1.6 billion for affordable housing, or $1.5 billion to reduce student debt or $900 million for municipalities.

Quebec would have received $1 billion of this money, but the Bloc voted against Bill C-48.

I can understand the Bloc Québécois not wanting to vote with the Liberals, but at least it could have voted with the NDP. These were matters of importance to it, matters that brought it and us together, such as affordable housing and student debt. But it chose to vote against Bill C-48.

Let us remember what the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean had to say. He came into the House and made a huge fuss, saying:

During the negotiations when the NDP sold its soul to the Liberal Party, we told the Prime Minister, “We will not support your budget if you do not give the unemployed their due”. The Bloc Québécois is saying today, “We cannot agree to support a government, a budget or any motion whatsoever that does not give the unemployed their due”.

Where in the budget do the Conservatives give the unemployed their due? Where are the best 12 weeks? Where are the 360 hours to qualify for EI? Where are the 28 recommendations of the parliamentary committee on changes to employment insurance? They are nowhere to be found.

The Bloc led us to believe that with the Conservatives there would be a pension for older workers. Nowhere in the budget is it said clearly that by a given date, older workers will receive a pension if they are laid off because of a plant closure. There is absolutely nothing except for a study. The situation was studied for 13 years by the Liberals. Now the Conservatives seem to want to the study the issue again.

I want to quote what the Bloc Québécois said in Le Quotidien on March 3, 2005:

[For the Bloc to support the 2005 federal budget] some serious work needs to be done in regards to the fiscal imbalance and the Kyoto protocol. In addition, we are demanding that the government apply the 28 recommendations made by the Human Resources Committee with employment insurance.

There is absolutely nothing about the 28 recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

As I was saying earlier, at the time the Bloc Québécois—and my colleague from Chambly—Borduas—said that we were bragging about being the saviours of the unemployed, but that we had sold our soul. I can tell you that we sold our soul for $4.6 billion for Canadians. We sold our soul for $1.6 billion for affordable housing; for $1.5 billion to give students a chance to decrease their debt; for $900 million to help municipalities and the regions with infrastructure; for $500 million to the poorest countries; for $100 million to help workers get training in order to find employment. Today, the Bloc Québécois is selling its soul for nothing. It is a shame because with a minority government we could have obtained changes to employment insurance.

With that I wish you a good day and I ask that the Bloc Québécois vote against the Conservative budget because it ignores workers. I am asking the Bloc to do some soul searching.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst reminds me of a little chihuahua whose bark is worse than his bite. I would also remind the House that, during the last election, he had some problems in his riding. He caught some heat from the Conservatives because the citizens of Acadie—Bathurst were saying that the NDP--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Mississauga South on a point of order.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that all hon. members want to keep some decorum here. It is a parliamentary rule that we cannot attribute animal-like qualities to a member of Parliament. That is unparliamentary. Perhaps the member should withdraw the reference he made to the hon. member as being like a chihuahua.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The member for Mississauga South has some good advice for all members participating in the debate not to attribute these kinds of qualities to other hon. members. I would urge the hon. member for Manicouagan to refrain from anything that might lead to a loss of decorum in the House.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you will understand that I did not compare him to an animal. I was referring to the tone of his speech.

During the last election campaign, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst had some problems in his own riding. In fact, Bill C-48 was negotiated in a hotel room, behind closed doors, with the member for LaSalle—Émard, to amend the finance minister's Bill C-43. Negotiations involved putting money into social housing.

In this budget, there is indeed money for social housing. There is money for students in the form of tax deductions for books. Apprentices who have to buy tools will also benefit from deductions. There is money for post-secondary education. The government acknowledges the fiscal imbalance.

The Bloc Québécois is being asked why it will vote to support this bill, given that there is nothing for employment insurance? The NDP's Bill C-48 contained nothing with respect to employment insurance. That bill was initiated by the NDP.

At least this budget bill was not introduced by the Bloc Québécois, unlike Bill C-48, which was initiated by the leader of the NDP behind closed doors, and it did not mention employment insurance. The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst can expand on this. Voting against this budget would therefore be hypocrisy. Three-quarters of the points raised in Bill C-48 can be found in this budget.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not repeat what the member said about chihuahuas. However, last year, the Bloc Québécois reminded me of a pit bull without teeth. This year, it is the same: a pit bull without teeth, with absolutely no teeth.

Furthermore, they said that during the last election the member for Acadie—Bathurst was in trouble. He garnered 25,000 votes and beat the Liberal by 9,600. Thus, he was not in trouble.

As for Bill C-48, it contained absolutely nothing with regard to employment insurance, but there was $1.6 billion for affordable housing. Yet, the Bloc Québécois voted against this bill. There was $1.5 billion for students, to reduce their debt. The Bloc voted against that bill. There was $900 million to help municipalities, where people cannot even get around on the sidewalks and streets any more. Everyone knows it. Then there is the problem of water and sewage. The Bloc voted against this bill.

As I mentioned earlier, Bloc members were able to vote against the Liberal bill, but how did they dare vote against the NDP bill, a good bill for Canadian citizens? Last year, they decided to join with the Conservatives and they will do it again this year. Based on this, the two parties are somewhat similar.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the member for Acadie—Bathurst for sharing his time with me.

I want to talk about what the budget means to the people who live in Surrey North which is the constituency that I represent, as well as to talk about health and disabilities, the areas for which I am the NDP critic.

What does the budget mean for the people who voted for me? Corporate tax cuts for people in Surrey North are not going to make any difference in how they make ends meet in their lives.

Every budget is about choices. As a result of the choices that the Conservatives have made, working people will have a harder time making ends meet where I live. I know that because the Conservatives chose to tax the family allowance and eliminate the young child supplement.

The real choice in child care is no choice. That is the real choice. Everyone would like to see a larger child allowance of $1,200 for an enhanced child allowance. That would be fine, but let us not play the shell game and pretend that it is child care because it is not child care. Every experience we have had says that business is not going to pick up those incentives and produce child care spaces at the very understated price that has been quoted by the Conservative ministers.

What happens to children over the age of six where the $1,200 stops? Where then is the choice in child care for those children? Are they old enough now to be able to go home by themselves with a key? What about before and after school child care? There is no choice in child care. It is a shell game.

There is no investment in lower tuition fees and student grants. What will that mean in my riding? That will mean that fewer students will have an opportunity to go to college or university.

Another choice the Conservatives made is to spread the funding for the Pacific Gateway Initiative over eight years instead of five. That means that a very important economic part of Surrey which is the South Fraser Perimeter Road will be spread over a longer period of time, which brings sound economics to Surrey because goods get to ports faster.

However, instead of assisting that, the government has spread the amount of time over a longer period, so that the economic boom will not come to Surrey sooner. The budget forecasts a surplus of $83 billion over the next five years. Now is the time to invest in communities like Surrey North that are on the edge and need that additional support.

What does the budget mean to people with disabilities? What is needed is what is absent: home support, education and skills training, and supports in the workplace. It is appalling that supports for people with disabilities are absent from the budget.

What does the budget mean for the health and wellness of all Canadians? If health care is one of the government's top five priorities, why was it barely mentioned in the budget document? I think it took up about three or four paragraphs at the very end of the rest of the discussion.

If it is so important, where is the plan? Where are the imperatives? How is the federal government going to work with the provinces? Where is that information? What is needed is absent. What about critical wait times for alcohol, drug and mental health rehabilitation beds, where persons actually wait longer than they do for many of the surgeries that people are talking about? Again, this is absent from the budget. Where is the national prescription drug strategy recommended in the Romanow report? It is absent.

We have people in this country who die in one province because they cannot get a drug when it is available in the province next to them. That is unconscionable. There is no money for improving home care and for improving long term care which everybody knows is one of the keys to reducing critical wait times.

The best parts of this budget are the investments the NDP secured in the last minority Parliament: spending increases for affordable housing, investment in post-secondary education, and money for improving transit. Those were all NDP initiatives.

Not only is this budget a missed opportunity, but there will be many vital missed opportunities for Canadians and for people in Surrey North as a result of this budget.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right on a couple of her points. Certainly, with regard to the child care issue, the tax credit to corporations will simply not translate into spaces. This is simply a mirage that it somehow represents an increase in child care spaces.

I also want to point out to the member that not for profit organizations will not even be eligible for this tax credit. All of a sudden this somewhat of a mirage. I think the important issue, and I know the Minister of Finance was quite interested in the issue of the guarantee for wait times, is that in this budget there was no new money over and above what already was on the table and delivered to the provinces.

If we were to have a wait time guarantee, as vaguely described by the government, where people would be taken to other provinces, maybe to the United States, there is a substantial cost associated with it which is not even included in the budget. Why is that?

There was an increase in the health budget which was the 6% that was guaranteed in the deal with the provinces for $43 billion. The health minister has left out a massive expenditure for wait time guarantees. This is the flaw of the budget. Health is still the number one priority with Canadians. The minister should have known that. I am sure that this member does.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reinforce the fact that the incentives for business have worked nowhere in North America that we have seen at the kind of costs that people are talking about. We have tried that in Canada. It has been tried in the United States. Why on earth are businesses going to do that?

The Government of British Columbia has only done it once that I am aware of. I think the member opposite is absolutely correct. This is a smoke and mirrors answer to people about creating child care spaces where we will never ever see a child.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments by the member for Surrey North. I enjoyed speaking to the Surrey Chamber of Commerce recently. I imagine that it received our budget well in Surrey, given that it encourages families, small businesses, apprentices and others.

There was lots that was said by the member that I do not quite follow because it was not in the budget and it is not what the budget said. I do take serious objection with what she said about disabilities. If the member were to read the budget, she would see the three specific provisions in the budget for persons with disabilities.

I commend reading the budget to the member for Surrey North, so that she will see that we are increasing the annual child disability benefit from $2,044 to $2,300. She will see that we are extending this benefit so that more families can qualify. She will also see that we are increasing the maximum amount of the refundable medical expense supplement to $1,000 a year from $767 for the 2006 taxation year.

Finally, and this is a very serious item, many parents of children with severe disabilities are concerned about what will happen to their children and how they will be cared for after the parents are gone. I will, as finance minister, appoint a small group of people to examine the tax alternatives in that area this year and to report within six months. If there is constructive action that we can take to address this serious concern of parents in Canada, we will do that.

I ask the member, is she aware of the fact that these items are in the budget? Is she aware of the technical committee that recommended a number of the tax changes and that this budget not only fulfills what the committee asked, but does more?

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I am aware that those are in the budget. We are talking about children. We are also talking about parents with tax credits who have no home care and are putting their children into foster care because they are so exhausted they cannot support their children at home any more.

I am also talking about adults with disabilities who are willing to participate in their communities. They need some skills and education to do that. They need support in the workplace to do that. Those are the kinds of supports I am talking about with regard to people with disabilities. They do not stop at the age of 18. People with disabilities of all ages require support to continue to contribute to their communities.

I suggest to the minister check the number of heartbroken parents who have given up their children to foster care because there is no home support for them.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my team with the member for Cape Breton—Canso.

First, I would like to echo the comments made by the member for Surrey North. I am sure the member would also agree that those issues are important not only to the North Surrey but also to all the people of Surrey and North Delta.

When the Minister of Finance was in my riding, I was very shocked and ashamed that he would not take questions. I was honoured to attend that event, but the minister did not take the questions from the people who attended that luncheon. We would have pointed out the truth, if we had been given an opportunity.

The best thing I can say about the budget is it offers no surprises. When we know what the government is about, that is not exactly good news. The budget is predictable, as predictable as another conviction for a repeat offender.

We knew the government would bring in a one per cent reduction in GST, despite the fact that no credible economist would tell us that this would do anything positive for the Canadian economy. Nor will it provide Canadians with real, measurable savings. It is terrible fiscal policy. It cannot add fire to an already white hot consumer economy. It is bad economics because it discourages personal savings. We knew the government would do it. It looked good in its campaign ad to drop the GST from seven per cent to six per cent. That is a government of optics, not substance.

We knew the government would try to tell Canadians that it had cut income taxes across the board, despite the fact that it has effectively raised the rate paid by the lowest income bracket.

Allow me to translate lowest income bracket. That would be the poorest Canadians. The government has taken away a Liberal tax reduction of 15% and raised the rate paid by those who need a tax break more than anyone else. However, as I said, we knew this would happen. Yet there is no pleasure to be had in saying “I told you so” about the government.

What we did not anticipate was the level of cynicism and contempt this budget shows to Canadians who believe that government can be a force of good in people's lives, that it can project a vision for a real future for all Canadians, that it should not cater to a patchwork collection of resentments, but should foster our hopes and ideals. What do I mean?

Let us take a look at the environment. Let us take a look at the 93% cut to overall funding and the 100% cut to funding for programs that address environmental change. In its place there is nothing but a $10 million tax initiative for biofuels and $370 million over two years for a transit tax credit. It would be laughable if it were not such a tragic betrayal that shows absolute disregard for the well-being of future generations.

However, we know how the government will respond. The environment minister will stand in the House and tell us that it is working on a made in Canada solution to climate change in place of the Kyoto commitment that the Liberal government signed.

This is not the first time we have seen her co-opt the language of true progressive government in order to spin the government's caveman policies. Last year in the House she spoke of not letting any old white guys dictate to young Canadian women how their child care dollars should be spent.

For those who still expect a little more substance in the House than they would expect from Oprah, she was referring to the landmark child care agreements with the provinces, which, last time when I checked, represented all Canadians, regardless of their income or where they live. She was referring to the real plan for child care workers, for child care spaces and for child care programs across the country.

Needless to say, that too is gone in this budget. I am waiting for some old white guy to tell me what it replaces it is anything more than the fistful of dollars a week and a fatally flawed plan to build more spaces.

As well, I am waiting for some old white guy to stand up and explain the betrayal of the Kelowna accord. I am curious as to how the government is going to spin that one. How will the government explain that tragedy? Perhaps the brain trust in the PMO sat down and decided that the people did not vote for them anyway, so they said let us just abandon that historic agreement, which was years in the making. They have taken away the $800 million that would have gone to aboriginal Canadians for this fiscal year and given them $150 million instead. When they complain, the government will pretend not to listen.

Welcome to the Conservative's vision for Canada. It is self-satisfied, small-minded and contemptuous of social justice. It is the people's tax dollars in action, if one could call that action. May I submit that Canadians of all backgrounds are far more respectful of the accord and what it represents than the government imagines. Even those who are relatively new to these shores have a sense of the country's history, a sense of values we all share.

If I may speak for these Canadians right now, the government should be ashamed. It should be ashamed because it had the gall to tell Canadians that it would honour, in spirit, the Kelowna accord, even though we all knew they would abandon it. Perhaps words like honour and spirit embarrass the government. Perhaps it sees no place for the ideals those words evoke. I know how it will respond. It will say that it kept its promises to Canadians, that it did what it said it would do and that there is honour in that.

To that I would say, when the bar is set so low, when the promises are about what will be taken away and what will be denied rather than affirmed, it is less a matter of honour rather than brute predictability. A promise to take the path of least resistance is a promise easily kept. All of this is understandable with that party. One could not expect any better.

Less understandable is the position of the NDP. When the next election is called and when the candidates for that party go door to door, they are sure to find one or two constituents who voted for them. When those constituents meet their candidates at the door, I can imagine the line of questioning, “Now let me get this straight: our Kyoto commitments, gone; the Kelowna accord, gone; the child care agreements, gone; the corporate tax cuts you told us the NDP were going to fight so hard to remove, there they are, back again?” The constituents will want to know why the candidates worked with the Conservatives to bring down the government. The constituents might ask why it was a good idea to abandon everything for which the NDP stood in order to win 10 more seats.

This must be the only real surprise for Canadians, who cherish progressive values, that Canada's achievements could be sold so cheaply, for the price of a little more power like the 10 seats that the NDP got.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the Liberals over there whining about the lack of language in the budget, language that addresses every need and concern, with everything being a priority. Canadians heard about those kinds of budgets for years, with that kind of flowery language that embellishes illusions about all the wonderful things the former government was going to do. It was feeding illusions. That led to a great program like the HRDC boondoggle.

The member mentioned that these programs were gone. I think I heard him say that Kyoto and other programs were gone, but what was gone was money that the Liberals spent on Kyoto while emissions increased by 30%.

Then, meeting these great illusions, they came up with the long gun registry, which did not reduce crime related to gun violence at all, but which wasted a lot of taxpayers' money.

Then, in terms of addressing national unity, another great illusion, money that went into a Liberal sponsorship program ended up going back to the Liberal Party; again, it was money gone and feeding an illusion.

I am wondering what the member thinks when he hears a real budget that actually addresses the concerns of Canadians, who have been overtaxed by the Liberal government for years in order to feed its illusions. This budget, in contrast to Liberal budgets, significantly cuts taxes. It focuses on federal spending and pays down the debt. It is going to provide transit passes to help with environmental concerns. It is going to provide tools for tradespeople and training for new apprentices. It is going to provide textbook and kids' sports credits. What is wrong with a real budget that Canadians are actually enthused about? What does the member just not get?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am sure the hon. member has been in politics for as long as I have. He should look at the Conservative government that left this country broke in 1993. Its international credit was at risk. It was an international credit risk, with $42 billion a year in deficit. It took the previous Liberal government to clean up the mess the Conservatives left behind. We brought in eight consecutive balanced budgets.

[An hon. member]

That's pure Liberal fiction.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

I am not the one saying this. The hon. member and other hon. members who are trying to heckle me should read The Economist magazine, which in fact said that Canada is the second best country to invest in. This is an achievement of the Liberal government of the last 13 years, and I want to tell those hon. members that Canadians kept 11% more after paying taxes than they did in 1993 when the Conservative government left this country dead broke.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question. I heard my hon. colleague's commentary blaming the New Democratic Party for the failures of his own party, which had years of corruption, scandal, and blaming others, as those members quite often do, instead of taking responsibility. It is interesting to note this going on during the whole sponsorship scandal, the Liberal convention and the process leading up to the election.

Ironically, the member for LaSalle—Émard went on television across Canada, in an unprecedented way of reaching the Canadian public, and begged to have an election date. There was a difference of only three weeks in regard to when the election actually occurred. Also, because independents had decided to vote against the government, even if the NDP had voted with the government there were not enough New Democrats to actually make a difference. It is a subtle point of numbers that the hon. member obviously does not appreciate.

I will ask the hon. member and give him a chance to explain this to Canadians: why has his party has not apologized to Canadians for the sponsorship scandal? Second, when are the Liberals are going to take individual responsibility, which is a first step toward improving the situation in this chamber? It is unacceptable to continue to blame others when they do not take responsibility themselves.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is probably one of the longest serving members here and will know that the previous prime minister did an extremely excellent job in calling the Gomery commission, which was an independent, transparent inquiry to address those issues. It was the first time in Canadian history that any prime minister brought a situation such as this to the public's attention in an open and very transparent manner.

Then, as for how the government was brought down, I am sure the member is aware of how those members brought the government down, but on child care and health care, the member now can see that there are zero additional dollars in this budget to address those issues.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate today on behalf of the constituents of Cape Breton--Canso, who have been so kind as to send me to Ottawa for a third term, and speak on their behalf. It is a great honour, a great privilege, one that I know each person who stands in the House understands and respects.

The duty I am tasked with today is to bring to this House the concerns of my constituents about the new government and its budget. Through the many interventions I have heard, either when I was going through my riding or through people contacting my office, a number of concerns about the budget have been brought to my attention.

Various items in the budget have raised flags, and when we look at what has distinguished the party across the way in its new seats as the government, raising flags is not one. It has shown more of an unwillingness to lower flags, but that is a discussion for another day.

Today I want to talk about the shortcomings in the budget and just how offensive it is to Canadians. What it clearly demonstrates is lack of vision and lack of scope and just how limited the new government is, first of all in the Speech from the Throne and then with the budget. Both show just how limited this new government is.

This budget could be termed a retail budget. It looks pretty fancy in the window, but when we drill down and actually try to apply it to our situation at home, we find that it comes up far short. I am going to refer to a number of examples. Really, we can look at this budget as being short-sighted. It is a politically expedient budget, but as far as anything to help this country move forward is concerned, it is very limited. I know that as Canadians we are seeing through the veneer of this budget.

I will start with what a number of government members have referred to: the $500 tax deduction for registration for minor sports. That sounds impressive, but when we drill down, it comes to $80 each year. Is that $80 going to make a difference between a husband and wife registering or not registering their son or daughter in a gymnastics program, a swimming program or minor hockey? I think not. Parents do this because they know the benefit of sports. They know that involving their sons and daughters in sports has a positive impact on them.

As the last government, we did the hard work on this. Rather than just bailing out with a tax deduction, a paltry $80, we worked with provincial and municipal governments and with stakeholders in order to develop infrastructure.

I look at my own backyard and the Port Hawkesbury Civic Centre in my riding. All three levels of government were involved. The community stepped up and built one of the finest facilities not just in Nova Scotia but in all of Atlantic and eastern Canada. It is outstanding. Mothers and fathers can take their children to the indoor ice facility, a full gym facility and a walking track. What we are seeing is that healthy lifestyles are being promoted because of this centre.

Would tax deductions have put this facility there? I think not. We see grandparents taking their young people to this arena, and it is such a beautiful facility that now they themselves are getting back into skating. It is having an impact all the way through.

Money would have been better spent if the government had invested in this type of infrastructure. It also would have better spent if the government had realized one of the promises of their campaign, that being that 1% of the health budget was to be attributed to health and fitness, to fitness and sport. If the government would have delivered on that, it would have increased the sport and fitness budget upwards of $300 million to $400 million, or in that vicinity, almost doubling the budget.

Did we see that in the budget? Again, I think not. There is no sign of it. There is absolutely nothing.

Therefore, the Conservatives stepped back from the infrastructure aspect of developing sport and fitness and they threw this $500 out the window, which is really $80 when we come to pay the tab.

We need to ask ourselves, what are tax deductions for? Because we want an impact. We want some kind of change.

This deduction is all about winning votes. It is not about getting kids more active in this country. It is not about addressing obesity in this country. It is politically motivated and we know it.

I have another example of the same thing, of retail politics and a retail budget: post-secondary education and support for post-secondary learning. This support is absent from the budget.

The Conservatives did come up with a tax deduction for books. When we get out our pen and paper and figure it out, we see that each Canadian student might get one free book each year. Is that going to make a difference? When mom and dad sit down with their sons and daughters to talk about whether or not they will embark on a post-secondary education and acquire something that is necessary in this new economy, is that free book going to make the difference? I do not think so.

Under the past government, initiatives were taken to address those who actually were in a situation where they were trying to make that decision. We can look at the millennium scholarship fund, the educational savings bond and the low income educational bond. There were those initiatives.

As well, there was the investment in research and development, which is where the past government got it and the new government has missed the boat. We are all aware of the brain drain from Canada in the early to mid-1990s. The hot topic, the most offensive thing and one of the greatest challenges we have ever experienced was the brain drain. The best and brightest went elsewhere to pursue research and development opportunities. We saw the best and the brightest go to other countries.

However, there were investments through the late 1990s. Investments were made after the financial mess was cleaned up and we were in a position where we could reinvest those dollars. Investments were made in post-secondary education. Investments were made in research and development. We stemmed that tide. We reversed that tide. Now we have people coming from other countries to study and do research in this country. That is why our post-secondary institutions have moved ahead.

The unemployment rate is at a 30 year low right now. That does not happen by accident. What prompts it is that governments are able to work with the stakeholders, with the people who know what tools are necessary on the ground. Governments give them tools. That is what the past government was able to do and that is what this government lacks in this budget.

The amount of our investment in research and development was the highest in the G-7. That is going to position us to go for a while. I hope the damage from this budget will not be too bad in the immediate future.

I know my time is running short, but I would have liked to get going on child care. The Conservatives talk about choice, but there is no choice. When we talk about development, I will say that the past government believed in investing in the development of new spaces and in the professionals on the ground, in working with young people in early education intervention.

Those are the things that each province in this country, all 10 provinces, sat down and worked with the federal government on in order to develop the core values of a child care platform. They signed off on those deals and the rug was pulled out from under them by the government. The government has come up with the $1,200 deduction, which really equates to about $800.

This budget falls far short, and that is why I will not be supporting it when it comes time to vote.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the statements of my hon. colleague opposite with some shock and some surprise actually.

I am very familiar with sitting in the opposition benches. This is my fourth term here. I sat over there for three terms. I can remember standing during budget speeches and speaking about the good parts of the Liberals' budget plans. I recognized the positive points and I also recognized the negative points. I voted for some budgets and I voted against some budgets, but there is no reciprocity here. Apparently there is nothing in the budget that the hon. member can support. I know it is difficult for the hon. member but I am going to ask him to be specific.

On the budget plan for students, we are eliminating the federal income tax on all income for students from scholarships, bursaries and fellowships. That is a very simple project. The Liberals had 13 years to do it and they could not do it. For a student with a significant bursary, that is $4,000, $5,000 or $6,000 more money per year in their pockets. That is real money for education. That is a help for students.

We are going to give a textbook credit. I know the hon. member said that did not count, that it was not important, but if a student can write off $500 for textbooks, that is significant.

Why would the member not support those two parts of the budget?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I guess what my hon. colleague is asking of me and what I will have to ask myself is whether they have gone far enough. The answer is simply absolutely not. They come up far too short. The provisions for the students are not enough. We are looking at savings of maybe $80 on a textbook.

What we put forward in the last election was $6,000 in cash to students for tuition for the first year, to encourage students to pursue and post-secondary education, and on the final year of a degree to also cover half the tuition fee, up to a maximum of $3,000. We did that to encourage students to complete their post-secondary education. That would go much further in helping young students.

I will use the $80 deduction. I have three boys in sports. They play hockey and soccer. I am like many other dads across this country.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Then don't take the deduction.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will appreciate that, but is it going to make any kind of difference in whether or not my kids are going to take part in sports?

The budget falls so far short. The budget lacks vision. For the consultations the Conservatives must have gone to Sunnyvale Trailer Park with Ricky, Julian and Bubbles to get the depth, the scope and the broad-thinking range for a budget such as this one.