Debates of June 8th, 2006

Opposition Motion--The Economy

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the NDP will be supporting the motion today.

I have a number of questions and a number of concerns. My colleague said that the Conservative government failed to live up to the Kelowna accord and disregarded 18 months of work. The problem I have with that is that I happen to know that it was more than 18 months of work that led to the Kelowna accord.

I can recall at the first cabinet meeting in December 2003 that the then prime minister, now the MP for LaSalle--Émard, made it very clear that the grave problem we have in this country in relation to aboriginal people would be the top priority for him. My hon. colleague suggested that it was only during a period of a minority government when supposedly the NDP had more influence that there was a concern about this. The fact is there was a real concern before that. The Liberal government did a lot of work, particularly the member for Fredericton who was the minister of Indian affairs at that time, to achieve that accord. It was a very important accord.

My hon. colleague should also recognize that the NDP, in choosing to defeat the government last December and put in place instead a Conservative government, has played a big role, as I am sure most Canadians recognize, in killing the Kelowna accord and the Kyoto accord.

Earlier today, in the committee on human resources and social development, a Conservative MP said that the solution to unemployment in Atlantic Canada was to move them all to Alberta. Is that her view of what the solution should be?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit disingenuous for the member to talk about the NDP bringing down the government when it was the Canadian people who voted the Liberals out. I need to remind the member that the former prime minister had committed to going to the polls within two months anyway. I wonder what miracles the Liberals thought they might actually perform within two months.

The other issue is that the Liberals had 13 years to address these problems. On May 12, the Auditor General provided the aboriginal affairs committee with a list outlining a litany of Auditor General's reports that talked about deficiencies in the way the government had been working with first nations communities. The work may have been going on for more than 18 months but the lack of results over 13 years in terms of making any kind of difference is shameful.

I would welcome this House reaffirming the Kelowna accord, which had different levels of governments at the table negotiating it: representatives from provincial governments, first nations' organizations and the federal government. When we are talking about the Kelowna accord we are talking about the honour of the Crown. I would urge the House to rethink its position around that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging that both the member for Nanaimo--Cowichan and I represent ridings that are in the traditional territory of the Cosalish people.

I would like my colleague to comment on an aspect of the Kelowna accord, which often gets lost around here in debate, and that is the fact that there is a signed agreement between the first nations of British Columbia, the federal government and the province of British Columbia to implement the Kelowna accord, which is called the transformative change accord. Part of the actual structure of the document sets out defined goals and measurable outcomes.

We have heard in the past the Minister of Indian Affairs saying that he wanted to work toward an agreement that had measurable goals and definable outcomes. We have that already. We have a signed document that all of the first nations representatives, the First Nations Leadership Council, which is composed of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, and the First Nations Summit, all signed onto. It is structured in just the way the Minister of Indian Affairs has asked it to be structured.

Does my colleague know why the government will not recognize this important agreement?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the transformative change accord was signed by three levels of government, the federal government, the provincial government and the first nations, was based on the fact that people thought in good faith that the event that happened in November, the very real attempt to close the poverty gap for first nations across this country, was a done deal. There were many witnesses to that agreement. The province of British Columbia moved forward believing that the honour of the Crown would be upheld and that the agreement would move forward in good faith.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this motion put forward by the Liberals. I thank my hon. colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan for sharing her allotted time with me.

This motion touches on many of the goals we, in the NDP, have been proposing for a long time. In fact, that is the problem: it only touches on the issues. There is something disturbing in that because, with its eight-year run of record surpluses, the Liberal government could have afforded to put money where its mouth was, especially in the area of post-secondary education.

The tone of the motion, as it stands, seems to be one of resignation in the face of the astronomical tuition fees charged in some provinces. The reason for this might be that the cuts to post-secondary education imposed by the Liberals themselves are responsible for tuition fees skyrocketing. The average increase across Canada is 35%, and 141% in British Columbia, where I live.

Under the Liberals, the portion of the universities' operating budget represented by tuition fees increased from 20% to 30%. In the mid-1980s, the government covered 80% of the costs of post-secondary education, as compared to a mere 57% today. It is no coincidence that the chance of children from low income families getting into a post-secondary establishment is less than half that of children from high income families.

It comes as no surprise then that the number of students forced to work full time while studying full time increased by 130% since 1994. Tuition fees are simply too high. It is no coincidence either there is such a shortage of physicians. Under the Liberals, the average tuition fees for medical school have more than tripled, reaching $13,000 per year.

This motion seems more than a little disingenuous. Having the Liberals call for investments to reduce tuition fees is a bit like the Grinch calling for investments in Christmas gifts in Whoville.

Nevertheless, this motion does speak to actions that the NDP values. I deeply believe in the importance of Canada's human capital. The G-8 ministers meeting on post-secondary education and skills training in Moscow highlighted its importance in building an innovative, prosperous society.

All G-8 education ministers agreed to four key objectives: advancing the education for all agendas, supporting the role education plays in empowering migrants and immigrants, developing skills for life and work through quality education, and building innovative societies.

One important aspect I took away from these meetings relates to the role of learning in promoting social cohesion and justice. I thought of the report by the Canada Council on Learning which gave Canada a grade of B- on its first ever composite learning index. This index goes beyond learning in terms of basic knowledge skills like reading and writing, and beyond tangible skills like trades. It speaks of learning to live together and learning to be, and I think the events in Toronto, the arrests of the 17 young people, really highlight the importance of these skills and of social cohesion.

This report also spoke of volunteering and community involvement, culture and physical well-being. All of these learning sets contribute to a socially cohesive and just society. What this means in a practical context to the individual Canadian and to Canadian communities is that for us to prosper in economic as well as social terms, we need to expand our concept of prosperity more broadly.

We need to include the families struggling to find decent housing and the aboriginal student who cannot afford tuition. When this motion mentions broad-base prosperity, it means including and empowering everyone, especially new Canadians.

It also means funding research in the social sciences and humanities at the same level that we fund health sciences and the sciences and technology in general.

Currently, social sciences receive 11% of overall research funding for well over 50% of total students. Whether it is understanding the intellectual development of children to improve our child care system, determining the sources of the terrorist mentality or improving our political system, our society clearly benefits from studying the humanities. I would have liked this motion to ask for equitable funding for all councils to account for the gap of funding to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

I would also like to speak to another deficiency. It is the need for an overhaul of our convoluted, inflexible student aid system. It desperately needs it. The Association of Canadian Community Colleges recommends, for example, transforming the Canada student loans program into a new learner support system guided by the principles of universality, simplicity and flexibility, and including a comprehensive low income grant program.

In addition to accessibility, quality of education is important. The student to faculty ratio rose by 26% under the Liberals and faculty salaries, as a percentage of university operating expenditures, fell by 29%. Class sizes are exploding and the quality of instruction is compromised. We are graduating more people with degrees, but we are not necessarily helping our broad-base prosperity.

Finally, I would like to touch on literacy which is inexplicably absent from the motion. Like the composite learning index, the modern concept of literacy extends beyond reading and writing which is required in order for individuals to be productive and well-adjusted members of our society. We all know the statistic that 42% of working aged Canadians do not have the literacy skills to function effectively in a modern society and economy. The number of Canadians with low literacy levels has risen from eight million to nine million in the past 10 years. That was confirmed this morning by the staff from Human Resources and Social Development Canada at the committee meeting.

I would have expected the motion, on the part of the Liberals, to finally recognize the role of literacy in a comprehensive learning strategy by including, for example, a pan-Canadian strategy on literacy, including multi-year stable funding.

To conclude, I will support the motion because it does recognize the role of social investment in our country's prosperity. However, the flaws in the motion are the very flaws of the Liberal record. I hope that the new Conservative government recognizes this in moving forward in setting policy in these areas.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I note in the member's comments some concerns around access to post-secondary education, particularly as it relates to tuition fees. I look back and see the commitments of this government with respect to breaking down barriers for post-secondary education. There are a number of initiatives, I believe, that actually speak directly to that point and in fact, speak to the point that was brought forward in today's motion.

Principally, looking at supports, we recognize that tuition fees specifically are not something that are in the federal government's jurisdiction but in the hands of the provinces. We can look at student loan programs this year that will effectively allow 30,000 additional students from middle-income families to receive eligibility for loans. There is another $3.2 billion available in direct supports for students and families to seek access. That is of course on top of the $15.5 billion that is already there in social transfers that go directly to the provinces.

Does the member not think that those kinds of supports would speak to addressing the issue of support for tuition fees?

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, there were some first steps in the Conservative budget, particularly as it relates to skills training, but it fell far short of a comprehensive strategy for skills training to prepare young people for the new economy, and to help older workers to become reskilled in new technology. It also fell far short of overhauling the loan and grant system of which I believe students are badly in need.

The Conservative government simply raised the ceiling on debt possibilities, so basically it simply allows students to get into deeper debt than they are in already. I do not see that as a great innovation. I think a broader and more comprehensive overhaul of the loan and grant system is what is needed at the moment.

There was also $1.5 billion that was negotiated under Bill C-48 with the previous government. The intent of that was clearly to set money aside to reduce tuition fees and increase accessibility. This government has chosen not to apply the money to reduce student debt. It has simply put it to infrastructure. It is an important component, but it does not address the accessibility issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague mentioned as well the need for increased funding for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. As a matter of fact, I was at a talk this morning, sponsored by the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences, on the important issue of racial profiling. It highlights some of the very important work that needs to be supported by the federal government.

I want to come back to her comments about literacy and the importance of literacy as a human capital issue, an issue that goes to the whole importance of social cohesion and justice in our society. I was shocked to hear that she heard this morning in committee that the rate of illiteracy in Canada has actually risen over the past year. I wonder if she could comment further about that revelation this morning and about the situation regarding literacy in Canada.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we heard in committee this morning was in fact that low literacy levels have risen from eight million to nine million Canadians. In fact, in percentage in the past 10 years, it means that the rate of illiteracy in Canada has remained static. By illiteracy I do not mean that people cannot write their names or count to 10. I am talking about the ability to function in this economy of knowledge. This percentage has remained absolutely static, we are told by staff, in the past 10 years. It really begs for policies that will foster and nurture literacy, that will allow older workers to re-skill themselves to allow them to function at the level that they are capable of doing.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the distinguished member for Scarborough—Guildwood, the gentleman who last night brought forward a great private member's bill that I hope the House adopts.

I welcome this opportunity to speak to the motion put forward by my colleague and good friend from Halifax West. For me there is no more important issue in Canada today than this one, the education of all Canadians at all stages of their life, but in particular, educating and preparing young Canadians for the globally competitive world in which we now exist.

The motion speaks to this in a way that has not been addressed by the government in its own narrow five priorities. In fact, it is staggering to me and I think staggering to a lot of Canadian families that education is not considered a priority by the government.

I have spoken on many occasions in the House about the value of investing in education and research and, in particular, investing in young Canadians. It is unfortunate that the recent budget put politics above policy. It seems that it is more important these days on the government side to be seen to be doing something rather than actually making decisions that would impact Canadians in a real and positive way.

The heart of the challenge that faces Canada, which is to increase productivity and to continue a standard of life for Canadians that frankly we have become accustomed to, is going to be, more and more, a challenge in a world that no longer offers a free pass to success.

As Jeffrey Simpson said recently:

The world out there isn't standing still. Only by improving the human skills of the population and making the investment climate more attractive can Canada compete better. By that standard, this [federal] budget is strangely irrelevant.

Other members will speak to the great success that we have achieved as a nation in the areas of research and innovation in the past seven or eight years. In fact, members of the government will no doubt agree with their own budget documents, which state the following on page 36:

--the federal government has increased its support for post-secondary education research, with nearly $11 billion in incremental funding. These investments have assisted Canadian universities in strengthening their research capacity and building a global reputation for excellence, which has helped reverse the “brain drain” and attract leading researchers to Canada. Canada now ranks first in the G7...in terms of research and development....

Of course those are not my words. Those are the words of the current government, which quite rightly applauds the work of the previous government on this issue.

In my capacity as chair of the government caucus on post-secondary education and research, I had the opportunity last year to travel Canada. I heard similar stories from coast to coast, stories of universities that were facing difficult times but were saved by these direct federal investments and that in fact have thrived under these investments.

These investments have had a huge impact in a positive way on our universities, a huge impact in a positive way on our nation and a huge impact in a positive way in our regions. For example, ACOA and the Atlantic investment fund have done a great job of building capacity in Atlantic Canada. These investments also have had a great and positive impact in our communities. In my own community last year, Research In Motion, RIM, announced that it would be setting up a plant in Halifax and it credited the ongoing commitment of the federal government to research and innovation as the key reason for its success.

The day after the Conservative budget was released, the Globe and Mail outlined how successful Canada's economy has been in the last number of years and also offered some free advice to the government. It listed the areas that were most important for investment in Canada if our success is to continue. The top two areas it cited were education and the environment.

We all know what the Conservatives have done to the environment agenda by eliminating the Kyoto protocol and going with its made in Canada solution, which is really no solution whatever, but like the government, I am not focusing on the environment. Unlike the government, I will focus on post-secondary education and research.

I want to talk about student access. Providing access is essential.

In a recent op-ed piece, Ian Boyko of the Canadian Federation of Students stated:

--the Government of Canada estimates that 74% of new jobs created this year will require post-secondary education. Sadly, the government today lacks its predecessor's vision for access to education.

I agree with the CFS on a wide range of issues, perhaps not all but most, and I have worked closely over the past couple of years with its leadership. It rightly points out that despite our efforts in the past, and some successes, we remain a nation where it is the case that access to education is still a national problem.

It is certainly a problem in my own province of Nova Scotia, which has the highest tuitions in the country. In the maritime provinces, student debt skyrocketed by 33% in five years. I am not advocating that the federal government has a direct role in setting tuition. To me, that is not the case at all.

However, the federal government does have a role, along with the provinces, in the area of student assistance. We can do this by implementing across the board grants that would bridge the opportunity gap between those who have and those who have not. These direct investments, along with other measures, would assist Canadians most in need.

When it comes to post-secondary education, we are talking about low income Canadians, persons with disabilities and aboriginal Canadians. Last fall I was very proud when the finance minister introduced his economic update, which included massive investments into direct student assistance. It included a number of elements: $1 billion to the provinces and territories for post-secondary innovation; $2.2 billion for student financial assistance, targeted to low income Canadians; and over a half a billion dollars to expand the Canada access grants for low income Canadians to cover all years of an undergraduate education. It included, and to me this is very important, $265 million to assist Canadians with disabilities, as well as $2.5 billion in new funding to sustain Canada's leadership in research.

There were a number of investments. Overall it was a $9 billion package to invest in upgrading Canadian skills and capabilities. I think it was the single biggest plan for post-secondary education and research that has ever been introduced in Parliament.

That federal economic update was a sweeping plan for post-secondary education that built on Bill C-48 of last year, the arrangement between the government and the New Democratic Part that was included in the budget. Bill C-48, as many will recall, included an element of post-secondary education, and said that it was “for supporting training programs and enhancing access to post-secondary education, to benefit, among others, aboriginal Canadians, an amount not exceeding $1.5 billion”.

The fall economic update went way beyond Bill C-48. It would have made a huge difference in the lives of Canadian students. Unfortunately, of course, it is gone, replaced by an election and a new budget that provides little if anything for most students, certainly nothing for students most in need. On the issue of accessibility, there is nothing.

In the finance committee last week when the Minister of Finance appeared, I asked him regarding Bill C-48 what happened to the money, what happened to the $1.5 billion? His first response was that it was not $1.5 billion, but a billion. I said, “No, I have it here, Mr. Minister”. I asked him if the investment in infrastructure, which is really all there is in the budget, was from Bill C-48 and if that equated to student access. His response was that it did. In my view and in the view of most Canadians, infrastructure does not equate to access.

We do need investments in post-secondary infrastructure and research. We have made them and we will continue to make them as a nation, I hope, although the budget of the Conservative government has one-tenth of the money dedicated to research that the economic update had.

We need investments in research and we need investments in infrastructure, but one cannot suggest, based on any evidence that I have seen, that investments in infrastructure equate directly to investment in student access. A tax credit on books and scholarships simply makes no difference to those most in need, many of whom do not make enough to pay income tax anyway.

The evidence shows that federal education tax measures disproportionately favour high income earners and do not do enough to improve access to post-secondary education. The tax credit on books is $80. As for $80 for a student in my home province of Nova Scotia who is paying anywhere from $6,000 to $8,000 a year for an undergraduate degree, I would suggest that not only is it not particularly helpful, it is actually insulting.

We have come a huge way in Canada through direct federal investment in our post-secondary institutions. We have reversed the brain drain, built capacity and spurred economic growth. Our challenge now is to ensure that we do everything possible to ensure that Canadians have every opportunity to develop their skills. It will not happen through tinkering with taxes.

We have taken some steps, but now there is a confluence of events with the emerging economies, the productivity crunch, the investments made to date, and the massive surplus. It is time to take action. Direct support to students in need is good for students, but it is very good for Canada as well. I would say that it is absolutely vital. The government is asleep at the switch on this critical issue. It is time to wake up, follow the lead of the Liberal government and invest in our students now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question about post-secondary education because I found his comments to be a little ironic. I know that the member is concerned about post-secondary education, but I find it ironic, given that the former Liberal government started racking up huge budget surpluses back in 2000, yet the Liberals took no initiative to deal with the crisis in post-secondary education, the rising student debt and the high costs of tuition. In fact after he was first elected, the first Liberal budget did absolutely nothing to address the crisis in post-secondary education. The only measure of assistance to students was assistance to dead students where it allowed for loan forgiveness.

It took until the dying days of the last government, with its economic statement which was not really even a budget, but was a pre-election goody package, to address some of these issues. In fact the Liberals' own timing was only a month or so before the election would have been called in any case as the former prime minister had announced.

Given the member's concerns, how disappointed was he in his own government that no action was taken despite the fact that there were huge budget surpluses and despite the fact that huge corporate tax cuts continued throughout the term after he was even elected?

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the member in committee. He is usually much better prepared than he is today in suggesting that we have not done anything for students. Really and truly it is not that hard to find out. There is the Canada learning bond, the millennium scholarships, increased education credit, Canada study grants. We have done a number of things for students and they have been targeted at students who need assistance. What we have done on a more macro level in education is to go from the worst in the G-7 to the best in creating jobs for Canadians through innovation and research and reversing the brain drain. It is absolutely wrong to say we have not done anything.

We do have an issue now of accessibility. We addressed it last year. Bill C-48 took a little step, but it was enabling legislation. We followed that up with the economic update which had sweeping investments in students who most needed the help.

I have heard the NDP suggest that it was only a difference of two months. In that two months we would have passed the economic update. We would have helped the aboriginal Canadian students. We would have helped low income students. We would have helped students with disabilities. We would have had a review of the entire student financing. For the sake of two months, with NDP support, Canadians could have enjoyed their Christmas and we could have passed these massive investments for Canadian students and made a huge difference for those who need assistance.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed to see such a motion being presented in the House. This motion is from the Liberal Party that, once again, wants to encroach on the jurisdictions of Quebec.

Post-secondary education is Quebec's responsibility. The Conservative Party has made some progress with regard to the fiscal imbalance by transferring money to Quebec and the provinces to increase funding for post-secondary education. This motion shows clearly that the federal government wants to interfere in the area of education, which is Quebec's responsibility.

I will ask my colleague a question. Why does the motion not say anything about the textile industry, for which the Liberals did very little while they were in power? Currently, industries such as the furniture industry are threatened. Competition from Asia increasingly reduces the ability of these industries to face this kind of competition.

Why did the Liberal Party not propose, in its motion, measures that the government could take in areas under its jurisdiction to help critical sectors of our economy?

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, universities across Canada, including in Quebec, have applauded the federal government's moves in the last number of years to invest in research and innovation. That is what has made a huge difference.

He asked whether we should be bringing in a dedicated education transfer. It is something the government has promised. We have not seen any evidence of it yet or any money allocated to it. I would support a dedicated education transfer, but I would always argue that a dedicated transfer itself is like an empty glass if there is no money in it. Where is the money? If the money goes all to the provinces, that would do nothing to bridge the gap between the rich provinces and the poor provinces. Nova Scotia and other provinces like it would continue to suffer.

We have shown through research and to a limited way in direct student assistance that the federal government has a role to play in assisting Canadian students. Going forward I want to see that federal role continue because Canadian students need the assistance and they deserve the assistance.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to participate in the debate on the motion. It is an important motion and reflects a lot of thinking on the part of my colleague from Dartmouth. It reflects in some great measure his concern and abilities with respect to the post-education file.

I would like to make my observation with respect to the fiscal fairy dust that passes for economics in this particular government. The critic from the NDP will appreciate that this is fiscal fairy dust. The government simply spreads a little fairy dust around and says that up is up, up is down, down is up, 15% is actually bigger than 16%, 16% is actually less than 15%, and a base personal exemption of something like $400, an increase in the base personal exemption is actually tax relief.

I am sure my colleague will join me in trying to root ourselves in reality. She will know, as do the rest of us, that in November 2005 the Liberal government actually reduced the base personal rate, the lowest rate at which Canadians pay taxes, from 16% to 15%.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are an educated man and that you will appreciate that 16% is actually higher than 15% and 15% is actually lower than 16%. I see you nodding in the affirmative. That makes me question how you can continue to belong to that government.

The reduction was by way of a ways and means motion and was effective for the 2005 taxation year. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I know you have been a good Canadian citizen and have paid your taxes this year. You will recollect that on your income tax return there was a section with respect to the basic personal exemption and with respect to the 16% being reduced to 15%. In fact, it was highlighted in red. In the normal course of events that would have been enshrined in legislation. However, as we well know, the Liberal government was defeated and a new budget was introduced. In this wonderful little world of neoconville, where up is down and down is up, and lower is higher and higher is lower, Bill C-13 actually raised the rates that were set out in the ways and means motion.

I appreciate that 15.5% is actually somewhat more than 15% and somewhat less than 16%, but we are splitting hairs here. This is in fact a budget which raised the basic personal exemption and raised the base rate from 15% to 15.5%. It is a kind of nasty little surprise for Canadians. The surprises will just continue, but only in Conservative fiscal economics, this fairy dust I was referring to. Only grade 3 dropouts actually believe that 16% is less than 15%.

Canadians are in for another little nasty surprise and that is with respect to the basic personal exemption or base personal allowance, as it is known, the BPA. Scheduled into the ways and means motion was a further reduction or in fact a rise of $200 in the base personal allowance which was scheduled for 2006.

However, Canadians will find that on July 1 their pay packets will actually shrink. The base personal allowance will actually be wound back by about $400 in order to fund the 1% in the GST cut. Will that not be a bit of a surprise? I cannot recollect in the election if the Conservatives actually campaigned on that point, that they would actually raise personal income taxes in order to be able to fund the GST cut, but maybe, Mr. Speaker, you have access to fiscal reality which maybe none of the rest of us have.

I want to set this out in a very clear and cogent statement by Dale Orr from Global Economics. You will know, Mr. Speaker, as does the NDP critic, that Dale Orr is no friend of the Liberal Party. I will quote him:

Budget 2006 claimed “about 665,000 low-income Canadians will be removed from the tax rolls altogether”. About 350,000 of those 665,000 were estimated to be removed because of the “tax relief” on the Basic Personal Amount provided by Budget 2006.

Budget 2006 didn't really provide tax relief on the BPA. Budget 2006 actually caused the BPA to be only $8,839 for 2006 when it otherwise would have been $9,039.

That is a difference of a couple of hundred dollars.

Rather than the change in the BPA of Budget 2006 and removing about 350,000 Canadians from the tax rolls altogether, the change in BPA of Budget 2006 will actually cause about 200,000 Canadians, who thought they wouldn't be on the tax rolls in 2006...to be pushed back onto the tax rolls. What the Finance Minister did not say in presenting Budget 2006 was, “Mr. Speaker, with this reduction in the tax free amount from current levels, I have today pushed about 200,000 of the lowest income Canadians back onto the tax rolls”.

That would not have been very nice. I agree with Mr. Orr in his analysis. It does not really have a nice ring to it and I did not see it in the budget speech. It was not one of those items in the speech or in the campaigning that led up to the speech, or indeed in the election campaign, that actually said that the government was going to shove 200,000 people back onto the tax rolls, people who had every reason to expect they would be removed from the tax rolls based upon the November update.

I always try to be fair, so the counter argument is the work related credit. Employees are going to get a credit come July 1. People who are employed will get the credit, but if people are not employed, if they are seniors, are self-employed, are about to be employed or about to be unemployed, the credit will be absolutely useless. We will see that rates go up and the base personal allowance will come down.

Welcome to the fiscal la-la land of the Conservative Party. The choice is whether people want to have $150 in their pockets in absolute terms from the November update, or whether they want to spend another $150 or better on acquiring more goods and services in order to get back the 1% that has been promised. It is a strange set of economics. Personally, if it were up to me and I guess it is not, I would prefer to have $150 in my pocket and forget the GST.

Why is this fiscal fraud important? I want go back to the motion, which states in part:

--in the opinion of the House, future Canadian economic growth and broad-based prosperity demand--in addition to a competitive tax regime (especially in relation to income tax rates and brackets) and the strategic positioning of Canada at the centre of global commerce and networks--focused and immediate investments by the government--

Without a competitive economy, wealth and jobs, all the rest is simply academic; it is entirely hot air. If we do not have a prosperous economy based upon knowledge and the hard work of Canadians, none of this stuff will be possible.

When one wastes scarce resources, one cannot do the necessary things one wants to do for planning. If the government is not prudent with the tax dollars which it is given by hard-working Canadians, then it will not be able to do anything, such as fund research institutions. The government argues that the private sector will magically pick up the slack. If that is true, then why was Canada dead last under the previous Conservative government and through the hard work of the Liberal government we became number one in the G-7 in research and development?

Researchers have options. Their research can be done anywhere in the world. One does not need a degree in economics to know that if wealth is not generated on the basis of brain power, there will be no wealth at all, because the emerging economies of China, India and Brazil will pick up the slack. One can ship a piece of lumber to China and have it come back as a piece of furniture cheaper, just because of the differential in labour cost.

The government has resisted the opportunity to have a universal day care system. Having a universal medical system in this country is worth, in the manufacture of a car, about the equivalent of the steel that is in the car. It is a huge competitive advantage. Having universal day care is also a huge competitive advantage and we have given up the opportunity to have that huge competitive advantage.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from the Liberal Party with great interest and I certainly want to agree with him that when we are looking at the Conservative fiscal policies, we have serious questions.

Whether I would go so far as to suggest that this is fiscal fairy dust, I think the term more aptly applies to the Liberals when they were in government and running the show. In fact, if fiscal fairy dust can be applied to the Conservatives at all, which I would probably be inclined to do, I think we could conclude that the Conservatives learned a great deal from the previous government. The Liberals were masters at fiscal fairy dust.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Is there a question in there somewhere?

[Wasylycia-Leis]

Yes, there are many questions. Let us go back to a couple of years ago, when the $1.9 billion surplus projected by the Liberal government turned out to be $9.1 billion.

It seems to me, if we are looking at fiscal fairy dust, that is probably about the best example around. Or, we might consider the sum of $80 billion in fiscal surpluses over a decade when the Liberals were in government because they were not able to accurately forecast the fiscal dividend and give Canadians a share of the surplus dollars that were available.

We might also remind Canadians that it was under the Liberals that we started seeing the balance shift away from the corporate share of paying for our budget to individuals. My question for my dear friend in the Liberal Party is this. How can he justify such hypocrisy?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in answering my dear friend. I did not know we had become all that friendly, but after two and a half years on the finance committee, I guess we are in fact quite cozy.

The NDP members of course never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. They have this wonderful antagonism to prudence. They do not like to plan, to balance, and to forecast on the basis of putting in a level of prudence. In fact, the previous government did put a level of prudence into each and every budget, and thankfully for the last eight years we have actually run surpluses.

If we had not run those surpluses, we would still be in the same and possibly even worse shape, having a debt to GDP ratio of somewhere up around 70% as opposed to what it is now, which is around 40%. However, not the NDP members, they do not want to pay down debt when we have that opportunity.

With respect to the mix between corporate taxes and personal income taxes, in fact the share of corporate taxes has been rising as a percentage of GDP over the last number of years. It is a strange concept. When we create a competitive tax environment, Canadians get out and work, they actually generate wealth, and that wealth is taxed. It is better for the government. It is better for the citizens. The debt gets paid down and we are all better off. However, those notions are completely lost on the folks who are lost in fiscal la la land.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought that was a tremendous intervention by my colleague.

When we think back several years ago, I know the major concern that was shared across this country with regard to education, really lending itself to productivity, was the fact that there was an ongoing brain drain, and some of our best and brightest were going out of our country to seek research opportunities in the United States.

I know that the previous government had invested considerably in trying to maintain the best and the brightest here in Canada, and give them opportunities. For the most part there was significant progress made on that piece.

Does the hon. member see the folly in the government's action or inaction in this past budget, where it is not getting out ahead of the trend, ahead of the curve, in preparing the country and preparing Canadians for what is further down the road?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is probably one of the greatest tragedies of the budget. If I were an exaggerating individual, I would say it is virtually criminal. Canada dragged itself from being virtually dead last in the G-7 for research and development to number one, and it was done primarily through the funding in foundations for innovation and things of that nature.

This is, at this point, the number one place in the world to do publicly funded research. I will share with my hon. colleague a conversation I had with the former president of the University of Toronto. The University of Toronto in particular, but universities generally across the country have benefited hugely. He said there were two things that reversed the brain drain and made it a brain gain. The first was September 2001 and researchers began to look at Canada as an alternative North American destination. However, the most significant of which was the funding of these foundations, so that researchers had access to a steady flow of capital in order to be able to do their thing. Therefore, U of T was able to be right in the game with the best of them.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in the debate on this motion today. I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain.

I would like to tell the member for Halifax West that I share his desire to ensure that our children, our students, our families and our country have the best possible prospects for the future. That is why I am pleased to be part of a government whose goal is to build a stronger and more united Canada.

It is often said that a government’s first 100 days are crucial. I think we can say, in all humility, that we have successfully completed that important stage, and this augurs very well for the future. The people in my riding and elsewhere in Quebec tell us that it is very pleasant to see a government that keeps its promises at work. As a Quebecker, I also find it very interesting to hear the Prime Minister of Canada talking about open federalism as he does. Last month, for example, he said, and I quote:

That’s what open federalism is all about—a stronger Quebec in a better Canada—and that is what this new national government intends to deliver. Open federalism does not seek to play favourites or stir up jealousies. Open federalism represents an opportunity to free Quebec from the trap of polarization.

That says a lot about the Prime Minister’s intentions. It is not just his words that strike a chord in Quebec, the actions of the government he leads do as well.

In a short time, we have made an agreement with the Government of Quebec that will enable Quebec to play an historic role in UNESCO. Next, we also put an end to the softwood lumber dispute that had for too long paralyzed our producers and damaged our economy. That agreement will allow us to bring $4 billion back into Canada, and will have positive effects in regions like the Gaspé, Abitibi-Témiscamingue or Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, where the forestry industry plays a major economic role. In fact, everyone who sits in this House and who believes in the future of Canada cannot help but applaud results like these.

Speaking of the future, I would like to come back to the motion tabled by my hon. colleague. Today, he is asking what the government is doing so that the Canadian economy will thrive in the 21st century. If I understand his lengthy motion correctly, he is also asking what we are doing to promote greater access to post-secondary education and to help the work readiness of people like immigrants and older workers, who must overcome very specific barriers. The simplest answer I can give him is that we are acting, and we are acting responsibly and effectively and targeting our actions.

The budget tabled recently by the Minister of Finance is eloquent evidence of this. First, the budget proposes targeted measures so that the largest possible number of Canadians will be able to get a post-secondary education. Starting in August 2007, eligibility for the Canada Student Loan Program will be expanded by reducing the deemed parental contribution. This measure will enable about 30,000 more young people to get a post-secondary education at a college or university in Canada. As well, a new $500 tax credit for buying textbooks will apply to all post-secondary students. And we will be eliminating the current $3,000 cap on the amount of bursaries and scholarships a post-secondary student may receive without having to pay federal income tax. These tax measures will make life easier for hundreds of thousands of students in Canada.

However, we realize that education is a provincial jurisdiction. That is why, instead of establishing a new program that would create overlap, we prefer providing up to $1 billion directly to the provinces and territories, to allow them to meet pressing needs in terms of post-secondary education infrastructure.

This way, students across the country can benefit from more modern classrooms, libraries, laboratories and research equipment.

This billion is in addition to the $9 billion the government invests annually in post-secondary education and the $1.7 billion it provides to support research carried out in post-secondary institutions.

Despite huge investments, the government is well aware that the provinces and territories are trying to find out how much money is available to them. That is why we plan to provide long term assistance for post-secondary education and training.

This year, we are already giving Quebec an extra $850 million in equalization payments. Part of that amount is specifically earmarked for post-secondary education.

By helping our young people get an education, we are preparing the future of our country. But to really ensure the prosperity of Canada, every effort has to be made to curb the shortage of skilled workers.

In Quebec for example, the manufacturing sector has already started experiencing such a shortage.

More than ever, our economic growth depends on our ability to face this challenge. One way to do so is by making sure that our young people turn toward skilled trades.

In this regard, a number of tax measures announced in the 2006 budget will help us move forward. I could mention in particular a new $1,000 grant for first- and second-year apprentices; a new $500 tax deduction for tradespeople to help them purchase tools; an increase in the $200 limit on the cost of tools eligible for the 100% capital cost allowance, which will rise to $500; and a new tax credit of up to $2,000 for employers who hire apprentices.

These measures were welcomed by manufacturers. Richard Fahey, the Quebec vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said after the budget was tabled that these measures would make it easier to hire staff in the current situation of labour shortages.

We know very well, though, that this is not enough.

Over the next five years, 640,000 workers will have to be replaced in Quebec. Over the next decade, more people will leave their jobs than will enter the workforce. The resulting demographic pressures will magnify the problems that manufacturers are having with the recruitment of skilled labour.

We will therefore have to roll up our sleeves to ensure that the workforce continues to grow. One of the ways of doing this is through immigration.

Here too, though, things are not easy. It is unbelievable that in 2006, skilled immigrants still have to wait many a long year before being able to work in Canada at occupations for which they are more than well qualified and trained.

In order to fix this, we are going to create a Canadian agency for the assessment and recognition of foreign credentials.

Since most regulated occupations come under provincial and territorial jurisdictions, we are going to have a major consultation process on the mandate, structure and management of this new agency.

In its budget, the government also announced an additional $307 million to help immigrants get established and find work in their communities.

In conclusion, those are the measures, in short, that we have put forward since the new government was elected, barely four months ago. They will do a lot to change the lives of Canadians and ensure a vibrant Canadian economy.

This government was elected on a promise of real change and that is what we are working toward with vim and vigour.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member concluded her speech by talking about real changes. Personally I have to confess that I do not see any change.

I found it absolutely incredible that she should end on the matter of recognizing foreign diplomas, as it this were a given, just as the Liberals used to do. No account is taken of the areas of jurisdiction provided for in the Canadian Constitution. She probably knows that the professional bodies are under the provinces and Quebec, and that the federal government, by putting in place the body she spoke of, is infringing on Quebec’s areas of jurisdiction. This is exactly what the Liberals did when they created all sorts of bureaucratic programs and tools in the health field.

The expenditures of the federal Department of Health have increased tremendously, and the federal government does not provide any health services. This is another example of infringement by the federal government and of bureaucratic expenditures that are a waste of money.

I would ask the member to explain to me how the federal government will help us to have the foreign credentials of doctors, engineers and lawyers recognized by Quebec’s professional bodies? Moreover this is a file on which Quebec has been working for many years.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

We are all aware that immigrants are highly qualified. We want to create an agency to help them. We know perfectly well that this is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, but we just want to put in place a structure to help them.

I also mentioned that we wanted to put in place a consultation process with all the provinces, including Quebec, in order to recognize the qualifications of these immigrants. They can help us build a very strong Canada and a very strong Quebec, because they are highly qualified. They are there to help us prosper as Canadians.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Conservative member's speech with great interest. Like my colleague in the Bloc, I also found it to be empty in terms of action. It was very similar to what we heard from the Liberals for years. With every day that passes, it seems that the Conservatives are beginning to sound more and more like Liberals. They say a lot of words, a lot of rhetoric, make a lot of promises, but take very little action.

The debate today is about how our economy can be competitive in a world where China and India are gaining in strength and where we are facing some incredible obstacles such as the high dollar and a loss in the manufacturing sector.

What are the plans of her government for countering the impact of the high dollar on our manufacturing sector? How does the government intend dealing with the thousands of jobs that are being lost? How does the government intend training and educating the young generation to take advantage of new and growing opportunities in the future?