Debates of Dec. 7th, 2007

Age of Consent

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with regard to age of consent that has been signed by over 200 constituents not only in my riding but also from neighbouring ridings. They are asking that Parliament take all necessary measures immediately to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 93, 95 and 96 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 93

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

What investments, deposits, purchases and procurements has the government made, through its various departments and agencies over the period of January 24, 2006 to October 23, 2007, in the following firms that are conducting business in Sudan: (a) China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC Hong Kong and PetroChina); (b) Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas); (c) Oil and Natural Gas Corp Ltd.; (d) China Petrochemical Corporation (SINOPEC Group); (e) Lundin Petrolium AB; (f) AREF Investment Group; (g) Muhibbah Engineering Berhad; (h) Kencana Petroleum Berhad; (i) Kejuruteraan Samudra Timur BHD; (j) Petrofac; (k) PECD Bedhar; (l) Weatherford International Limited; (m) Wartsila OYJ; (n) Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.; (o) Harbin Power Equipment Company Limited; (p) Alstom; (q) AVICHINA Industry and Technology Company Ltd.; (r) Dongfeng Automobile Company Limited; (s) Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding Company Ltd.; (t) Indian Oil Company Ltd.; (u) SCOMI Group Berhad; (v) Weir Group PLC; (w) La Mancha Resources; and (x) Electricity Generating Public Company Ltd. (EGCO)?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 95

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

What funds, grants, loans and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments, agencies and Crown Corporations to the Government of Soudan, organizations in Soudan, and individuals in Soudan over the period of January 24, 2006 to October 24, 2007 inclusive, and in each case, where applicable: (a) what was the program under which the payment was made; (b) which Sudanese state institution was involved in the exchange; (c) what was the monetary value of the payment made; and (d) what was the percentage of program funding covered by the payment received?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 96

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

What funds, grants, loans and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments, agencies and Crown Corporations to the Government of Iran, organizations in Iran, and individuals in Iran over the period of January 24, 2006 to October 24, 2007 inclusive, and in each case, where applicable: (a) what was the program under which the payment was made; (b) which Iranian state institution was involved in the exchange; (c) what was the monetary value of the payment made; and (d) what was the percentage of program funding covered by the payment received?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

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

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-28, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007 and to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on October 30, 2007, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents of Mississauga—Brampton South, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-28.

I do have some fundamental problems and concerns with the bill because it revolves around the economic policies and concerns that I have with the Conservative government.

When I recollect last year during the budget discussion, I was reminded by many of my constituents, who I know very closely watched the debate, of how shocked they were to hear one of the worst tax policies to come out of Ottawa in 35 years, which was the interest deductibility measure. That is just one example.

I want to speak to two key themes today regarding the bill. One is that it is a reflection of the government's lack of understanding of creating a plan, of setting forth an agenda that looks at promoting prosperity and productivity. The government's ideas, strategies and policies are driven by polls and, as we have seen, it has spent a lot of money on polls.

The second issue I will be discussing is missed opportunities and what this particular bill misses and the opportunity on which it could have capitalized.

First, before I get into the specifics, if we look at where we are today as a country and look at our fiscal capacity at the federal level, it is a reflection of sound Liberal management over the course of many years, as they recite, over 13 years of hard work to turn around this country's fiscal position. We were in huge deficits, which created huge debts and put a tremendous burden on our future generations.

However, through sound Liberal management, sound government policy and the hard work of many Canadians, we were able to eliminate the deficit and ultimately start to reduce our debt.

Today we have surpluses, as we have had for many years now, and that is a reflection of hard work and good management. It is so important that we recognize how we want to spend this money.

It is unfortunate for the government, for example, when it comes to two particular issues in the bill.

First, I want to thank the Conservatives for reinstating the personal income tax reduction that we put in place when we were in government and that they reversed. I also want to applaud them for their efforts of copying our corporate tax policy. Those are two specific examples that stand out.

However, if we look at the bill we see that it pits province against province. We have seen what the Conservatives have done with the Atlantic accord. Just recently, if we take into account what they have done with respect to Bill C-22, they attacked the Premier of Ontario by calling him the small man of Confederation. They insulted not only premiers and put provinces against one another, but they also attacked mayors. We do not run a country by calling our mayors grumpy.

My mayor has served proudly for many years and is one of the most well respected mayors, not only in Canada, but across the world. She has received numerous awards for achievements, hard work, fiscal management and running a good city.

The bill also reminds us of a legacy of a government of broken promises. The one that stands out, which was mentioned in a petition just a few minutes ago, is the income trusts.

Many hard-working Canadians, many seniors who have worked really hard, invested their money in income trusts because they were led to believe by the current government, in a commitment it made in its platform, that it would not change the rules to income trusts. What did the Conservatives do when they came to power? They broke that promise. That cost seniors and many other Canadians millions, if not billions, of dollars of investment opportunities and it has really hurt their fiscal and financial situation.

As I said before, I do have concerns with regard to the prosperity and productivity agenda laid out by the government. The GST example is a clear indication of where it is driven by polls and by gimmicks as opposed to trying to promote this prosperity and productivity agenda.

If we look, for example, at my constituency of Mississauga—Brampton South, it has many manufacturing jobs. We have the Pearson International Airport, which has become a hub of economic activity, but we need to ensure we remain competitive and, in order to do that, we need the government to show leadership and put in place a regime, an environment and policies that will ensure we are not only competitive in Canada, but we can also compete with the world. That is something this particular bill lacks.

I want to speak to missed opportunities, which is something I can speak to from my personal experience of living in my constituency of Mississauga—Brampton South. My constituency has a $123 billion infrastructure deficit, which is a substantial amount. The mayors and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities have mentioned this on numerous occasions. They had a protest here and mentioned that their deficits needed to be addressed.

What bothers me is that in March, the Prime Minister and his entourage came to the GTA and made an announcement about rapid transit funding for not only my constituency, but for surrounding regions as well. The announcement was made in March and yet we have not received the cheque. The province has put forward the money and the mayor and our councillors have the money there, but the federal government has not written a cheque.

That is something that is profoundly disturbing because these announcements are made and it is a missed opportunity. The longer the delay in this funding, the more gridlock continues to grow in that region.

I was very fortunate to become the father of a baby girl about eight weeks ago and I understand now, as a new father, the importance of spending time with one's family. However, if individuals are driving to and from work and are spending an additional 20, 30, 40 or 50 minutes in traffic because of gridlock, that is less time with their families.

If the government professes to care about families, why is it not giving us a cheque for our city? Why is it not helping us with our huge deficit? It is not the fact that it is not contributing more money. It is the money that was committed in the past that it is not honouring.

As I indicated, it was a missed opportunity, not only when it comes to the cities agenda, but manufacturing is a key area for the constituents of my riding, for my province of Ontario and for my neighbouring provinces. This is the economic hub that drives our country's economic wealth. It is unfortunate that high value jobs are being lost.

I can cite a quick example from a question I was asking in question period with regard to the forestry sector. The jobs in the forestry sector in northern Ontario and even the spin-off jobs in my riding are directly impacted by the fact that the government cannot do anything because it signed a flawed softwood lumber agreement that prevents it from actually playing a role with industry. I am talking about provincial governments because, in the absence of federal leadership, the provincial governments had to play a role. However, any time the federal or provincial governments play a role, they will be sued by the United States because of the flawed softwood lumber agreement signed by the federal Conservative government.

That is an example of how there is not only a lack of initial investments when it comes to this bill that has prevented assistance for manufacturing, but it further compounds it by preventing other levels of government to play a meaningful role.

We saw the latest census a few days ago and it showed a tremendous amount of immigration to this country in the past five or six years. Immigration is another key area where we need to find a way of integrating new Canadians and allow them to utilize their skills to ensure they are able to perform and reach their potential that not only benefits them, but it benefits our communities and our economies. Again, the government has made no substantive investment there, which is another missed opportunity.

The leader of the Liberal Party has demonstrated our position on poverty. When we look at the poisonous debate on reasonable accommodation in Quebec, it is a reflection of the fact that people's fears are perpetuated by fear and ignorance and they assume that certain ghettos are created. Those ghettos or those concentrations of people is a reflection of communities being segregated because of lack of opportunity, low income earners and people who lack opportunity. We need a strong poverty agenda to ensure all Canadians have equal opportunities to succeed and we need to stop segregating people based on income.

Another concern in my riding is health wait times. We could have invested much more money in this area. We could have invested money to reduce wait times. Every day I hear of instances in waiting rooms and the problems it is causing.

Going back to the first point I made on prosperity and productivity, education is another lost opportunity. If we want to build a productive society and a society that is prosperous, we need to invest in education.

I have fundamental problems with the government's economic policies. These are lost opportunities, wasted opportunities and missed opportunities. With such a large surplus, the Conservatives could have done so much more.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising a number of important issues, one being the forestry sector crisis. My riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan is a forestry riding and we are seeing a number of our sawmills close. One of the pulp and paper mills is now in bankruptcy protection. The Conservatives in their economic statement acknowledged the fact that our manufacturing and forestry sectors were in difficulty and yet did nothing to address the issue in the economic statement.

A couple of weeks back, the Bloc proposed a motion that, if all members of the House had supported it, would have seen support going to the manufacturing and forestry sectors. I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that the Liberals chose not to support that important motion that would have seen some money going into our forestry communities, if he thinks forestry is an important industry in this country.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern raised by the member opposite. It is an important issue. In my role and capacity as international trade critic, I have had the opportunity to meet with many people in the industry and to listen firsthand to the crisis that is currently looming with the job losses and the tremendous pressures they are facing just trying to maintain their operations.

When we were in government, we put forth a very comprehensive $1.5 billion forestry industry competitive plan that was announced in November 2005. This plan included funding and support for our transformative technologies, incentives for bioenergy expansion, assistance to respond to innovation opportunities, support for market expansion and a national forest community adjustment fund.

Those initiatives were all part of that $1.5 billion package to create a partnership with our industry in recognition of the fact that jobs and communities were important and that Canadian families needed the federal government to play a substantive role.

Instead, unfortunately, the Conservative government came into power and not only did it not follow through with this $1.5 billion commitment, but it signed a flawed softwood lumber agreement that effectively placed quotas in the system, that effectively raised tariffs and that effectively prevented the government from providing any type of incentive or initiative or any type of ability to work with the forestry sector.

What we see today is an absence of federal leadership on that front. The provincial governments are now forced to play a role and, unfortunately, any time they take any action they will be sued by the United States because of this flawed softwood lumber agreement.

We understand the concern and we were the ones who put forth a $1.5 billion initiative in November 2005.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the amendment proposed by the member for Ottawa Centre to delete a portion of part 17 specifically dealing with corporate taxes.

In the recent economic statement and the throne speech, and in view of the substantial surpluses it has, the Conservative government had an opportunity to correct the direction it has been taking. Instead, it has continued in the wrong direction. It has continued to ignore the very serious prosperity gap that is growing in Canada for many of our working and middle class families. The government has failed to target tax relief to people that it would help the most.

The Canadian Labour Congress made a submission to the House of Commons finance committee during its prebudget consultations. The paper is dated August 2007 and contains an analysis on corporate income tax. It talks about the fact that despite increasing cuts to corporate income tax, what we have seen is an unprecedented lack of investment in companies, in the bricks and mortar, in training and re-education within companies, things that would actually make a difference to working and middle class families. The following is a quote from that paper:

Pre-tax profits have soared to record heights and after-tax profits have grown even faster. There has been no comparable increase in corporate investment. Simply adding $15 billion to the 2000 investment level would have increased total investment to nearly 13% of GDP in 2006.

Further on it states:

Business leaders are using this huge surplus to become net lenders to households, stockpile liquid assets, acquire other enterprises, and buy back stock. While these actions may be viable business strategies, it is not clear why the public should subsidize them through further corporate-tax cuts.

That is a very good analysis in terms of why we would support business decisions on where they are going to put their profits.

I mentioned in a question to a Liberal member that in the economic statement the Conservative government acknowledged the difficult times that manufacturing and forestry are in for a number of reasons, yet it simply failed to follow up on what it acknowledged is a very serious problem.

In the riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, sawmills are laying off shifts of workers. A pulp and paper mill has filed for bankruptcy protection. There simply is not the national leadership around the forestry sector.

I have argued in this House previously and I will reiterate that forestry in British Columbia is not a sunset industry. It is a viable part of who we are as a province. We have the resources. We need to demonstrate national leadership around reinvestment in the industry, retooling where necessary and providing education and training for workers who need to transition into other jobs within the forestry sector.

The government had an opportunity in the economic statement and Bill C-28 to demonstrate that, but the government failed to do it.

There is a crisis in British Columbia caused by pine beetles. Although some money has been allocated, where is the long term, strategic planning for what will happen to those communities in five to ten years when all of the dead wood has been cut? Those communities are facing serious transitions and yet the government is failing to demonstrate the leadership that is required to make sure that those communities maintain their viability.

In addition to the challenges in our forestry and manufacturing sectors, we also are seeing the growing prosperity gap. Working and middle class families continue to struggle to make ends meet.

Many of us have been activists in our communities for a number of years. When food banks opened well over 20 years ago, many of us thought they were a temporary measure and that as our economy recovered, the food banks would close because they would no longer be needed. It is a very sad fact that there are more food banks rather than fewer.

In “HungerCount 2007” put out by the Canadian Association of Food Banks, there are a couple of startling figures. It says that the number of people assisted by a food bank in March 2007 was 720,231. There have been changes in food bank use. There is 91% more usage of food banks since 1989. There are 673 food banks in Canada with 2,867 affiliated agencies. The number of provinces and territories without a food bank is zero. It has been 26 years since Canada's first food bank opened in Edmonton. Seventy-three per cent of Canadians believe that hunger is a problem in Canada. Fifty-seven per cent believe that the government should take responsibility for solving the problems.

There are some very stark figures in that report which speak to the fact that there are men, women and children in this country who simply do not have enough to eat. I want to end the part on the food banks by saying that of the food bank clients, 38.7% are children. The percentage of households containing at least one child was 50.6% . It has been 18 years since the federal government promised to eliminate child poverty.

That leads me to the Campaign 2000 report that just came out entitled, “It Takes a Nation to Raise a Generation: Time for a National Poverty Reduction Strategy”. In 1989 the House unanimously passed Ed Broadbent's motion to end child poverty by the year 2000. Here we are in 2007 and it has not happened. Still there are children and their families, because of course there are no poor children without poor families, who continue to be the poorest of the poor in this country. The child poverty rate of 11.7% is exactly the same as it was in 1989. Forty-one per cent of children living in poverty live in families with at least one income earner working full time all year.

In my own province, despite a growing economy, British Columbia continues to report the highest provincial child poverty rate, which is 15.2%. In aboriginal and immigrant communities, the story is even worse. In aboriginal communities one in four children is poor, which means their families are poor. Aboriginal children and their families are living in substandard housing unable to access adequate drinking water, unable to access adequate medical care.

I recently put forward a private member's bill called Jordan's principle which talks about putting children first. It is a very good example that children on reserve often do not have access to adequate medical care. In Jordan's case his family had to surrender him to the province, put him in foster care in order for him to get the care he needed. Consequently, the federal and provincial governments fought over which one should pay for his care. The child ended up in hospital for four years. In the last two years of his life he could have been in a special foster home, but neither the federal government nor the provincial government would step up to the plate and pay for his care. He died in hospital instead of going to a foster home. That is a stain on Canada's reputation as being a caring and compassionate country.

Lest we only talk about problems, I want to talk about solutions because there are solutions. The winter 2007 report of the National Council of Welfare states that there are some real things that can be done. The report talks about childhood development care, access to education and training for adults so that they can better participate in the labour market, better jobs, income, social security for people who are not in the labour force, access to health care and other services, and affordable housing. The report states that in the absence of any leadership from the Conservative government on a national anti-poverty strategy, some of the provinces are taking some leadership around that, notably Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec. Those provinces are developing action plans. In Newfoundland and Labrador there is a cross-ministry initiative to develop an action plan with some real meaningful targets.

In this wealthy country of ours, the surplus was an opportunity to invest in Canadians. People talk about the rising tide lifting all boats, but it is not happening. We should have taken this opportunity to invest in child education, housing and other initiatives that would make a difference to families and which would close the very serious prosperity gap.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to point out during the debate on Bill C-28 some of the failings of the budget, failings that were not corrected in the fall financial update. Given the tone of the throne speech, I do not see that there is much intention to correct those failings going forward.

Ultimately, the general overarching problem that I have with the direction of the government in this regard is that, having been given the opportunity to significantly affect a variety of areas and challenges that face Canada, it has chosen instead to basically withdraw. The government is talking about withdrawing in its relationship with provincial governments, withdrawing in its relationship with municipalities.

Given the magnitude of the surplus, the opportunity was presented to the government to deal with universities. The reality is that since 1993 as soon as the fiscal situation was improved, the first thing the former Liberal government did as a national government was to invest heavily in research. The research chairs program, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and the indirect costs program, all of these things were investments by the Government of Canada in Canada, in Canadians to generate prosperity, because prosperity going forward is going to find its way where there is investment in knowledge.

That is just one example of the opportunity that was squandered by the Conservative government as it has chosen rather to simply make itself smaller, driven by an ideological agenda that simply does not believe that government can be an instrument for good. I do not hold that view.

Having said that, I also wish to say that I was very disappointed in the spring and most recently that the government still has not honoured the vote that it cast in favour of a motion calling for a national autism strategy, including a financial component. The government had the opportunity to do that and it did not.

Today what I would like to bring to the attention of the House and to Canadians is the nature of the change in the formula as it relates to transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education, social services and health.

In the 1960s and early 1970s the provinces were lobbying the national government, quite justifiably I think, for the government to adjust the taxation system because the provinces were carrying much of the costs of the most recent cost drivers, such as, education, health and social services. The tax system reflected an earlier time when most of these costs were federal.

In 1977 the Government of Canada responded to that request by offering the provinces 13.5% of personal income tax and 1% of corporate tax. It was attempting to do the right thing, but the problem with that remedy is that 1% of personal income tax per capita is not the same across the provinces. The problem is that in a rich province 1% of personal income tax per capita is worth significantly more than 1% of personal income tax per capita in a poorer province.

In an effort at the time by the Government of Canada to mitigate the fact that it was about to make a decision that would bring less equity to the country, which certainly was not in anyone's interest, it included a cash component in the transfer, which was worth at the time $2.7 billion. Last year it was worth $20.5 billion, so it is no small amount of money.

At the time the federal government then introduced a cash component that it would transfer to the provinces. Inside the cash component was an equity seeking provision which allowed that there would be mitigation for the damage that was done to the equilibrium in the country when it used taxes as a way of giving more money to the provinces. In other words, if the tax changes benefited Alberta significantly more than Newfoundland and Labrador, which they did, then the amount that would go to cash would reflect that and Newfoundland and Labrador would get more.

That was the way the decision was taken in 1977. This remedy, to a structural problem in Canada, which everybody recognized, would not hurt the smaller, poorer provinces. In one fell swoop, with that 1977 decision to mitigate the inequality, perpetrated on Canada by the Government of Canada, was eliminated.

As a result, from this year to next, the post-secondary education and social services transfer will increase in Alberta by $102 a person, in Ontario by $40 a person and in my province of New Brunswick by $7 a person. That will have incredible impacts on the provinces receiving equalization. I think it was a decision that was taken by the government without a clear understanding. The way it was referenced was equalization through the back door. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The reality is it was not done to equalize Canada. It was done to ensure that the tax point transfer did not make Canada less equal. That was the purpose. It was recognized as such. Members can go back to Hansard and read the debates in the seventies and eighties around this.

The truth is the effect of this decision has impacted the smaller provinces in the areas of post-secondary education and social services, areas where we are struggling constantly to keep up. I accept that we receive equalization in our provinces. However, if we do not invest in universities, in knowledge and in research, and the provincial governments will have a hard time doing this given how much less money the small provinces have relative to the rich provinces as a result of this decision, then consequently the future holds more equalization.

In our province Premier Graham has boldly set out on self-sufficiency agenda so we will not find ourselves at the whim of these kinds of decisions. I have not decided whether I think that this was done deliberately or just unknowingly, but the bottom line is this. Try to explain to me and to Canadians where the justice is in increasing the amount of money available to the province of Alberta for post-secondary education and social services by $102 a person and the amount of money available in Newfoundland and Labrador or New Brunswick to $7 a person. How can that be just?

If that is not bad enough, by 2014, when the health accord expires because it is a 10 year agreement that was reached in September 2004, they will apply exactly the same forward to that. All the transfers that come to our provinces, the provinces that would suffer from this decision, all those provinces will be in a lesser position to provide those fundamental services in the area of health, in this case, and social services, but also the kinds of investments that would allow us to be more self-sufficient, to use Premier Graham's term. It will make it very difficult. It makes it all the more imperative to do this.

At the end of the day it is obvious, when we are as dependent on these transfers as we are, that we are at the whim of political decisions, whether taken out of malice or simply lack of forethought, and the effect on our province and our entire region will be disastrous.

It has not had a lot of attention. Members can check. It is on page 369 in the budget document and it is very clear. The increase in Alberta will be $102 a person. The increase in New Brunswick will be $7 a person. How can that be fair? How can that be just? How can we expect to build the Atlantic region when we are treated in a way that simply will not allow us to make the same kinds of investments that are made in provinces that have more of their own resources to invest?

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member opposite. I know he has done a lot of work and supported disability issues in the past. He says that he cannot support Bill C-28.

I want to ensure that the member is aware of the registered disability savings plan in Bill C-28. It is a new plan. It will allow funds to be invested tax free until withdrawal. It is intended to help parents and others to save for the long term financial security of a child with a disability.

The plan's structure is similar to a registered education savings plan. Contributions to it will be eligible for the new Canada disability savings grant and there is also a new Canada disability savings bond for individuals with lower family net incomes.

There are all these things for the disability plan, but we have also had some very positive quotes from people who work in the industry. The Canadian Association for Community Living:

—congratulates the Government of Canada on introducing a Registered Disability Savings Plan...to provide families greater opportunity to save for the future financial security of a child with a severe disability.

The Vancouver Province in an editorial said:

—the [finance] minister is to be congratulated for adopting a plan that is comparatively uncomplicated and...accessible at all income levels....the great good it will do is beyond calculation in mere dollars and cents.

Given the fact that the member opposite has done so much great work in the past on this issue, how can he not support Bill C-28?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her acknowledgement of the work I have done on disabilities. I am very familiar with the programs she mentioned. I helped draft them and that is why they were in our platform in the last election.

The budget and the update are large documents and they contain a large number of things. There are many worthy things in the documents and that would be one of them. I commend the government for that.

At the same time, the damage that will be done to my province as a result of the changes in the transfer on social services will do so much more damage to those very programs that the province has to deliver around social services. In no way could there be compensation in those things that are positive.

If the government had not changed the social transfer, it would be a different story, but it has. As a consequence, my province will be unable to deliver programs in my community. It has nothing to do with equalization. Nor has it anything to do with the structural inequality. This is an inequality that was created by a decision of the national government in 1977. It protected itself against a cash transfer that had an equalization element inside it to simply mitigate the inequality that was in the tax transfer. It has been eliminated and the results for the smaller provinces are disastrous.

Consequently, with all due respect to the good pieces of this legislation, it cannot trump the damage that will be done by this one single decision.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Maritimes for his comments. I have a very quick question for him.

The amendment I put forward is an amendment around clause 1(a)(1), which has to do with corporate taxes. Where does he stand on this amendment and where does his party stand ultimately on this bill? Are they for or against the it?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would have more credibility if he went after all the tax measures. We have mentioned them. We had the courage to mention them. The NDP members have not. They are cherry-picking in terms of those which they can politically play better.

The reality is there is no credibility at that end of the House.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, an interesting occurrence happened about an hour ago. I made a call to a friend in Hamilton and he asked me why my party was literally hammering the Conservatives on this budget update. He had not been watching the headlines closely, but he had seen from time to time various members of the NDP caucus on their feet, particularly from Hamilton and today from Ottawa, who talked about our major concerns with the economic update.

Simply put, and as I expressed to my friend, the update is taking us in the wrong direction. It is not balanced. We have an unprecedented opportunity to make some changes for the good of our country.

As we know, we have a manufacturing crisis. More people are living in poverty than ever before. As a result of that, looking at the update statement, Bill C-28, it is abundantly clear that there is nothing for ordinary, hard-working Canadians, nothing at all.

The Conservatives have been following a well set pattern, a pattern set by the Liberal Party, of corporate welfare giveaways. We all know that in 2005 the leader of the NDP Party, the member for Toronto—Danforth, was able to get the Liberal Party to set aside some corporate tax cuts, but we are still in a position where there is almost a fond reverence for offering tax cuts to corporations by both sides in this place. These breaks will reduce our budget by over $12 billion, and those are moneys crucial to Canada.

In fact, I want to thank the member for Ottawa Centre for the amendment he has proposed today, which would completely remove clause 181 from the agreement. We hear from Canadians across our country. They are very concerned with the loss of fiscal capacity contained in the budgets brought forward with huge corporate tax breaks in quick succession.

Different members in the House have on many occasions expressed there concerns about the huge infrastructure problems facing Canada. Representatives of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities were in town recently. The report they released, which has been referred to repeatedly here, and justifiably so, tells us there is a shortfall of $123 billion, putting our fiscal capacity at risk. They have said that those moneys need to be invested now and if they are not, then the situation will clearly worsen.

Within that document, there were $40 billion for communities and recreation. Being the sports critic, I have a particular awareness of that part of the report. Communities like Hamilton, where I am from and am pleased to represent, have been forced year after year to turn to the province of Ontario for assistance with their municipal budgets. They usually face a shortfall in the area of $20 million and that is just to contend with day to day operations.

A lot of that came about in the 1990s when the Liberal government of the day started offloading responsibilities to the provinces, along with tax collection. Under Mike Harris, the who does what committee, if I recall the name appropriately, said that his government should keep social services and leave education funding within the mandate of municipalities. What did it do? It reversed that.

Education is predictable and allows us to plan ahead. We know how many children are born and when they are born. When it comes to social concerns and downturns, we do not know how many people will lose their jobs. In fact, 11,000 jobs were lost last year in Hamilton. Everyone will hear me say that later. Because of that unpredictability, it made those moves to protect itself at the provincial level.

There was another more insidious thing at work, which was offloading from income, where people could afford to pay property taxes and many on fixed incomes could not afford the adjustments necessary to deal with such things. The province of Ontario has also made it clear to Hamilton that it cannot sustain the $20 million transfer and it will have to go back to the province regularly.

I also expect, from what I am hearing, that many major cities across the country have significant infrastructure problems similar to Hamilton.

Hamilton has to renew its sewer system soon. This is one of the older cities in Canada and every year a significant number of water mains break and other failures of infrastructure are very evident. We have unique challenges in Hamilton.

As the House knows new immigrants who come to this country travel to Vancouver first, or Toronto or Montreal. They find, after being there a short period of time, that they are unable to afford the cost of living. Many of them choose Hamilton as their second destination, but federal dollars go to those first communities where the immigrants arrive. So, there is a particular burden that befalls our city and I am sure other ones across Canada as well as a result of the fact that federal dollars are not spread as evenly as they could be.

Clearly, much could have been done by the Conservative government in its update before cutting taxes. I spoke in the House about the fact that Canadians are a people with a lot of common sense. I have also advised the House of the significant concerns I am hearing back in my riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

My constituents are quick to point out to me their surprise that a government with the massive surplus in the tens of billions of dollars does not seem, in their eyes anyway, to be approaching its fiscal management with the same common sense that ordinary Canadians apply in their day to day living.

Canadians are quick to say that they know when one is doing well, it is time to invest. They will invest their money in repairs and upgrades to their homes. Canada needs to repair its home, its infrastructure.

Canadians will also put a little money aside for an eventual downturn which we well know follows in quick succession. I would argue that is happening at the present time and if we have surplus monies this is the time to address those needs.

Also, when ordinary Canadians do have good times, they do not head off to the bank to pay off their mortgage. They would not do that because they understand that keeping a reasonable debt is fiscally responsible in order to sustain their cashflow.

Canadians know that if their house foundation is rotten, that soon that house will fall. The foundations of Canadian cities are literally rotting across this country.

The other evening when I spoke about this fiscal update, I pointed to the fact that in conversations with my constituents at our local Timmy's, and that is our gathering point, there is a lot of sage advice given in those places.

I also found in the last couple of visits that the seniors who were there were very angry. They have come to know that due to an error by the federal government that they were underpaid some $500 a year in their old age security. They are patiently waiting for the taxman to send them their money. I should add their patience is wearing thin.

I strongly advise the Conservative government to get on with the job and send Canadians the monies that they are owed.

The seniors are busily swapping opinions on the matter and most are quick to point to their personal experience. They have had experiences with the taxman over the years where they have owed some money and guess what, the letter comes with the demand for money or at times there might even be someone knocking on their door.

The House has heard from Hamilton members over and over of the terrible situation in our manufacturing sector. That is another area where we have to have a strategic plan. We have to invest. It is not just corporate taxes and not just a trickle down that is going to fix that problem.

The House has heard from the Hamilton members as well as the rest of our caucus that Hamilton is one of the hardest hit in the manufacturing crisis that is happening. I use that word “crisis” very clearly.

As I have said before repeatedly, 11,000 of my friends and neighbours have lost their jobs in Hamilton in the last year. Those taxpayers who have lost their jobs should rightfully expect changes to EI to help them adjust to their loss.

Turning to a damaged EI system, gutted by the former Liberal government, is not going to be that helpful when in fact the national average for accessing EI is only 40% and in urban areas 22% to 30%, which would include Hamilton.

In the eyes of many Canadians the EI fund, instead of being an insurance against job layoffs, has become nothing but a pool for the government. I would say to the government that it should choose Canadians over corporate Canada. It has chosen corporate Canada over Canadians in crisis. That is something that we all regret.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my friend from Hamilton who certainly gave a great dissertation about the philosophies of his party. I have here quotes from a couple of former NDP MPs who stated some things drastically different.

One stated that the NDP priorities are to direct tax relief measures to those most in need. A reduction in the overall GST rate by two points would promote job creation and give hard-pressed consumers a break. That is what Nelson Riis said when he was here as an NDP member.

Lorne Nystrom, when he was here also as an NDP MP, said that the NDP had been saying all along to roll back the GST. He kept asking when the finance minister would finally catch up with the Canadian people and roll back the GST, the most regressive tax in the history of the country?

I am not certain I am hearing the NDP talk about how great the roll-back in the GST is, which is part of this bill also.

I might ask him, has the NDP changed direction? Does it wish to continue to carry on with the most regressive tax ever or to hold on to a tax that if removed would help promote job creation? Has his party changed its mind?