Debates of Dec. 11th, 2007

Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments by the member opposite, given that he belongs to the Liberal Party, and some of his response to my colleague from British Columbia around the question of child poverty and poverty in general.

There is a general state of unease among people in almost every community around the question of losing their jobs, as most people now are saying they are not more than a paycheque or two away from falling into some pretty difficult circumstances. When they look over their shoulders to see what might be there, they recognize that the EI system has been changed dramatically. At one time, over 75% of people used to qualify, and now, depending on what community it is, it is down to anywhere from 25% to 50% of people who qualify. There is not much there in terms of other supports that a family would need if one of the wage earners were to lose his or her job.

I was wondering if the member was there when the Liberal government got rid of the Canada assistance plan and then subsequently reduced the transfer to the provinces for social programs by between $7 billion and $8 billion a year.

He also spoke about the corporate tax breaks as if they were a few dollars here and there that the government was going to lose. The analysis that has been done by economists shows that we are talking about between $6 billion to $12 billion out of the tax revenue that government has to spend on the kinds of infrastructure that are needed.

Was the member there, and why did the Liberal government--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I do not enjoy cutting off hon. members, but I do have to allow the hon. member for Etobicoke North to respond.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member will probably know, and I do not look as old as I might appear, that the Canada assistance plan and established programs financing were eliminated sometime in the 1980s, and I have not been here that long.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

No, they were not.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Yes, they were. What was brought in was the Canada health and social transfer. The reality is that the Canada assistance plan consisted of 50¢ dollars and there was very little accountability or incentive for provinces to spend wisely, and established programs financing had some flaws in it. The government brought in the Canada health and social transfer.

I was very proud when our government augmented that in its last mandate. The last tranche was $43 billion in enhancements to the Canada health and social transfer. In addition, we brought in some accountability mechanisms with respect to health transfers, so that the provinces would have to report against outcomes and performance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak once again to Bill C-28 before us today, even though, as already pointed out in this House, we have already discussed it at length and in detail.

The Bloc Québécois has decided that it will not support the bill for several reasons, particularly because it contains elements with which we do not agree. For example, under the Atlantic accord, revenue from non-renewable natural resources—in essence, oil—will be excluded from the equalization calculation.

We believe that the equalization program should be based on its original principle, which was to ensure that all provinces would have a similar fiscal capacity. When a province has a tax base, no matter what it may be, it should be taken into account in the equalization calculation.

In accordance with this particular agreement for the provinces, namely the Atlantic provinces, excluding non-renewable energy sources, oil, from the calculation gives the advantage to these provinces to the detriment of those with another resource.

For example, if Quebec were to exclude energy from renewable sources, such as hydroelectricity, it would immediately receive very significant equalization payments. However, this could not be justified as it would not respect the principle.

I would like to point out the irony of this to the House. When it comes to equalization, only the Bloc Québécois—a sovereignist party, as everyone knows—is defending the principle behind this program, which is to consider the provinces' fiscal capacity, taking into account all the resources at their disposal in the equalization calculation. This is one reason we are not in favour of this bill.

A number of measures come from the mini-budget, the economic statement introduced this fall. The Bloc Québécois came out against this economic statement, particularly because of what it did not contain. In fact, across Quebec and even in Ontario, the manufacturing and forestry industries are exerting a great deal of pressure and raising the alarm. These industries are asking the government to act immediately.

The government can be as arrogant as it likes, but this is not just a Bloc Québécois request that it can ignore. Not only the industries in Quebec, but Premier Jean Charest are calling for action. Last weekend, Premier Charest again called on the federal government to act and said that it can no longer sit on its hands and do nothing. Even the leader of the official opposition in Quebec City, the Prime Minister's buddy, Mario Dumont, asked what the Prime Minister was waiting for to act.

The government always answers that we will have to wait for the next budget, but we want action now. The government could take strong action even before the end of the session, before Christmas, to help workers in difficulty.

It is a bit pathetic when the Minister of Finance of the optimist party of Canada tells us that everything is just fine. I personally invite the Minister of Finance of the optimist party to come back down to earth and meet the people who are losing their jobs. I have met some people who worked hard all their lives in factories that have now closed. Many of these people live in single-industry cities where the shop—the factory, sawmill or paper plant—is the main employer.

When workers say that nothing is being done to help them and to protect their jobs, what are they told? They are told that the economy is doing well, that everything is just fine, that the unemployment rate is low and that revenues are up. What planet is the optimist party of Canada's Minister of Finance on? It makes no sense to say such things.

In the Standing Committee on Finance, it was even suggested that people who lose their employment in communities in Quebec should just move to Alberta.

Is that any way to treat people who have worked their entire life to build their community? Tell them it is no big deal if they lose their employment since they can move to Alberta where there are jobs?

Sometimes I get the impression that the government wishes people were cattle because it would be easier to move them around. That is not how things work. Recognizing Quebec as a nation does not mean telling people to go to Alberta if they are unemployed. The government has to recognize that people want to live in Quebec.

The government talks a lot about land occupancy. Having people working in towns and communities is part of land occupancy. It is far more important to keep our jobs in our towns and regions for land occupancy than it is to buy icebreakers without debate or discussion for protecting the Arctic.

The government is being rather inconsistent. And yet there are simple, very effective, inexpensive solutions available to the government. Among others, 22 recommendations were unanimously adopted by the Standing committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Even members of the government supported the recommendations. In the recent economic statement, out of 22 measures, only half a measure was implemented.

I would like to speak about two of these measures. The first is accelerated capital cost allowance to invest in equipment that helps businesses increase productivity. This measure is the one being referred to when we hear about the government announcing half of a measure, because the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology recommended that it be implemented for at least five years, if not permanently. But the government implemented it for two years. Obviously, that is not very useful, since in many cases, if a company starts investing today, the investment spans more than two years. In fact, these projects often last up to five years. If the measure spans two years, these companies will not really be able to benefit.

This measure is not very costly; the accelerated capital cost allowance is not a tax giveaway. It makes it possible for businesses to defer taxes over time. So a business would pay lower taxes the year it amortizes more of its equipment. However, once the equipment is completely amortized, it will pay more taxes the year it no longer has a capital cost allowance to deduct from its revenues.

So this measure allows businesses to delay paying taxes when they are experiencing difficulties. What is smart about this type of measure is that it gives our businesses a break so that they have the cash they need to make investments that will help them increase productivity. They will pay taxes when they earn a profit later on.

Similarly, the committee proposed a credit for research and development. This credit already exists, but the committee wanted to make it refundable. Now, if a business is losing money and not earning a profit, it cannot deduct this credit from its taxes, since there is no profit. What does it do? It banks it until money starts coming in again.

In order to help our businesses that need help right now—not five or ten years from now when they are making profits, but now when they are having difficulties—this credit has to be refundable. Companies could claim the tax credit right away. It would be refunded to them even though they are not turning a profit. In any event, these are credits that would be refunded later. Again, this tax is being deferred. We want to give our manufacturing and forestry companies a break to allow them to get back on their feet and increase their productivity. Nonetheless, when they eventually make a profit, then the taxes will be payable. In my opinion, this is not a very expensive solution.

Even though this is a deferred tax, there are costs involved. The Bloc Québécois realizes that. For example, there are costs associated with inflation. A dollar is worth more today than it will be two or five years from now, we know that. However, given the current rate of inflation in Canada, these costs pale in comparison to the benefits this measure could bring.

As far as tax credits for research and development are concerned, under the current system if a company were to declare bankruptcy, these tax credits would never be recovered. Thus, by granting these credits now, the revenue agency would incur more expenses. That is true, but it would be an odd argument for the optimist party of Canada to make, saying that this would cost too much because many businesses would go bankrupt. Indeed, businesses are going to go bankrupt if the government does not take action right now.

I want to emphasize the fact that we have to act now because the government does not seem to understand the urgency of the situation. For example, part of the problem is related to the rise in the Canadian dollar. The repercussions of that are somewhat delayed. As the manufacturers who appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance told us over and over, what we are seeing now is not the impact of parity with the U.S. dollar. It is the impact of a U.S. dollar worth 80¢ Canadian. What we are seeing today is the result of where the dollar stood a year or two ago.

We have not yet seen the catastrophic repercussions of parity with the U.S. dollar. We have not yet seen that, but it is coming. That is why we have to act now to mitigate the effects. The optimist party of Canada would have us believe that businesses just have to increase their productivity and everything will be fine, but that is not the answer.

The value of the Canadian dollar has risen by 40% in a very short time. It shot up from 60¢ to $1. No matter how productive a business is or how creative people are, it is impossible to ask them to boost their productivity to compensate for rising costs in such a short period of time.

That means we need to put transitional measures in place. The government is using its billions of dollars to provide tax cuts for profitable companies, including its oil company friends. But it cannot find a few dollars, perfectly reasonable amounts, to help manufacturing businesses, particularly those that really need it.

I would like to review some of the things manufacturing sector representatives told us when they appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance. In general, they asked us to look at the problem by separating businesses into three groups. The first includes businesses that will survive regardless of the manufacturing crisis, and regardless of the dollar's relative strength or weakness because they are strong and are not experiencing any difficulties. The second group, however, includes businesses that are going through such tough times that no matter what might be done to help them, they will not make it. The third group is in between. Businesses in this critical group might survive if they get some help, but they might have to close up shop if nothing is done to help them.

So, let us look at how the measures proposed by the government in its economic statement will have an impact on these three groups of businesses.

The first measure consists of a general corporate tax cut. For the first group of businesses, those that are getting by and will not have any difficulties, these tax cuts are a welcome gift. They stand to make even more money and are quite happy, with good reason. So much the better, but they are not the ones that need help. As for the second group of businesses, those that might pull through if they are given a boost, in fact, they will not receive any support. They do not even pay taxes, since they are having financial difficulties. Thus, the government measures would do absolutely nothing for them. Of course, the same is true for the third group of businesses.

Let us consider instead the measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois, measures that were unanimously supported by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Let us look at the impact those measures would have on the three groups. Such measures include an accelerated capital cost allowance and refundable tax credits for research and development.

For the first group, businesses that are doing well and having no problems, there would be no change. Whether tax credits are refundable or not, they would have them the same year and this would not change a thing, since they were already turning a profit. As for an accelerated capital cost allowance, this would allow them to save a little on taxes this year, but they would have to pay it back a little later. Thus, there is no need to give billions of dollars to companies that are already doing well.

However, these measures can make a difference to the second group, which is in difficulty but has a fighting chance. Our targeted measures will become effective in this case. To get through the crisis, companies essentially need two things: better productivity and ready cash. That is exactly what these measures will give them. They will improve companies' productivity, because they will let companies invest now in research and development and in equipment to become more profitable. They will also give companies ready cash, because they will allow companies to defer paying taxes. Thus, companies will have the money they need now to get through the crisis. This seems far more effective than the government's strategy for these companies, which is to give them no help at all.

Obviously, in the case of the third group I mentioned—companies that will not make it through the crisis and will have to close—we will be giving them assistance that, unfortunately, will be lost. However, we cannot tailor our policy to companies that will go bankrupt and will not be able to recover, especially since if we do nothing, there will be a great many companies in this group. If we do something, we will be able to help many companies that otherwise would have gone bankrupt or been forced to close. We can bring them into the group that can weather the crisis.

I therefore wanted to demonstrate that the government did not have a real reason for not providing assistance to the manufacturing sector in the mini-budget or economic statement. It was surprising to see, among other things, the position of the Conservatives who ran in the last byelection in regions where the forestry sector difficulties are being experienced. They promised voters that having an MP in power would solve their problems. We now find ourselves with an economic statement that does absolutely nothing for the manufacturing and forestry sectors in crisis. When citizens, for example from Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, heard their candidate make promises and tell them that he would help companies in order to save their jobs, everyone thought he would help those businesses that needed help. No one thought Alberta oil companies would get the help. That was a bit of false representation that occurred during the byelection.

It is deplorable, if not pitiful, to see members elected in a byelection on the promise that if they are in power they will move things along stand up and vote for an economic statement that does not contain a single measure for troubled companies in the forestry sector. Even worse, when we tabled a motion asking the government to take immediate action, we saw these same members stand and vote against it and against the campaign promises they made in their riding.

I hope, and I am confident, that Quebeckers will remember this when the next election is held. They will remember that, in tough times, the Bloc Québécois is always prepared to stand up and defend them. The Conservative members from Quebec always boast about the government that is so good and fine, but when the time comes to show some determination and to vote in this House to have some real influence and to change things, they fail to deliver. Only the Bloc Québécois takes up the challenge.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-28. I know that a Conservative member earlier talked about the fact that there has been sufficient debate and it is incumbent upon the House to pass the bill.

It is fortunate that New Democrats are in the House talking about some of the very serious issues that are facing Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It is the New Democrats who are talking about the lack of a national child care strategy, the increasing homelessness in the country, poverty, education, and the number of children who are now living in poverty.

When New Democrats look at Bill C-28, we see a government that is simply taking Canada in the wrong direction. It is not a balanced approach because it is not addressing the prosperity gap.

The prosperity gap is talking about the fact that there are many Canadian working middle-class families who are simply working more and more hours and are not getting ahead. This was an opportunity to take the surplus which was available to the government and invest it in Canadians.

The other thing we heard Conservatives talk about is the fact that New Democrats never support tax cuts. The reality is that we are asking for targeted tax cuts, not tax cuts that benefit certain corporate sectors like banks and resource sectors.

When we talk about banks and resource sectors, the financial sector makes up one-third of Canadian corporate pre-tax profits and the oil and gas and mining sectors make up one-sixth of Canadian corporate pre-tax profits. This accounts for roughly half of corporate income.

Therefore, when we talk about targeted tax cuts, we mean tax cuts that benefit a growing green jobs economy, research and development, and supporting our manufacturing and forestry sectors. Certainly in the riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan the forestry sector is struggling.

Previously, the Bloc member spoke about that party's motion supporting the manufacturing and forestry industries. There was an opportunity for all members of the House to come to the plate and vote in favour of a motion that outlined support for manufacturing and forestry. Instead, we saw the Conservatives and the Liberals not supporting that motion.

In the forestry sector in my riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan we have one pulp and paper mill that has filed for bankruptcy protection. We are seeing some of the sawmills lay off shifts. We are continuing to see raw log exports. Youbou Timberless Society continuous to raise the matter of raw log exports taking jobs from the riding, from Vancouver Island and from the province of British Columbia to somewhere else. Yet, this particular economic statement and this bill did not address that.

In the minister's own remarks, he acknowledged the fact that manufacturing and forestry were in a crisis in the country but took no action. I wonder where the leadership is when one acknowledges there is a problem but does not do anything about it. It does not magically fix itself overnight.

The other matter regarding Bill C-28 and the economic statement is the concern raised around fiscal capacity in the coming years. The estimate is that by 2012 or 2013 the annual revenue cost on full implementation will be $6.1 billion, but many progressive economists feel that the actual figure of forgone revenue will likely be around $12 billion.

When we are taking that much out of the government coffers, one wonders what programs and services will need to be cut. If we reduce the money that the government is taking in, it is very simple math. If the government decreases the money that is coming in, it has to cut somewhere. That has not entered into the debate.

We hear that personal tax cuts will mean more money in people's pockets, yet when we look at people who are making under $30,000, they will end up with $180 a year more. That will not pay for child care spaces, affordable housing, or tuition fees for post-secondary education.

If the government is not going to demonstrate some leadership in these very critical areas for the health of our economy, then who will? That is why it has been very important that New Democrats stand in the House and raise these very important issues, so that Canadians know that at least someone in the House is speaking up for middle income and working class families.

I want to come back for a moment to a couple of matters. I will start with child care. In September 2007 the Social Planning Council of Cowichan developed a report on child care in the Cowichan region. There has been much debate in the House about how important early learning and child care is and how it contributes to the overall health and well-being of families. It also has a direct economic impact as well. In the report's executive summary, it says:

Quality early education and child care is crucial to the welfare of the Cowichan region. The successful development of our children has a long term impact on the economic and social stability of our region.

The Cowichan Region, like many communities in British Columbia, and indeed most of Canada, is under stress to provide adequate, affordable, quality child care for children and their families. This situation is being exacerbated by the current labour shortage and the increasing cost of housing which requires that most families need two incomes to afford a home.

I believe that roughly 70% of women with children under the age of six work outside the home. Sometimes it is a choice to work outside the home and sometimes it is a necessity. The report goes on to talk about the economic benefits of child care. It says:

The benefits from quality early learning and child care go beyond the family: there are also social and economic benefits to the community at large. Child care is important for cohesion in rural and remote communities because it draws young families to rural areas and is essential for economic development.

The lack of available child care is being recognized as a critical issue by the business community in British Columbia, as the following quote from a resolution passed unanimously at the B.C. Chamber of Commerce convention in May 2007 demonstrates.

I will not read the full text of it, but this is the gist of it. It says:

Recent cuts from the federal government to the child care industry in B.C. are having a domino affect on the workforce in B.C. due to the lack of commitment and responsibility from the provincial government to compensate for those federal losses. B.C. has chosen not to prioritize child care. The costs of this decision are having an enormous negative impact on the ability of B.C. businesses to attract women, young families and skilled workers in general to the workforce.

With the current skills shortages, challenges to attract and retain employees are critical to business. The provincial breakdown of business shows that of the 371,000 businesses in B.C., 364,000 have fewer than 50 employees. For small business, it is difficult to attract new workers, or to retain people as larger firms are able to offer higher pay or flexible work hours.

Many younger families find the challenge of balancing family life with work. These men and women find entry and lower level wages, and the cost of child care are such that it is not in their financial interests to work. This is a limitation to the B.C. economy when a worker that desires to contribute to the GDP is forced to look at other options to working, or working for a small firm with limited access to benefit options.

When we are talking about child care, it is such an important part of our economy, yet we are not making that kind of investment. The report goes on to talk about local impacts on employers and job seekers. It says:

The inability to find child care to recognize as: a barrier to attracting employees to the Cowichan Region, a barrier to employment, contributing to work absenteeism, a reason parent-employees will leave the work force or will not take jobs, a barrier to immigrant families, particularly those with multiple children and immigrant workers seeking employment.

We can see that in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, and I know in other ridings across this country as well, quality, affordable, regulated, not for profit child care is an important aspect of making sure that our economies continue to grow.

I now wish to address homelessness. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on adequate housing, Miloon Kothari, on October 22 released a preliminary report. He covers many aspects of what he calls the housing crisis in Canada. I want to focus specifically on homelessness at this particular time. The report says:

Homelessness is one of the most visible and most severe signs of the lack of respect for the right to adequate housing. It is even more shocking to see the number of homeless people in such a developed and wealthy country as Canada. Unfortunately the Government of Canada could not provide reliable statistics on the number of homeless in the country (something that many other countries are doing).

The National Homelessness Secretariat has suggested that there might be 150,000 homeless people, but notes that its number is not reliable. Experts and academic institutions have suggested that the actual number of homeless people may be at least double that amount.

There are 150,000 people in Canada who do not have a place to live.

A survey was done in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan a couple of years back on people who lived on the street. Roughly half the people who were surveyed and who lived on the street were women, and a significant number of those women had children.

We also know from other studies that some people living on the streets have jobs. They simply cannot find adequate affordable housing that is safe. If this is not something that should be debated in the House of Commons, then I do not know what is.

People talk about the fact that there is a $14 billion surplus. They talk about the throne speech and the economic statement. Bill C-28 does not address the crisis in homelessness and housing in our country.

Mr. Kothari says in his report:

The Federal Government needs a comprehensive and properly-funded poverty reduction strategy based on its human rights obligation, and complementary plans should be implemented in the provinces and territories—linked to a comprehensive national housing strategy.

Once again, we are on the international stage. We are being cited for what should be to all Canadians a shocking statement. A minimum of 150,000 people are homeless and that number is under dispute. It could be significantly higher, and in some parts of our country it is.

A recent report came out on women and housing in the north. It talks about the risky situations in which many women in the north find themselves, yet there is little relief for them.

While we are talking about poverty, I want to briefly touch on child and family poverty. Somebody in the House mentioned earlier that Ed Broadbent had worked on a motion in 1989, which called for the elimination of child poverty by the year 2000. An organization called Campaign 2000 recently issued a report card. It said that we wee not tackling the very serious problem of child poverty. Children are not in poverty unless families are in poverty.

Different groups are overrepresented. One in four aboriginal children is considered poor. That is 25%. Yet Bill C-28 and the economic statement do not adequately address children and families living in poverty.

UNICEF Canada issued a statement recently that said “too many children are still being left out 18 years after a children rights convention was adopted”. In its press release of November 20, it said:

Compared with other industrialized countries, our children are suffering from unacceptable rates of poverty, obesity, mental illness and violence that have persisted or increased since Canada ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991.

The press release goes on to state:

Aboriginal children are one of the most vulnerable populations in Canada, facing enormous challenges. Overall, the poverty rate for Aboriginal children is close to three times that of other Canadian children. As well, children in some remote Aboriginal communities lack access to adequate housing, clean water and quality education. In addition, Aboriginal children are disproportionately represented in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems.

That is another shocking statement, yet Canada is turning its back on what is often described as Third World conditions on many reserves across the country. We have an opportunity, again, with the surplus to do something about this. The government has failed to take meaningful action to close the poverty gap.

UNICEF Canada also talked about aboriginal children being disproportionately represented in the child welfare system. In fact, the Assembly of First Nations and other partners have filed a human rights complaint on the fact that more aboriginal children are in care now than there ever were in the residential school days. There is roughly a 22% gap between what aboriginal children on reserve are entitled to under the child welfare system versus what provinces will pay. There is also no funding in least disruptive measures.

Instead of the government seizing an opportunity to support and work with families to ensure children can stay with families, in its wisdom the government is removing the child, which is far more expensive. If it took some of the funds that it provides for children who have been removed from their families and supported them, it could probably save a lot of money in the long run, not to mention support quality of life for them. In this instance, we have found that first nations simply are not included in conversations in a meaningful way in order to address this very serious issue.

Earlier today we talked about education. Whether it is for first nations, Métis and Inuit or for other Canadians, it is an important aspect of closing a poverty gap. It is also an essential factor in our economic prosperity and efficiency.

Today the Canadian Council on Learning released its second annual report on post-secondary education. It is dated December 11 and the headline states:

The Canadian Council on Learning, with support from organizations across the country, says that without the development of a national post-secondary education strategy-such as those adopted by many other nations around the world-Canada's prosperity will be at risk and its competitive edge compromised.

In the release, the president and CEO of the council says:

By 2015, it is expected that 70% of all new jobs created in Canada will require some post-secondary education or training....For this reason, and many others, we strongly believe that national action on a PSE strategy is crucial to Canada's ongoing competitiveness in the global marketplace, and to our continued high quality of life.

A PSE strategy would offer a pragmatic approach that would promote mobility, efficiency, effectiveness and equity across the country, while providing benefits to all levels of our society.

Further on it states:

“It is both lamentable and irresponsible that Canada, among all OECD countries, has the weakest data on education and has developed neither a pan-Canadian skills agenda, nor goals and measures for post-secondary education,” Jim Knight, President of the Association of Canadian Community Colleges, said on behalf of Canadian colleges across the country.

Bill C-28 and this economic statement was a chance to take some national leadership on post-secondary education. There has been a lot of conversation around skills shortages in Canada and this was an opportunity to address them.

In light of other matters that could be taken on around education, the Canadian Federation of Students in October 2007 prepared some background documentation for all parliamentarians. It talked about the importance of education and what was needed to improve our post-secondary education system. The introduction says:

One of the greatest tragedies in Canadian higher education is that there has never been a joint federal-provincial strategy for improving this critical social program.

We are starting to see a theme. The earlier report talked about the need for a national strategy. The Canadian Federation of Students has been calling for exactly the same thing. It goes on to say:

As a direct result, provinces have developed wildly different tuition fee and student financial aid policies that reflect short-term partisan or ideological priorities more than specific regional needs. On the federal side, a lack of coordinated inter-jurisdictional planning has led to circular discussions about designing a better Canada Student Loans Program...

It goes on to talk about the fact that Canada has been cited under the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights about education.

There are many matters facing our country, which the economic statement could have addressed. The government could have demonstrated some leadership both on the domestic scene and the international stage. It could have reinvested in our working and middle class families, post-secondary education, housing and child care. This was a missed opportunity.

It is unfortunate because some of these decisions will play out on our economic productivity and the quality of life for Canadians. It is important that New Democrats are standing in the House to raise these very important issues and concerns so Canadians know that somebody is speaking up for working and middle class families.

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

Mr. Speaker, in continuing with the member's theme on post-secondary education, as the hon. member knows, under the previous Liberal government massive amounts of money were invested in research and development, in university chairs, in a whole variety of institutions, which would encourage research in the country. We went from one of the most underfunded countries in the world to the number one country in the world for publicly funded research.

That resulted in a very happy circumstance where we went from a brain drain to a brain gain. Universities such as Queens, UBC and various other places were able to attract world-class researchers. With those world-class researchers, opportunities for students became available, both at the graduate level and the undergraduate level. There is a massive amount of money that was poured into the infrastructure of universities and that resulted in many happy collateral benefits to this nation.

The hon. member is quite right to point out that a number of things could have been done with the massive amounts of money on which the government is sitting. Is she, as I am, concerned about this apparent neglect on the part of the government for those significant institutions and investments that were made under the previous government?

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

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, research and development is an essential part of a healthy university and college environment as well as an essential part of developing a leading edge economy. Research and development is an important part, for example, in a green job strategy, which would see us be leaders in Canada and in the world. We need to ensure we put research and development into a new job strategy as we deal with some of the climate change impacts.

I mentioned earlier about the report by the Canadian Council on Learning that just came out. It talks about the very urgent need for policy-makers at all levels to come together to develop a pan-Canadian skills agenda and to place a priority on filling the skills gap. That would include a research and development agenda. It seems that we are probably at a crossroads in terms of the positioning of our post-secondary institutions in contributing toward a healthy economic strategy for the future.

Given this recent report, it would behoove the Conservatives to demonstrate some leadership, with the support of all parties in the House, to ensure Canada is well positioned to take its place in the economy in the 21st century.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we look at this from the point of view not just from in our country, but in a global context. In her latest book, Naomi Klein talks about the Chicago School of Economics, the philosophy of Milton Friedman, the idea of privatization, deregulation, the full load of social programs and that we do not need any kind of government involvement in our lives. It documents the devastation that it has caused in countries like Chile, Russia, Argentina, Iraq and also South Africa.

We are seeing the pullout of government programs, the surplus, the cuts, no money for affordable housing, no national child care program and the issue of poverty not being addressed. Does the member feel we are somehow slipping into a corporate agenda that we are going to be unable to get out of unless we put some stop to the direction the current government is going?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior for the good work he has done around agriculture, because when we talk about government regulations and harmonization, agriculture is one area where we are seeing increasing pressure for us to harmonize some of our regulations with other countries that do not protect safety standards for Canadians.

Recently we have seen any number of recalls on toxic toys. I think it is really important that the Canadian government continue to play a role in ensuring the safety and health of Canadians.

Recently with the security and prosperity partnership agreement we saw much of the discussion being conducted behind closed doors. There is no real ability to bring it to the floor of the House of Commons so that it has some scrutiny and some transparency around it.

It is these kinds of things that lead Canadians to be very wary about the direction in which this government is taking the country. We have said it in the past and we continue to talk about the fact that the government is simply taking the country in the wrong direction. I think it is important that we continue to raise these matters in the House of Commons.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend the member for her precise analysis of what is going on and the impact it will have on the lives of communities, families and children across Canada.

Members will remember that earlier I asked the member for Etobicoke North what happened under the Liberals, who now claim to be the champion of all that is good, communal and socially correct in this country. I believe it was in 1993 that Jean Chrétien came in as prime minister and he and his finance minister introduced a deficit-cutting agenda and did away with the Canada assistance plan.

The member for Etobicoke North suggested that it was done in the 1980s. I want him to know that it was done after 1993. It was part of the agenda of the Liberal government to fight the deficit on the backs of families, children and struggling men and women across this country.

Not only did the Liberals do away with the Canada assistance plan, which called on the different levels of government to do specific and particular things with the money that was transferred, but they reduced that transfer by some $7 billion to $8 billion per year. Then they moved forward after that, experiencing a good economy after 1995, to begin the same kind of tax reduction for corporations that we see in the budget which this government has delivered and proposes to deliver in the mini-budget.

The economists who look at this say that, depending on how we do the math, this is another $6 billion to $12 billion out of government capacity to actually respond to the needs of families and children, our aboriginal communities, post-secondary education institutions, hospitals and health care across this country.

I wonder if the member herself has thought of, first of all, the Liberal impact of taking billions of dollars out of the social transfer and of the corporate taxes they gave away over their 13 years? Second, this government is giving away more money through corporate tax rates. Has she thought about the impact this will have on some of the people whom I know she feels very strongly about and has actually met with to hear about some of the challenges they are facing?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Sault Ste. Marie for his tireless work on poverty and on trying to keep discussions around poverty on the House agenda.

We have an equal opportunity here. Under the Liberal watch, we saw the national housing program dismantled. After 1993 we saw a 2% cap for first nations funding imposed. These are not words that we came up with. Miloon Kothari highlighted that fact in his report. The Assembly of First Nations talks about the 2% cap and how it is crippling their communities. The Assembly of First Nations issued a report on the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives bear some responsibility for the lack of implementation in regard to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

Of course, we are living with those very impacts of some of those decisions the Liberals made while they were in power. The Conservatives just continue with those kinds of decisions, which will see increasing homelessness, a struggle with post-secondary student debt, and housing and clean water problems on reserve. The list is endless.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for folks who are watching at home to note that the reason why it is going from a New Democrat to another New Democrat to questions from New Democrats is that essentially the Liberals in the House have given a blank cheque to the Prime Minister--

[An hon. member]

Filibuster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I see that some of the Conservative members are awakening from their afternoon slumber. That is healthy because they will actually learn a bit more about the supplementary budget, which they know full well is not at all in keeping with the interests of Canadians.

Some of the Conservatives are waking up now. That is very good, but it is important to note that in the House it is only the New Democrats who are actually practising the due diligence that is required when we talk about this massive giveaway of $190 billion, mostly to the corporate sector. I will come back to that in a moment.

It mirrors what happened in committee last Thursday with Bill S-2 which, it turns out, is giving out another half a billion dollars, mostly to the banks. We found out that Conservatives and Liberals on the committee just wanted to run it through. They did not want to call witnesses or actually examine any of the fiscal ramifications of the bill. They just wanted to push it through. We are seeing the same thing here with Bill C-28--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake on a point of order.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are in third reading of Bill C-28, not Bill S-2. The member is talking about a completely unrelated piece of legislation. This is third reading, where the member needs to be very focused. I know it is tough for that particular member to be focused, but we do ask that he debate the bill that is before the House at third reading, and its details.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake does raise a good point. Members, especially at third reading, should try to stay as close as possible to the actual points in the legislation.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The theme is the giveaway. The giveaway that happened last Thursday is similar to the giveaway we see in Bill C-28. I know the hon. member does not like to hear that, but the reality is such that he has to understand that shovelling billions of dollars out the door to the corporate sector, which is what is contained in Bill C-28, is entirely inappropriate.

Why? Because of the current economic situation that most Canadians are living through.

When the finance minister rose to give the supplementary budget update, he was talking to Canadians, two-thirds of whom have seen a decline in their real income since 1989. Two-thirds of them have seen their real income fall. The middle class, the lower middle class and the poorest of Canadians have seen their real incomes fall, in most cases catastrophically, yet what we have seen over the past 20 years of economic policy is essentially a giveaway to corporate CEOs and corporate lawyers.

Bill C-28 continues in that theme. We saw it under the former Liberal government and it is continued under the current Conservative government. Is that in Canada's interests? Not at all.

The fact that most Canadian families have seen their debt load double over that same period, the last 20 years, begs the question: what should have been in the economic update? It is a very simple question.

What we have is corporate giveaways on a massive scale to the most profitable companies in Canada. That is the priority of this so-called new government. It certainly mirrors the priorities of the old Liberal government. We see the same old same old. We see the same economic approaches.

What could have happened? We should have seen investments in our industrial sector to protect manufacturing jobs. We have lost hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs over the past few years. We have had closures of factories in British Columbia, where I come from, and massive job loss in the softwood industry. As a result of the softwood sellout, in the past year we have lost 10,000 jobs in the softwood industry alone. That has devastated and gutted softwood communities from coast to coast.

Essentially we have seen the gutting of the manufacturing sector and the gutting of the softwood industry. We have seen case after case. I know that Conservative members do not want to hear reality. They prefer to hear from corporate lobbyists, but my goodness, it is about time that Conservatives started to listen to main street rather than Bay Street all the time.

We saw that under the Liberal government. The Conservatives said they would be different. We see it with the economic update, this Bill C-28 that we are discussing. It is the same old giveaway of Canada's public resources. There is no attempt to put in place an industrial sector. There is no attempt to actually address what Canadians are living through. Instead, the government just said, “Let us give this money away”.

The Conservatives say they have a surplus, but it is a myth of a surplus. I will point out just one of the key facts that the Conservatives seem to have completely forgotten in this entire debate. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities came forward after years of Liberal cutbacks and has estimated the infrastructure deficit at about $125 billion. What is worse, that deficit increases by nearly $20 billion each and every year.

What is the transportation and infrastructure deficit? It means that our highways become more dangerous, including the highway overpasses. We saw the collapse in Minnesota because appropriate attention was not given to updating the highway overpasses. Many fear that could happen in Canada.

We are seeing the lack of an ability to access fresh water. We have seen that in places such as Walkerton and North Battleford, yet there has been no investment by the federal government to actually improve our access to fresh water across the country.

Let us talk about waste management, with a city such as Victoria continuing to spew raw sewage out into the Juan de Fuca Strait. The Liberals did nothing on it. The Conservatives said they would be different. Instead, it is the same old same old for waste management.

As well, it is the same for the whole range of public transit. We have seen a substantial underfunding of our public transit facilities across the country, which means that Canadians have fewer options in terms of getting to work. We know that commuting times are increasing at the same time as overtime is increasing. People are working harder and longer weeks, yet they are getting less take-home pay.

Bill C-28, the budgetary update, deals with absolutely none of those issues. Instead, the Conservative government has made cutbacks to the justice system, to the environment, to agriculture, to fisheries and oceans, to public security, to Indian affairs, to the health care system, to international trade and industry, and to human resources and skills development.

It is the same old, same old. We went through it all with the Liberals and now, with Bill C-28, we are seeing the fiscal irresponsibility of the Conservative government. It is cutting the essentials. It cuts back on the basics and then says that it has a surplus so it should give it away to the corporate sector.

That reminds me of the little boy who took $3 from his mother and went to the store. He was supposed to buy essentials for his family, for his brothers and sisters, bread and milk, and then to bring those essentials home. Instead, he spent three-quarters of the money on candy and then came back and told his mom that he had a surplus, that he had not bought any of the essentials and that he had frittered the money away.

What we are seeing from the government is that it is frittering the money away on corporate tax cuts on an ongoing basis and not taking care of the essentials, whether we are talking about our basic infrastructure, what our cities and towns need to ensure there is a decent quality of life for citizens, or whether there is an industrial strategy in place that actually provides good, family sustaining jobs. We are not seeing that.

The government says that people can work at Wal-Mart because that is all it will give them as an industrial strategy. After people are laid off from good, family sustaining jobs, because the Conservatives and Liberals have done nothing about this over the last 20 years, they are taking part time and temporary service jobs that pay much less and do not allow them to sustain their families, which is why, for two-thirds of Canadian families, their incomes have declined.

If that is not an income crisis, I do not know what is. However, we will not hear a word about that from the Conservatives, like we did not hear a word about it from the Liberals either. There is just a consistent negation of everything that is happening on the main streets of our country, including, as the member for Sault Ste. Marie mentioned, the fact that tonight, 300,000 Canadians will be sleeping in parks and homeless shelters across the country in the middle of winter. If that is not a source of national shame, I do not know what is.

The Liberals did nothing. They eliminated the housing programs, so they provoked the crisis. All the Conservatives have done is take the NDP money from the NDP budget and told everyone that it had put $1 billion aside. That was NDP money for housing, but it was only a start. We recognize that we are dealing with a housing crisis and that we need more than $1 billion to actually deal with 300,000 Canadians sleeping on the streets of our country tonight, and hundreds of thousands of Canadian families that are just a paycheque or an action away from losing their homes.

We knew that money was only a start in the investments needed, but for the Conservative government that is all it is willing to give. It is just taking the moneys that were put aside by the NDP and that is it.

None of the essentials are taken care of. The NDP has been saying that Bill C-28 should contain a national pharmacare program so that families, that are going into debt and seeing their incomes eroded by escalating drug costs, will actually have some supports.

The NDP is the only party in this House talking about that, in the same way that Tommy Douglas, the greatest Canadian and former NDP leader, put in place a health care program. We are saying that Bill C-28 should have had a national pharmacare program, but it does not.

It has no industrial strategy and no support for post-secondary students who are facing massive debt loads and lower incomes once they get out of university, and, since most jobs created today, the Wal-Mart jobs, do not come with pensions or any sort of supports, we are talking about a life of what is essentially indebtedness.

We take these kids, who worked their way through university, and have them start out life with a $30,000 debt load. As Statistics Canada tells us, they start with lower salaries and then, when they get the jobs that they can get with the laissez-faire government, the same as the Liberals who did not seem to give a darn about the middle class or poorer working Canadians, students simply end up, once they have finally paid off their student loans, facing a life where there are no pensions beyond what is contained in the CPP and the GIS.

We know the government has done nothing to address the underfunding of the GIS, this rip-off of seniors. Nothing in Bill C-28 deals with the fact that the cost of living has gone up faster than the GIS, which means that seniors are being ripped off by the Conservative government, as they were ripped off by the former Liberal government.

Nothing in Bill C-28 addresses any of those concerns. It contains nothing about the farm crisis and agricultural incomes, and nothing about the poverty that first nations are living under, the deplorable state on reserves across the country. It contains nothing to deal with the fact that five million Canadians with disabilities are the poorest of the poor Canadians. Half of the homeless are Canadians with disabilities and 40% of those need to stand in long lineups at the food banks for food, which we never see the Liberals and Conservatives actually addressing. The lineups at the food banks are becoming increasingly longer and 40% of the people who need those food banks just to survive until the end of the month are people with disabilities. Nothing in Bill C-28 addresses that either.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask that you bring order to this chamber. When we are debating third reading, we are supposed to be talking about the context of the bill. The time, the place and the discussion at second reading, in committee and at report stage is passed. All the wish list that he is throwing out here, that time has come and gone and now it is time to talk about the specifics and mechanics of the act.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would again ask the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster to try to keep his remarks as closely as possible to the third reading stage of Bill C-28.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Selkirk—Interlake could not have put it better. He said that we were supposed to be talking about the context of the bill and that is exactly what I am addressing, the context of the bill, the fact that it does not deal with any of the issues that Canadians are most concerned about.

What does it deal with? It deals with massive corporate tax cuts, which is an interesting priority of the government. One hundred and ninety billion dollars were taken out of the fiscal capacity of the government and half of that goes to corporate tax cuts. Where is that money going? It turns out that most of that money will go to the very profitable industrial sectors, the banks and petroleum industry. They are just shovelling the money off the back of truck and not dealing with health care or any of these other issues that members of the NDP raised.

Let us look at where the money is going. In 2006, last year, Imperial Oil had profits of over $3 billion and it benefits from the generosity of the Conservative government which now says that it will make the company even more profitable by giving more and more.

Let us look at what else. Petro-Canada made $1.7 billion. The Conservatives just shovel money at that company as well, not Canadians with disabilities, not aboriginal people and not poor working families but they just shovel it out of the back of the truck.

[An hon. member]

Get the bulldozer.

[An hon. member]

Where is the front-end loader?