Debates of March 20th, 2007

The Budget

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Some things are sad but it is better to know the truth because that helps us advance our cause. The hon. member has been doing a great job.

The hypocrisy of the Conservative government and the minister has no bounds. His background is one of not just a member of the most right wing government in Ontario history, the Harris government, but on the extreme right wing in the cabinet of that government. He comes to power preaching the virtues--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I am sorry but I must interrupt the hon. member.

Resuming debate, the leader of the Bloc Québécois.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, exactly five years ago yesterday, on March 19, 2002, this House refused to recognize the existence of the fiscal imbalance by voting against a motion introduced by the Bloc Québécois.

Since that date, we in the Bloc Québécois, with the Parti Québécois government of the time and the entire National Assembly of Quebec, have fought hard to achieve progress on this issue, one that is fundamental for Quebec.

Yesterday, for the first time, by proposing a first step toward resolving it, the federal government has supported recognition of the fiscal imbalance by taking concrete action.

This is the unequivocal proof that a strong Bloc Québécois presence in Ottawa pays off for Quebec. This is especially true when there is a minority government. It also illustrates the difference between the Bloc and the other federal parties.

While the Liberals and Conservatives fight over who will take power in Ottawa, the Bloc is fighting to get powers back for Quebec. That is what makes all the difference. This is not an easy job; it has taken us five years to get the first step—and this is just the first step—toward a resolution.

This first step toward a resolution is why we are going to vote for the budget. We are going to do this because Quebeckers are the ones who will benefit from the progress made, and they have already been waiting a long time for it. As usual, we are going to be responsible and pragmatic.

Reality, however, demands that we say that there is still a long way to go to eliminate the fiscal imbalance.

The government and the Prime Minister have not honoured their commitment.

When the senator and Minister of Public Works and Government Services said on Sunday that the fiscal imbalance was going to be resolved once and for all, he was trying to deceive the public and his allies, Mario Dumont and Jean Charest.

When he said in his speech that the case had been heard and it was over, the finance minister was deluding himself. He has shown himself to be completely disconnected from the reality of Quebec and the reality of the facts. He was in fact immediately contradicted, not only by André Boisclair, but also by Jean Charest and Mario Dumont.

We are therefore not going to give up the fight. We sovereignists will never give up. We are going to continue our work to have the transfers for post-secondary education increased. We are going to continue to call for an equalization formula that takes 100% of natural resources into account, that is, all natural resources.

Most importantly, we are going to continue to fight for the essential thing, a fiscal transfer. Yesterday, on that essential point, no concrete progress was achieved.

The fight against the fiscal imbalance has been led by sovereignists. In 1977, René Lévesque was the last premier of Quebec to get a fiscal transfer. Lucien Bouchard fought at every opportunity to restore transfers to Quebec after Jean Chrétien's Liberals slashed them in the 1990s. It was Bernard Landry who created the commission on fiscal imbalance and who was successful in creating a very strong consensus on this issue in Quebec, but also in Canada. Here in Ottawa, were it not for the Bloc Québécois, the fiscal imbalance would not even be an issue.

We have made this an issue and we are very proud of this. Some people might be surprised at sovereignists working so hard to solve problems that are created by Canadian federalism, but there is nothing surprising about it. Quebec sovereignists believe that what is good for Quebec is good for the sovereignist plan. Sovereignists do not believe that the worse things are, the better it is. We act responsibly, in the best interests of Quebeckers.

There is nothing surprising about this, because eliminating the fiscal imbalance means giving Quebec its freedom. Because the only real, lasting solution to the fiscal imbalance is a fiscal transfer of the GST and tax points. What Quebec wants is its own revenues.

Yesterday, we were only paroled with conditions. Yesterday, the government only granted conditional revenues to Quebec, subject to Ottawa’s goodwill. The past has taught us that Quebec is at the mercy of decisions made here. Everyone remembers the brutal cuts in transfer payments that took place in the 1990s, the cuts to equalization payments made since 2000, and the agreement on child care that was torn up by this government. No new independent source of revenue was granted to Quebec.

In choosing to present his budget in the middle of the Quebec election campaign, the Prime Minister of Canada decided to intervene and to influence the citizens of Quebec. We can not say strongly enough how callous and unacceptable it is for the Prime Minister to try to buy the votes of Quebeckers in this way.

Government members may think, in light of the remarks of Mr. Dumont and Mr. Charest, that Quebec has abandoned its demand for fiscal transfers. They are wrong. Because of the election, Mr. Charest kept a stony silence yesterday on the essential point: transfer of the GST and income tax points. He was trying to save face with six days left until the election.

However, we should remember that when he was leader of the Conservative party, he never stopped saying—quite rightly—that the solution lies in the transfer of tax points.

During the 2003 leaders’ debate, he swore, hand on heart, that in his heart, in his gut, in his mind, he was firmly convinced that the solution was the transfer of tax points.

That was still the case a few months ago. Yesterday, his silence on this question was painful. He folded his arms and kept silent for campaign reasons. In doing so, he no longer qualifies for the position of Premier of Quebec.

The behaviour of Mario Dumont is more troubling. Yesterday, he, too, was silent on the matter of fiscal transfers. That is extremely troubling for a sovereignist leader, because a transfer of the GST and tax points would translate into independent revenues for the Government of Quebec, which Mario Dumont refers to as own-source revenues. I am certain that Mr. Dumont would not contradict me on that point.

More troubling still, Mr. Dumont demonstrated a selective recall of history on the issue of federal spending power. He called for a re-opening of the Constitution to entrench limits on that power.

I am very eager to hear the government’s and the Prime Minister’s answer to Mr. Dumont’s request. The demand in the Séguin report was very clear: counter the federal government’s spending power with an unconditional right to opt out with full compensation. That is our solution.

The government has refused to do so. I can understand how embarrassing this is for Mr. Dumont. It is sad to see these two leaders of Quebec parties backing down because the Prime Minister has cornered them.

As we know, the Prime Minister wants to choose the questions reporters may ask. He wants to choose the judges and the immigration officials. Now he would like to choose the Premier of Quebec. I have news for him: it is Quebeckers who choose their premier.

I have more news for him: on March 26, there will be a new Premier of Quebec, the only one who did not back down yesterday, the only one who did not give up, the leader of the Parti Québécois, André Boisclair. But he will not be alone. All of us in the Bloc Québécois will be there for Quebec. That is how Quebec wins: with sovereignists who stand up for it.

I want to finish by emphasizing that the Prime Minister did not keep his promise to eliminate the fiscal imbalance in the budget. He did not keep this promise, just as he broke his promise to offer Quebec a seat at UNESCO similar to the one it has in the Francophonie. Quebec does not have a seat at UNESCO; it can sit in and speak only when it agrees with Canada. When it does not, it is told to go away. That is not showing respect for Quebec.

When the government’s Quebec members say that the fiscal imbalance has been eliminated, they are just showing once more that the interests they defend are their own and those of their government, not the interests of Quebec.

I therefore ask the Prime Minister and his government to cease their pre-election games and get down to work. It is time to do some real governing. Now is the time. There is a lot to do. The government needs to get back to work on the fiscal imbalance by proposing a tax transfer to Quebec and by increasing transfers for postsecondary education. It needs to re-balance the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. It needs to come up with an environmental policy based on polluter pays along with a territorial agreement and a carbon trading exchange in Montreal.

The government should also provide accessible employment insurance for workers and create an independent employment insurance fund. It should transfer moneys to Quebec and the provinces for social housing. It should institute an income-support plan for older workers to ease their way to a decent retirement. There is a lot to be done. We for our part will continue to provide solutions and to speak out responsibly every time and on every issue on Quebec’s behalf and with its interests alone in our hearts and minds.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and thank the Bloc members for their support for the government's second budget. The budget demonstrates to everyone in Quebec that federalism works. It demonstrates that Quebec is far better off in a united Canada, as the House voted just a few short weeks ago. In fact, the budget delivers for Quebec.

In restoring fiscal balance, the government, the federation, will provide Quebec with more than $15.2 billion in 2007-08, which includes $7.16 billion under the new equalization system, $5.2 billion under the Canada health transfer, $2.278 billion for Canada's social transfer, including additional funding for post-secondary education and child care, and $413 million for infrastructure.

The province of Quebec will also receive $350 million from Canada ecotrust for clean air and climate change. It will also receive $70 million over the next three fiscal years to implement the immunization program to protect women and girls against cervical cancer. This government will also be supporting the francophonie summit in Quebec City, with $52 million over two years.

This is the way the federation works for Quebec. Does my hon. friend opposite acknowledge how greatly the federation has benefited the province of Quebec in the budget?

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, it shows very clearly that under a minority government and under the pressure of some of the members of the Bloc Québécois, Quebec obtained something.

Second, we always have to wait on a decision made by Ottawa before doing the books because there is no precise mechanism, such as income tax points or GST points, to ensure that Quebec has the autonomy of deciding its own priority with its own money.

If we are supporting the budget, it is because there is $3.2 billion on the table, but not on a permanent basis. We have to wait on a decision from the federal government. It could change. We have seen that in the past, but we are taking that money.

I am very hopeful that next Monday we will have a sovereignist government in power in Quebec, under André Boisclair. With that money, we will be facing the challenges of offering Quebeckers the services they deserve. We will be facing the huge challenges in health services and education. We will also be offering Quebec a real solution to stop the discussion about fiscal imbalance by making Quebec a sovereign country, and we will use that money to serve Quebec because it is our money.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this budget does nothing to narrow the gap between the rich and poor in Canada. This budget completely neglects the poor.

We are in a period of restructuring in the manufacturing sector. Thousands and thousands of workers are losing their jobs. This government is not helping them. This budget does nothing to help the unemployed. It contains nothing to restructure and enhance employment insurance.

How can the Bloc Québécois vote in favour of this budget and thereby abandon the unemployed in Canada and Quebec?

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises a number of weaknesses in this budget. We are aware of them.

However, Quebec will receive $3.2 billion as a response to the fiscal imbalance. Let me be clear: this money is not being allocated in a satisfactory manner, since there is no permanent mechanism such as a combination of tax points and GST points.

That being said, a sovereignist government in Quebec could use this $3.2 billion for social housing, narrowing the gap between the rich and poor, improving post-secondary education and improving health care.

Of course we will continue to fight on the issue of employment insurance.

The problem with the NDP is that in its view everything goes through Ottawa. That is where the problem lies. For example, as far as the fiscal imbalance is concerned, the NDP likes Quebec well enough, but not enough to say that 100% of natural resources should be included in the calculation because the NDP wants to protect its votes in Saskatchewan, and possibly in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.

We do not have that problem. We do not have to establish our financial priorities based on all the Canadian provinces. We want out money, all our money. With this money we will be able to make Quebec a sovereign and prosperous country, where social justice will outshine the rest of Canada.

When we look at what the NDP has done in the provinces and what the PQ did when it was in power, there is no comparison. Saskatchewan does not even have anti-scab legislation, and the NDP was in power there for decades.

We can be proud, as progressive people, to have a party such as the Parti Québécois, to have a party such as the Bloc Québécois and to one day very soon have a country like the country of Quebec.

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

Before I begin my speech, may I offer you, Mr. Speaker, some words of appreciation from those of us back home in Winnipeg and Manitoba for your 28 years of service to our country and to express our sadness that you have made a decision to leave this place, to leave federal politics to pursue other important endeavours. We know, after 28 years of service, that you have every right to make this decision and pursue other dreams, but it does leave us sad and wondering who will fill your big footsteps, who will serve as dean of the House in a way that commands the respect that you do, who will offer us the leadership you give to all of us in terms of political issues, spiritual matters and just sheer human compassion for everyone in our society.

We offer to you, Mr. Speaker, our sincere thank you, gratitude and appreciation for your years of service.

Let me start off this very important budget debate by indicating that I stand here on behalf of all of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party as proud Canadians determined to make a difference, to keep our country together, to pursue an agenda that ensures unity above all founded on the principles of human compassion and concern and to build a nation of sharing and caring to ensure that the principles of equality of opportunity and condition are spread and enveloped everywhere across the country.

We stand very much today out of grave sadness and concern with the budget. We had hoped that the present administration would have learned from its first year in government, that it would have read the pulse of Canadians, that it would have found the real priorities of Canadians and reflected this in the budget. I know with the first budget Canadians were prepared to give the government leeway, to be somewhat patient in terms of results, but they are not prepared, after a whole year, to see such a wasted opportunity.

Canadians, without question, are being left more and more on their own and are feeling less and less secure.

It is interesting that 49% of Canadians believe they are just one or two missed paycheques away from poverty. It is an incredible statistic for a country as wealthy as Canada. Despite a growing economy and despite the fact that this is a land of wealth and possibilities, the gap between the rich and the rest of us is growing.

The point of the budget should have been to close that gap, to make life more fair and affordable for all Canadians. It should have dealt with the embarrassing situation of so many in this wealthy country living in absolute abject poverty and homelessness. It should have dealt with the fact that so many low and middle income Canadians are feeling a deep and profound sense of worry, fear and insecurity.

The average earnings of the richest 10% of Canada's families raising children is now running at 82 times that earned by the poorest 10% of Canada's families. This is up from only 31 times, 30 years ago. The after tax income gap has never been this high in at least 30 years and it has grown faster than ever since the late 1990s.

Let us look a little further. Only the richest 20% are making real gains from Canada's economic growth, with the majority of those gains concentrated in the top 10%. That means the vast majority of us, middle income and lower income Canadians, are being left out and left behind.

In some interesting research done lately, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives tells us that ordinary Canadians are aware of this widening gap and that 85% of us want to do something about it. Canadians want their government to take action to close the gap to keep Canada and Canadians together.

Over the past decade when this gap was allowed to fester, widen and grow, we have had consecutive governments that have ignored this very fundamental issue. Whether we are talking about 10 years of Liberal governments or now a year and three months of Conservative government, the result is the same.

Governments have avoided the problem. They have closed their eyes to the realities around them, turned away from people in need and ignored the most vulnerable among us. They took the easy way out, passed legislation and brought in budgets that tinkered with the situation, dealt with the fringes of the issues and touched the edges of the situation, but they never came to grips with the real economic and social realities happening in this country.

Governments failed to realize that in fact we were on a path in this country that was contrary to everything we know about our history, contrary to what built this great land, what kept us together and what urged our pioneers to go through such hardship in order to build this land.

We have ignored the fundamentals of cooperation and community, of compassion and concern, in order to let a few accumulate wealth and receive all the benefit. We have let governments cater to that sentiment. We have let governments build on this notion of survival of the fittest, this notion that perpetuates the idea that life is a jungle, that all we need to do is work hard and we will make it, and that everyone is given an equal chance.

That does not fit with the reality, does it?

I want to tell the House about a young man in my constituency, Jordan Scott, who recently wrote an article that has been acknowledged as an important essay and a contribution to the fabric of our community. He is 18 years old. He lives in my community, Winnipeg's north end. He lives in a community that is low income and primarily urban aboriginal, close to the heart of downtown Winnipeg.

He says there are a lot of problems, but first off we have to recognize that:

--the residents of the North End are hard-working, upstanding citizens who, through no particular fault of their own, are marginalized because of race and ethnic background. Many of Winnipeg's urban Aboriginal people have moved here from Northern reserve communities, where unemployment reaches staggeringly high proportions in excess of 80%. Once here, they are unable to find jobs because of a lack of skills or education. Lack of work results in high poverty levels, which lead to frustration and despair. Often people turn to drugs and alcohol to escape the frustration in their lives. In turn, paying for these negative supports can and does lead some people to the criminal path, as the lack of work means of a lack of financial resources to pay for the bad habits they turn to as an escape. It is truly a vicious cycle, and once a person is caught up in it, it is very difficult to get out.

Let the words of Jordan Scott be a lesson to everyone in this place, particularly the government of the day, which likes to pursue matters of crime on the basis of absolute punishment and nothing else, without recognizing the root causes of this despair that leads to crime.

That is not to say we should not be doing everything possible to crack down on criminals and to punish those who have victimized others, but it also means that we have an obligation to understand what leads to such actions and what causes despair. And here we have Jordan Scott, 18 years old, who goes to Children of the Earth High School in my constituency, giving advice that is worth all of the rhetoric in this budget and all of the ink in the Minister of Finance's address yesterday.

In very clear language, Jordan Scott points out a path that we must take. It is so self-evident and so obvious that somehow all the powers that be have missed the point. He says:

Firstly, I would look for ways to improve education for children within the community.

Secondly, I would develop partnership programs with post-secondary institutions, and business and industry to target Aboriginal people....

Thirdly, I would work with community based programs to provide adequate facilities for drug and alcohol treatment and counselling.

He gives us a road map and ends by quoting Joseph Brant, who said:

No person among us desires any other reward for performing a brave and worthy action, but the consciousness of having served his nation.

Jordan Scott ends his essay by saying:

I believe that any action taken to help a community, or a nation, is rewarding in and of itself, for when the community prospers, all of us who are part of that community prosper. By helping others, we also help ourselves.

We can see what Jordan Scott is asking of government. He is not asking for a handout. He is not asking for government to give something to people who are down and out. He is asking for the means and the tools by which he and others can help themselves to be prosperous members of our community, to be contributing citizens in our society and to be responsible adults in a very complex world. He is asking government to take the scarce resources that we have by way of this budget and invest those resources in education, training, literacy, child care, counselling, and supports for youth at risk and single parent moms who are struggling to make a difference.

He will be very disappointed with yesterday's budget, because the government chose not to make those strategic investments that would actually make a difference. It chose instead to tinker around the edges, to scatter the money, and a lot of it, in a hundred different places, to sow the seeds over a vast territory but not on fertile ground. It chose not to concentrate that money in areas that would produce the biggest bang for the buck and reap the greatest rewards.

That should be the role of government. Is that not the job of government? To make a difference, to plant the seeds and to give money where it actually can produce other results? Is that not what we should be talking about here today? Should we not be talking about taking the money that is now going to corporations, $9 billion worth of it, started by the Liberal government, $9 billion in corporate tax cuts, and instead investing it in child care and education and housing?

As for this budget, what everybody is asking us is this: how can we not support a budget that has so much money? Let me tell members how. We cannot support a budget that does not make a real difference in the lives of Canadians.

The Conservatives can point to this tax-back policy after they have put all of the available flexibility and all of the surplus dollars against the debt, basically, without coming back to this place for any kind of input, which is something they demanded when in opposition. We remember how they belittled and belaboured the point about lowballing, a concern we shared.

The fact is that the Liberals continually lowballed the surplus and then, without due consideration for parliamentary process or checking with the people of this country, just let that money go against the debt. It was pretty galling to sit here and listen to the Liberal critic for finance talking about vision, long term planning and ideas and imagination when he was part of a government that for 10 years took every bit of flexibility and surplus and put it against the debt without checking to see what the priorities of Canadians were.

Today the Liberals talk about the short-sightedness of the government. The Liberals, over 10 years, took $80 billion in unanticipated surplus, which is beyond money that goes against the debt, I remind members, and put that against the debt. Even though it is raining in this country, they would not fix the roof. Even though people are suffering, they would not help Canadians to help themselves, not at all.

In this budget, as we know, the gap is at its biggest when it comes to aboriginal people. I have talked about Jordan Scott and his pain at seeing a government that does not recognize what is staring it in the face: the obvious way to help people help themselves so they can reap all kinds of benefits down the road.

This budget is invisible when it comes to women. It is a perfect example of the government going forward one little step and then going back two. What did the Conservatives do? They took money from the women's program. They put a bit back. They added a little to it but nothing that would make up for what they did to destroy a program that actually advances the equality of women in a country that should be embarrassed by the fact that the average woman in this country makes $24,000 a year.

I ask them to tell me how that woman who is in the first tax bracket is going to get any of that money for the child tax credit. Is that woman going to get any of the supposed advantage from any of this tax-back policy? Nada. Nothing. No way. This budget does not address those who need it most.

That money, that $310 per person that goes to all families, including those making a million dollars, could have been pooled and invested in a program that would actually create real child care spaces for all those working parents who are desperately trying to find secure, quality places for their children.

[An hon. member]

We would have had it if you hadn't brought down the Liberal government.

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

That is something we are still focusing on after 10 years of broken promises by the Liberals and now they are hollering because they brought it in at the last dying days of their government and are blaming this on us.

I am sick and tired of Liberals blaming other people for their mistakes. It is time they recognized that I am not their mother. I am not responsible for their deficiencies. They ought to recognize the fact that they caused this problem, and they have a great deal of explaining to do to Canadians for breaking a promise four elections in a row.

The other invisible group in this budget is obviously people with disabilities. The minister has brought in a tax credit. We do not deny that a tax credit makes a bit of difference. The tax credit promised in this budget is a tiny step in the right direction, but the vast majority of people living with disabilities do not have that kind of income to invest in a plan to draw on at some time in the future. They are dealing with the here and now. There is nothing in this budget that provides any kind of national income support program, or even hints at it, to deal with the real issues facing people with disabilities.

When we are talking about new Canadians, again, this budget pretends to deal with it by setting up an office regarding foreign credentials, but does it deal with the prosperity gap between new Canadians and immigrants and refugees coming into this country, the gap that is growing between them and those who have been here for a considerable period of time? Or the gap between them and immigrants who came to this country 30 years ago when in fact the gap was much narrower?

Statistics Canada has released a study on the growing income gap between new immigrants and Canadian-born people. The report examined the financial situation of immigrant families, assessing their economic condition and the extent of their chronic low income and impact of changes in education and skills, and found in fact that low income rates among immigrants during the first year in Canada were “3.5 times higher than those of Canadian-born people”. There is a gap here that has to be addressed.

When I look at my constituency, which is one of the most ethnically diverse in the country, and when I talk to the Punjabi community or the Filipino community and hear their frustrations at not being able to get jobs and decent incomes in the areas for which they have training, experience and commitment, it drives me crazy that after 13 years of Liberal and Conservative governments we still do not have a way to recognize their experience and their credentials and ensure that they have access to good paying jobs.

From start to finish, the budget does not address the prosperity gap. It does not build a nation founded on the fundamental principles that built this land: cooperation, compassion, caring and sharing. In fact, it is very heavy on rhetoric. It has a lot of ink about families and working people but when it comes to actual expenditures and budgetary measures, the prosperity gap widens.

As my time is up, I would move:

That the amendment be amended by adding immediately after the words “orders of government” the following:

and this House further condemns the government for increasing the prosperity gap between very wealthy and ordinary working families by continuing the previous government's obsession with corporate tax reductions and failing to address the increasing costs that working families face every day.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The subamendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the NDP and my hon. colleague that budgets are totally about people. This budget has made an enormous investment in people, including, with the last budget, over $9 billion to clean up our environment, which is our children's heritage and it makes a better life for all of us.

This budget increases education funding by over 40%. This amount will increase every year by 3% under this budget.

This budget supports low income Canadians with families by giving them a $2,000 tax credit for each of their children.

This budget will take over 200,000 additional Canadians completely off the tax rolls. This is in addition to the 655,000 Canadians who are off the tax rolls because of the last budget.

This budget helps women and girls by committing millions of dollars to a vaccination program to protect against cervical cancer.

This budget protects seniors and increases the money they will have in their pocket.

This budget eliminates so many of the barriers for people who want to get off the welfare rolls and climb the welfare wall into employment.

This budget is about people and it helps people. It contributes to a better life, not only now but in the future. I ask my hon. colleague to reconsider her support and support this budget which is for the people of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary brings a lot of commitment to this whole process.

Although we cannot support the budget, I do recognize that there are some aspects to it that are important and do make a difference, some of which we as New Democrats have fought for.

I want to mention that I raised in the House the fact that the credit for bus passes, which only applied to monthly users and unfairly discriminated against those who purchased weekly bus passes, had to be changed and the government did that.

I want to recognize that there is some money for education in this budget.

On the child care front, it is still dismally addressed in this budget with $1 billion cut before our eyes. The government did take the little bit of money it had set aside for business created day care, which was $250 million, and is giving it to the provinces so they can create spaces but that is a drop in the bucket.

What is important to say, which I said in my letter to the minister before his budget, is that we need more than tinkering. We need more than this usual small-minded tax cut for every ill. As I said in my letter:

After more than a decade of short-sighted tinkering around the edges, the time has come to again strategically leverage the competitive advantages that we have and to seize the opportunity to create new ones.

That is missing in the budget.

If we go through the budget we see nothing on housing. It has no housing strategy and no national transit strategy. It has nothing on employment insurance and does not establish a $10 minimum wage. It has no poverty reduction strategy. It has no plan to end student debt. We see no cancellation of the corporate tax cuts. It says nothing about pharmacare, home care, long term care or improved access to health care for aboriginals. It has nothing for coordinated training of medical professionals and it has nothing for catastrophic drugs for the Atlantic region.

The budget provides no significant new money for aboriginals. We see only one-quarter of the money we wanted for child care. We see no money for autism. We see no ban on bulk water exports. We see nothing for the pine beetle infestation. We see nothing for seniors and no increase in OAS. We see no action on veterans. We see nothing for forestry, FedNor, ACOA and western diversification.

All the rhetoric in the world will not cover up the fact that this budget is severely deficient when it comes to meeting the needs of average Canadians, working people, middle class families, ordinary folks, everyday men and women who have worked hard to make this country what it is.

We will vote against this budget unless the government comes to its senses.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let us get some honesty here. The hon. member knows very well that in the 2006-07 budget the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister committed $200 million for 2006-07 and 2007-08 to the pine beetle infestation. The hon. member knows that so let us be honest with the people who are watching this program.

Speaking of honesty, I want to touch on the child care issue to which the member spoke. The myth that those members have been spreading is that somehow their institutionalized version of child care would be free for every family in the country. This is nothing but a myth. I think they are being dishonest with Canadian families when they spread that myth.

What they are not telling Canadian families is that their form of child care will only apply and be made available to families who live within large and medium sized cities like Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Edmonton and Calgary. What about the families who live in The Pas in Manitoba, in Winkler, Manitoba, in Steinbach, Manitoba? The member knows very well that the institutionalized child care system that her party talks about will not be established in these smaller communities. They know it cannot be. Why are they not being honest?

Our universal child care system provides $100 per month for every child under 6 years of age in all of Canada no matter where the family lives, whether it be in The Pas, in Winkler, in Cluculz Lake, British Columbia, Nazko, Wells, Barkerville, out in the Chilcotins or in Anahim Lake. Every family in this country, whether they live in a remote rural area or a downtown city area, receives the universal child care. Canadian families need that. They do not need some program that will only provide day care or child care to families who live in the city.

Why does the member want to discriminate against rural families and not provide them with child care and not support the universal child care program of the Conservative government that addresses the needs of rural families everywhere in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has some misunderstandings about child care.

First, he should be clear that the New Democratic Party has not talked about providing free child care to everyone. We have talked about building a national child care program that provides high quality, accessible and affordable spaces and settings for children, and that includes spaces in remote communities in northern Canada, rural Manitoba, eastern fishing villages, the whole range.

The member needs to be absolutely clear about how this works. In the case of a province like Manitoba, the money that comes from the federal government goes to non-profit community organizations that establish day cares that are run by parent boards. We are talking about child care spaces in urban settings, yes, in rural Manitoba, in co-ops, in workplaces, for shift workers, child care for special needs, the whole range. We are not talking about institutionalized day care. We are talking about child care that is nurturing and ensures good care while parents work.

Seventy per cent of working women with children under the age of 6 do not have access to those spaces and therefore make precarious, uncertain arrangements for their kids which has them worrying all the time about their kids' safety. They are under constant stress about juggling work and family responsibilities.

The NDP's opposition to the budget comes with a determination to convince the government to have both a child care policy and family policy, not to take away from those people who choose to stay at home full time and who, yes, need to be acknowledged and supported, but at the same time to recognize the working parents with children who need to be cared for, loved, nourished and educated.

All the NDP is asking is for the government to put back what it took out of the budget, the $1 billion that would have gone so far to create the kinds of settings and spaces that would meet the needs of children in Minnedosa, Winkler, The Pas, Winnipeg, in every city, town and village in this country.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo my colleague's comments about this House's respect for your contribution both to Parliament itself and to the democratic process, and to tell you that you will indeed be missed; thankfully, it will be many, many months down the road, but just to let you know that we do think so highly of you.

I am very pleased to lead the debate on budget 2007. This is a historic budget. It puts us firmly on the road to achieve a stronger, safer, better Canada to which we all aspire.

Budget 2007 addresses the priorities of Canadians. It restores fiscal balance with the provinces and territories. It protects and preserves our environment. It reduces taxes for hard-working families. This budget is about helping our country achieve its full potential. This budget is also about the principles and beliefs that make us uniquely Canadian, principles and beliefs that this budget will help us to preserve and instill in our children and in the generations to follow.

Last fall Canada's new government introduced advantage Canada, our long term economic plan to improve our country's economic prosperity and secure for all our citizens a quality of life second to none. Budget 2007 sets that plan in motion. The result is a strong Canada today and an even better tomorrow. It focuses on delivering positive practical and real results for Canadians and their families.

Advantage Canada commits to create five distinct advantages for Canada: a fiscal advantage, an infrastructure advantage, an entrepreneurial advantage, a knowledge advantage and a tax advantage. It is on these advantages that I wish to devote the bulk of my time today before turning briefly to other important parts of budget 2007. Budget 2007 proposes to take concrete action on all five advantages.

First is the fiscal advantage. Our goal is to create a strong foundation of good management on which to build sustainable prosperity. That means continuing to reduce debt, to do our part as the federal government to eliminate Canada's total government net debt in less than a generation. Budget 2007 will take us closer to this goal.

Canada's new government plans to reduce our national mortgage by $9.2 billion this fiscal year. Added to last year's debt reduction of $13.2 billion, that means a total reduction of $22.4 billion in the first two years alone under our government's watch.

This government means business about tackling Canada's debt. As a result, the federal debt to GDP ratio will fall to 30% by next year, 2008-09. We are firmly on target to reach our objective of 25% by 2012-13.

In advantage Canada we promise that because lower debt will mean lower interest payments, we will use interest savings to lower taxes for Canadians. We call this the tax back guarantee. Budget 2007 proposes to make the tax back guarantee the law of the land. It will also lead to some $1 billion per year in further personal income tax relief for Canadians.

Advantage Canada also pledges to achieve an infrastructure advantage for Canada. We will create a modern, world class infrastructure that facilitates a seamless flow of people, goods and services across our roads and bridges, through our ports and gateways and via our public transit.

Budget 2007 makes a historic investment of more than $16 billion over seven years in infrastructure. Including the funding provided earlier in budget 2006, federal support for infrastructure will be a total of $33 billion over that period. By any measure, that is a tremendous commitment.

Let us look at some of what that investment will deliver. To help fund municipal priorities such as roads, public transit and water, budget 2007 will transfer $2 billion per year to municipalities from 2010-11 to 2013-14 by extending the gas tax fund. This is a total of $8 billion toward municipal infrastructure. In addition, budget 2007 allocates $6 billion to the new building Canada fund, investments in gateways, border crossings and public-private partnerships.

Turning to the creation of an entrepreneurial advantage in Canada, budget 2007 takes action on several fronts to build a more competitive business environment, especially for small businesses. We will continue our efforts to reduce unnecessary regulation and red tape by significantly reducing the number of tax remittances small businesses must file each year.

We will lower taxes to unlock business investment and open new market opportunities through a new global commerce strategy. We will work with the provinces and territories to eliminate interprovincial barriers and promote a freer flow of people and goods within Canada.

Creating a knowledge advantage is another key to our success as a nation. Canada's new government recognizes that our people are our greatest asset and it goes without saying that human capital is critical to a successful national economy. Accordingly, budget 2007 will help create a workforce that is the best educated, most skilled and most flexible in the world. It invests $1.3 billion to chart an ambitious new course for establishing scientific and technological leadership for Canada. It increases federal funding for post-secondary education by a full 40% and it invests $500 million a year in training.

For families saving for their children's education, budget 2007 makes registered education savings plans, RESPs, more attractive by eliminating the $4,000 limit on annual contributions. The budget also increases the lifetime RESP contribution limit from $42,000 to $50,000. The budget also increases the maximum Canada education savings grant annual amount from $400 to $500. That is our contribution to each family saving for their children's education. And there is more for families.

Families will also benefit through the actions in budget 2007 to create a tax advantage for Canada. As the finance minister noted yesterday, Canadians pay too much tax. They know it. We know it. We are doing something about it.

Budget 2007 proposes to reduce taxes for Canadian families and to make the tax rate on new business investment more internationally competitive. The working income tax benefit announced in budget 2007 will reward and strengthen incentives to work. More than 1.2 million low income Canadians will benefit from this measure.

Budget 2007 also proposes a new working families tax plan. This plan will end the marriage penalty, so-called, for single earner families. The budget proposes a new $2,000 child tax credit that will provide parents up to $310 in tax relief for each child under 18. More than three million Canadian families will benefit from this credit and 90% of those families will receive the maximum amount of relief.

Over 80% of relief provided by the working income tax benefit and the working families tax plan will go to Canadians earning under $75,000. Some 230,000 low income Canadians will be removed from the tax rolls. That is in addition to the 655,000 low income Canadians removed from the tax rolls as a result of tax reductions in our 2006 budget. What this means is that many more low income Canadians will be better able to meet the needs of their families through this government's recognition of the challenges they face.

We will enact the tax fairness plan we introduced last year to provide over $1 billion in additional tax savings for Canadian seniors by increasing the age credit amount and allowing pension income splitting.

On the business side of the ledger, budget 2007 will reduce the tax rate on new business investment to encourage investment, job creation and assist Canadian businesses to compete globally.

Manufacturing and processing businesses are a particular focus of budget 2007. They have faced difficulties of late given the strong Canadian dollar and rising challenges from international competition. To help them make the major investments needed to overcome these difficulties, budget 2007 proposes that they be provided with a special two year write-off for their capital investments and machinery and equipment from now until the end of 2008. We also propose to increase the capital cost allowance rate to 10% from 4% for buildings used in manufacturing and processing, and to 55% from 45% for computers.

We will improve tax fairness by tightening the rules that apply to the foreign source business income of Canadian companies.

We will also strengthen the Canada Revenue Agency's ability to deal with international tax evasion. We want a fair tax system for all Canadians.

Achieving these five advantages will make Canada a stronger country. However, we also need to make Canada safer. To that end, budget 2007 significantly enhances Canadians' security at home and ensures Canada plays an even more effective leadership role in world affairs in three key strategic areas: defence, public security and international assistance.

In the area of defence spending for example, budget 2007 proposes to increase environmental allowances for men and women of the Canadian Forces who are serving Canada in army field units. It proposes to create several new operational stress injury clinics for members of the military and their families.

The budget also makes significant investments to ensure that veterans get better services, including through the establishment of a veterans ombudsman.

Canadians want to live in safe and secure communities. Budget 2007 proposes important measures to help prevent crime and ensure public safety. Among other important investments, budget 2007 proposes to allot $64 million over two years to establish a new national anti-drug strategy with an emphasis on youth, prevention and treatment, and $14 million over two years to combat the criminal use of firearms.

As Canadians, we take pride in our role of reducing global poverty and promoting international peace and security. Budget 2007 will increase the resources Canada's new government has already devoted to this international assistance. It starts with the establishment of a three point program to enhance the focus, efficiency and accountability of Canada's international assistance efforts.

Further, this year's budget confirms the Prime Minister's announcement of $200 million in additional support for reconstruction and development in Afghanistan with the focus on new opportunities for women, on strengthened governance, enhanced security and combating illegal drugs.

The budget also invests an initial $115 million in the innovative advance market commitment led by Canada, Italy and the United Kingdom to create a pneumococcal vaccine that could save millions of lives in Africa and developing countries throughout the world.

A stronger Canada, a safer Canada will help us build a better Canada. Budget 2007 proposes to invest in the things that make Canada great and reflect the values and beliefs that define us as a nation.

On the environment, Canadians want their government to ensure that we have a clean and healthy environment in which to raise their children. Budget 2007 takes action to preserve our country's natural beauty, clean our air and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

A key initiative is the Canada ecotrust for clean air and climate change which will provide $1.5 billion to the provinces and territories for projects that result in real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants.

Budget 2007 provides a rebate of up to $2,000 per vehicle to encourage people to buy new fuel efficient vehicles. The budget also introduces a green levy for gas guzzlers. It provides $36 million over the next two years to help get older polluting vehicles off the road.

Canadians also want their governments to help members of our society who need it. That is where Canadian values shine through.

Budget 2007 focuses on initiatives to help and protect those Canadians who need it most. As I mentioned earlier, this includes the working income tax benefit of up to $1,000 per family or $500 for individuals to help people get over the welfare wall and strengthen incentives for obtaining and keeping a job.

The fact is, for a single mother struggling to get by, getting a job can mean losing 80¢ on the dollar through higher taxes and reduced benefits. We want to help people over the welfare wall and help them achieve the dignity and independence that comes with a job.

Canada's new government also recognizes the challenges faced by those raising a child with a severe disability. Budget 2007 introduces a new registered disability savings plan to help parents and others save for their child's future when they are no longer able to care for their child.

As Canadians we are proud of our universal health care system and Canada's new government has committed to sustaining it. The Canada health transfer will increase by $1.2 billion this year to bring to $21.3 billion federal support of provincial and territorial delivery of health care as part of our ongoing commitment to the 10 year plan to strengthen health care.

Budget 2007 takes further action to strengthen and modernize the health care system: an investment of $400 million for Canada Health Infoway to support the development of electronic health records that will reduce the chance of medical errors resulting from incomplete information and up to $600 million for provinces and territories which have made commitments to implement wait time guarantees.

Finally, fiscal balance has been the subject of much debate over the last while. Budget 2007 takes action to restore fiscal balance in Canada through a comprehensive and historic plan.

This plan also restores fiscal balance between taxpayers and government by cutting taxes and implementing our tax back guarantee so that the government only raises the revenues it needs to fulfill its responsibilities. It restores balance between governments by providing long term, equitable and predictable funding for shared priorities.

This plan will renew and strengthen the equalization program. Payments to receiving provinces will grow to almost $12.8 billion in 2007-08, $1.5 billion higher than in 2006-07. It will also strengthen and renew the territorial formula financing program.

It will deliver greater fairness through a commitment to equal per capita cash allocation for the Canada social transfer and the Canada health transfer, and increase federal funding to the provinces and territories for things that matter to Canadians, priorities such as post-secondary education, child care, infrastructure and the environment.

It provides long term, predictable funding for infrastructure with more than $16 billion in new funding over the next seven years.

It will make governments more accountable by clarifying roles and responsibilities and respecting jurisdictions. It will strengthen our economic union by acting on the Advantage Canada plan.

In short, it builds a stronger federation in which all governments come together to help Canada reach its full potential. That is what budget 2007 is all about, making life better for Canadians and their families.

As the Minister of Finance put it yesterday: “It is time to unleash Canada's full potential...Let us aspire to a stronger, safer, better Canada”.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I note that there is no increased funding for the CBC in this budget and funding for the CBC has been savagely cut in the past 10 years by the former Liberal government. I wish the Conservative government would support the alternative budget proposed by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives that would provide the CBC with $20 million in start-up money and $22 million for annual operating expenses. This funding would go a long way to assist the CBC to be our national voice. Without this type of funding, the CBC is destroying its own infrastructure to survive.

The board of directors of the CBC is meeting today as we speak and I hope the board would choose to maintain the famous CBC design department. There is tremendous historic knowledge and expertise in this department. Closing the design workshop would be to throw away a magnificent collection of props and costumes. This is the equivalent of throwing away 50 years of Canadian television history and it will further weaken the country's main hub of film and television production.

Is the government really willing to stand by and let this happen under its watch?

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that this government supports the role of the CBC in Canadian society and has continued to fund the CBC. I am sure the CBC appreciates the lobby that the member has just provided for it, but in fact, in addition to an organization like the CBC, this government has invested significantly in the culture of Canada.

We have dedicated, for example, $30 million per year to local arts and heritage festivals. We are providing $5 million to hire qualified interns in Canadian museums. We want to encourage youth participation in Canadian heritage sports. We now have a new national trust to help us preserve heritage buildings. We have increased funding for official languages minority communities. We are going to be significantly supporting the francophonie summit.

In many of these areas, where Canadian values, culture and heritage need to be proclaimed, dealt with, supported and encouraged, this government is moving strongly to do that.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during her speech the member opposite made mention of various groups or sectors that potentially will be helped by the budget. I heard nothing from her about the plight of tobacco farmers, nor did I hear anything yesterday from the Minister of Finance when he tabled his budget.

As the member opposite may know, there are over 600 tobacco producers, some in my riding and hundreds in the riding of Haldimand—Norfolk, the riding of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Their industry has been crushed. They have lost market share and are feeling the real financial crisis or pinch of product from offshore.

I would like to ask the member opposite, particularly in view of the innuendo or overtures which have been made over the past several months by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the member for Haldimand—Norfolk, why is there nothing whatsoever in this budget to assist tobacco farmers whose livelihoods are very much jeopardized? Their average age is 58 or 59 and have an average debt load of about $.5 million. They have been crushed and I would like to know why there was no relief for them in the budget.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there was a great deal in this budget for business people such as were mentioned by my colleague opposite. In fact, processors are now able to write off their investment in new equipment in order to meet the competitive challenges that he mentioned.

There will also be, of course, a further write off for processing buildings. There will be a reduction in the tax compliance burden for small businesses such as this. There will be a review of Canada's competition policy because there have been some real stresses in this sector and other sectors as well.

Our infrastructure spending will help the flow of goods and services across Canada, which will help all businesses. We want a new global commerce strategy and we have invested in that in this budget. There are a number of measures in this budget that will help the very businesses that the member mentioned in his question.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for her comments and share her enthusiasm about this budget. It clearly is a budget for hard-working, ordinary Canadians.

I refer, though, to the comments of the NDP member for Winnipeg North who made a very bold suggestion, which I believe is untrue. She suggested that this was a budget that completely left hard-working Canadians out of the picture.

When I look at the budget, there is a working income tax credit which is an incentive to assist those who want to get over the welfare wall. There is assistance for those who have disabled children. There is a $2,000 family tax credit for each child under the age of 18.

I would ask the member this. Does she share the sentiment that this budget leaves out hard-working Canadians?

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the working family tax plan in this budget is specifically designed to recognize the needs and challenges that families in our country face and to help them to earn, to save, and to invest in their needs by reducing their tax burden.

The success that we have had in this is pointed out by the fact that we, in our first budget, took 655,000 low income Canadians completely off the tax roll. We have now taken another 230,000 Canadians off the tax roll in this budget. For those who were not paying taxes to begin with, who were the very lowest income people, we reduced the GST which will help them. So, our help for those who are most vulnerable, who need help the most, is very strong.

In addition, I would point out that fixing the fiscal balance will now restore the provinces' ability to deliver services for the most vulnerable in our society, services that were gutted by the cuts that were made by the former Liberal government. Fixing the fiscal balance means more programs and stable funding for the programs on which the most vulnerable in our society in each of our provinces depend the most.

This is a budget that is very much about people, about supporting people, and about ensuring that our families can succeed and can meet their responsibilities in a way that helps all of society.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend campaigned with me, actually as a Conservative, in the winter of 2005 and in the first month of 2006. I recall at that time there was a lot of criticism within the Conservative ranks of the spending habits of the then Liberal Prime Minister and the fact that the Liberals had a budget that increased spending past the point of $200 billion.

How does she feel now that her own Minister of Finance has increased spending by a substantial amount and now has the greatest amount of money being spent in any budget ever in history under the watch of a Conservative finance minister: $236 billion? Never before have we seen that kind of spending.

We have had increases now in this budget which will double the rate of inflation in this year. Program spending alone, without even debt interest payment, will be in excess of $200 billion in the fiscal year 2008-09. How does the parliamentary secretary justify that? How does that jive with the fact we were all slagging the former Prime Minister for spending far less money? How can she justify this particular expenditure and call it conservative?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has about 30 seconds.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, from 2005-06, when the government came to power, to 2008-09 spending growth will average 4.1%. That is almost a full percentage point below the projected rate of growth in the economy over that period. It is also one-half of the rate of growth of spending for the previous five years, which was 8.2% on average.

This year there were extra financial pressures because we needed to fix the fiscal balance. Almost two-thirds of new spending in this budget were transfers to other levels of government to restore the fiscal balance.

Setting aside the fiscal balance, the tax cuts put in place before this budget were almost twice as much as spending measures in this budget. We are reducing spending. We are getting it under control. It is under the rate of growth of the economy over the average term of our mandate. We are very proud of that.