House of Commons Hansard #128 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was money.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
The hon. parliamentary secretary should know that the hon. member for Western Arctic made the clock expire, but I will allow a short moment to respond.
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your indulgence. All I can say to my friend, the hon. member, is that each province has its own ability to create its own set of circumstances, which allows its fiscal capacity to rise. We have seen that in Saskatchewan. I wish him all the luck in hoping that his territory does the same.
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
Mr. Speaker, as the representative of families, businesses and seniors in Lévis, Bellechasse and Les Etchemins in this House, I am honoured to take the floor today to give my unequivocal support to the 2007 budget of Canada's new government, an historic budget that will restore fiscal balance for taxpayers and steer a steady course towards sustainable development.
You are aware of my environmental convictions and my dedication, and that of all parliamentarians, to make this a country with a healthier environment. You are also aware of my steadfast support for families and workers. Thus, I am pleased with the Minister of Finance's initiatives contained in the new budget. We are turning the page on a long decade of inaction and empty speeches and we are taking action in four strategic areas: restoring fiscal balance in the Canadian federation, adopting effective measures in the environmental sector, supporting families and seniors and investing in infrastructure.
The citizens of my riding are hard-working and dynamic people. They are proud to live in such a beautiful region. Today, I am pleased that some constituents from the riding of Lévis—Bellechasse are present in the House. I am proud to welcome the Paquet family with their daughter Émilie Paquet, world champion in traditional kata, and her coach, Dgina Girouard. I extend a very warm welcome to them in this House, the House of Commons that is their own. I would like to say to them that we are here working on behalf of the families of Bellechasse and for the good of the community.
I would like now to cite some examples of the concrete measures contained in the 2007 budget to help families enjoy a better life. We are talking about fiscal policies that support the family, substantial transfers to the provinces, sustainable, planned transfers, and a new beginning for our municipalities to create healthy, positive communities. We are talking about substantial sums of money over a long period to correct the fiscal imbalance. We are talking about $39 billion over seven years that will be redistributed to the provinces and in doing so meets a commitment that we made during the election campaign. In my riding, people often say to me, “You are doing what you said you would do and you are delivering the goods”. That was a basic commitment of our campaign; a commitment by our government and, today, by means of the 2007 budget, we are delivering the goods, not just for one year but for seven years; $39 billion over seven years.
With that money, Quebec, like the other provinces, can properly fund its social programs and continue to offer quality services to our fellow citizens. Among other amounts, we are talking about $21.3 billion in additional funding for health care. That is in addition to existing agreements.
It is important to remember that by restoring fiscal balance, the government is helping to strengthen the economic union; it is making Canada a strong nation, in which our wealth is distributed fairly and the specific needs of each province are recognized.
Restoring fiscal balance was the first priority. The second is the environment. Focusing on the environment has become a necessity if we are concerned about our future and the future of our children. Protection of the environment has become a priority. We must preserve the natural bounty that makes Canada the envy of the world. Concrete measures for the environment include $4.5 billion to be invested in ecoenergy to improve the energy efficiency of homes and businesses and to promote development of clean energy technology. In addition, the ecotrust program will provide $346 million to Quebec for implementation of its climate change plan to reduce greenhouse gases. The time for empty speeches is past; it is time for action. We are taking action, and in doing so we are giving Quebec the tools to show leadership on the environment within the Canadian federation.
Last week, I was in Montreal with the Prime Minister at AMERICANA, the largest environmental technology trade show in North America. It was the first time that a prime minister has served as honorary president of this major environmental trade show, and our Prime Minister renewed his commitment to make Canada a “clean energy superpower”.
We need energy for transportation and to feed ourselves. We should be able to do this on a sustainable basis. This is why our new budget introduced two measures to promote environmentally-friendly transportation. I consider these measures very important because they encourage taxpayers who display environmentally positive behaviour and introduce consequences for polluters. For instance, there will be rebate of up to $2,000 for the purchase of a new fuel-efficient vehicle and, conversely, a green levy on new fuel-inefficient vehicles. These are two real and significant incentives that will have a direct impact on the pocketbooks of taxpayers willing to do something to help the environment.
Furthermore, as we all know, the Alberta oil sands are being developed. They represent a significant source of energy production, but we must ensure that they are developed while respecting the strictest environmental standards. Our government will do this by phasing out the accelerated capital cost allowance and encouraging that industry to develop new, clean technologies, such as carbon capture and storage.
Those are concrete measures to counter the fiscal imbalance and favour the environment.
I would now like to talk about families. The budget contains good news for families—like Mr. Paquet's family, who are here this morning—because families work hard and already pay too much in taxes. The government therefore introduced advantage Canada, a long-term plan that, as the Minister of Finance indicated, rewards hard work and encourages job creation. Also, Canadian families will receive a $2,000 tax credit for every child under 18. This means $310 per child in the pockets of families. This builds upon the initiatives in the previous budget, such as the $500 tax credit for sporting activities. These additional measures in no way diminish the importance of the $100 a month the government pays for every child under six. In fact, we are correcting the fiscal imbalance, not only with the provinces, but also with taxpayers. There was also a tax disadvantage for married couples. This amount will be adjusted, which will mean a tax break of $209 for married couples.
As far as our seniors are concerned, our government made a brave decision by eliminating tax advantages to income trusts. This was done together with a measure to benefit senior couples, that is, income splitting. This is an intelligent solution that allows the transfer of a portion of the higher income to the lower income, thereby lowering the couple's tax rate. One of the boldest social measures in this budget is the one that helps people who enter the job market at low wages. In order to help them enter the job market more completely, our minister has implemented measures to break down the welfare barrier and ensure that low-income workers are not disadvantaged in comparison with welfare recipients. This is a practical tax measure to help workers who are in great need of it.
In my riding of Lévis—Bellechasse there are a number of businesses. I like to say that my riding is the economic tiger of Bellechasse, with its many manufacturing and agricultural businesses. I received over a hundred letters from these businesses asking us to increase the lifetime capital gains exemption, which is currently $500,000. Budget 2007 increases the exemption to $750,000, which is very good news for the farms and small businesses in Lévis—Bellechasse. As hon. members can see, there is something for the imbalance, the environment and for families. Nearly 30 municipalities in Lévis—Bellechasse need to make major infrastructure improvements. More than $16 billion has been added over seven years for a total of $33 billion for infrastructure. This a record in Canada. This funding will be used to improve drinking water treatment systems and waste water treatment, and to ensure working sewage and water systems. I call on all parliamentarians to join me in saying yes to the budget, yes to Quebec, yes to fiscal balance, and yes to Canada. I hope they will support us during the vote on budget 2007 in this House.
Garth Turner Conservative Halton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague with much interest and congratulate him on his speech on the budget.
I have a question for my friend. It relates to the premier of the province of Quebec, Jean Charest. Of course today an historic election is being held in the province of Quebec, which could yield an historic result if the polls are correct. Immediately after the budget, funds were transferred to the province of Quebec, funds in excess of a 34% increase over what had been sent to that province previously. Monsieur Charest declared in a speech that he would be using $700 million of those funds for a personal tax cut for the citizens of the province of Quebec, presumably if he is returned as premier tonight.
Could my hon. friend comment? Many of my constituents have been in touch with me and have said that it seems quite unfair to them that constituents of my riding of Halton in Ontario did not get an income tax cut from this budget. They felt it was rather unfair, in fact, that income taxes were raised in the first Conservative budget of 2006 and that the lowest tax bracket was raised, not lowered, as many people had thought.
There was no income tax break whatsoever for the people of my riding or the people of Ontario or in fact the rest of Canada in this federal budget, yet Monsieur Charest is taking the increased transfer payment and using it to drop taxes in the province of Quebec. How does my hon. friend justify that? If he could give me an answer I could relay to my constituents to help justify this situation, it would be helpful.
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question. Today is election day in the province of Quebec. It is important to let democracy speak. Today, it is Quebeckers' turn to speak. I therefore encourage them all to go to the polls today.
I have a question for my colleague opposite.
He has an opportunity to support a budget that puts an end to 13 years of inaction on environmental issues, during which time greenhouse gas emissions rose by 35% in Canada.
We have put an end to fudging the numbers and we have given Canadians the straight goods by telling them that concrete measures must be taken to fight climate change.
Moreover, our budget will restore fiscal balance in this country and will ensure stable funding for Ontario, New Brunswick, and all of the provinces, thereby giving them a solid foundation for long-term budget planning, which they did not have before, and responding to the Council of the Federation's requests.
Does my colleague opposite support this budget, which will improve the Canadian federation and help build a stronger country?
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Mr. Speaker, following the Liberal error, I mean era--I guess error could apply and it is a Freudian slip if I ever heard one--there are more Canadian people sleeping in our streets and more Canadian children going to bed hungry. There is nothing in the budget to address poverty.
Beyond that, the new mayor of Hamilton, Mayor Eisenberger, came here and spoke to the government in regard to Randle Reef, the most significant environmental hot spot in the Great Lakes. Ninety million dollars is needed to clean up that one spot alone, but there is a mere $11 million in the budget.
As well, in Hamilton there is a crisis in manufacturing, as there is across Ontario. We have lost 125,000 jobs. Hamilton Specialty Bar Corporation is in crisis and is about to fold. Can the member tell me why an industrial strategy to protect Canada's manufacturing sector and to keep those jobs was not contained in this budget?
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.
Last Friday I visited a business in my riding, a cooperative in Bellechasse, where I was told that there is an excellent way to stimulate the manufacturing sector, a measure that would give the sector a shot of adrenalin. This measure involves writing off investments over a two-year period, 50% per year. This is an excellent measure that has been very well received by the manufacturing sector and needs the government's support.
This budget includes measures that will stimulate the Canadian manufacturing sector.
Colleen Beaumier Liberal Brampton West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Charlottetown.
With Monday's budget speech and the follow-up spin control true to form, the Conservative government is again trying to paint a picture of itself that has nothing to do with the reality that lurks behind its public facade. Sure there are bells and whistles in this budget. There are baubles and trinkets. Not surprisingly, there are plenty of little economic treats that can be digested in unreflective sound bites.
As is so often the case with the Conservatives, things are not really as they seem. Despite all the showy gestures behind all the jolly generosity, there is actually very little of substance or vision in the budget. Never before has a finance minister spent so much of Canada's hard earned wealth and yet managed to accomplish so little for Canadians.
For my own constituents in Brampton I see nothing of substance or vision. I see no initiatives that will immediately address hospital wait times, and the real and daily hardships that result for the people of Brampton because of them.
I see nothing like a long term, predictable funding mechanism to address public transit. Nor do I see an integrated and comprehensive plan to reduce traffic gridlock. Ad hoc projects will never defeat this wasteful hardship affecting the well-being of real people in Brampton each and every day.
I do not see any broad based tax relief for the taxpayers and the businesses employing Brampton's residents. Certainly, there are targeted cuts, but they add up to a whole lot of nothing for most Canadians, especially for our brothers and sisters and our sons and daughters who are working hard today so they might raise a family in comfort tomorrow.
As important as all of these considerations truly are, I am rising in the House today to call attention to an unsettling and disturbing silence that lurks in the budget and is obscured by the Conservative Party's shrill and deceptive fanfare. Indeed, it is a disturbing and unsettling silence that lurks at the very heart of the Conservative government. Moreover, it is a silence which, I think, concerns all Canadians.
Today I want to call attention to how little attention the Conservative government pays to the reality of racism as it exists in Canada today. I see nothing in last Monday's budget which improves the federal government's activities to combat racism or anything that directly and immediately improves the conditions of a new visible minority in Canada.
It is tempting, I suppose, to say that racism is no longer a reality in Canadian society and that there is no longer any need for substantial federal funding to combat racism, to promote inter-cultural understanding, and to encourage new Canadians to participate in community and civic life.
It is very easy to hope that Canada's splendid economic successes initiated by previous Liberal governments were to the benefit of all Canadians, regardless of their social, cultural or ethnic identity. Unfortunately the hope is false. Racism is still very real in Canadian society today. The facts speak for themselves.
Visible minorities settling in Canada in 2007 can expect to be much worse off than if they had arrived in the 1970s, despite meeting stringent selection criteria and being more skilled and educated than ever before.
A study of Statistics Canada's latest ethnic diversity survey published in January 2007 by the Institute for Research on Public Policy revealed that newly arrived visible minority immigrants earned 23.2% less than their white counterparts. They made only about 65% of the earnings of native born Canadians. Even more disturbing was the fact that the poverty rate for visible minority immigrants was 26.6%, that is almost double the poverty rate for other Canadians. As a result, 40% of all new visible minority Canadian children now live in poverty. The IRPP report also revealed that over one-third of visible minorities reported experiences of discrimination.
The net result is that new Canadians, and especially the first generation of Canadians to be born here are feeling increasingly alienated and unhappy with their place in Canadian society.
This is bad news for all Canadians. It is bad news because alienation, poverty, ongoing hardship and dissatisfaction for any person or community are the root causes of gangs, violence and crime.
It is bad news because racism leads to growing inefficiencies in the market. The best people should fill the best jobs, regardless of their social, cultural or ethnic origin.
It is bad news because the best and the brightest of potential immigrants will no longer regard Canada as the blessed place of genuine opportunity and advancement.
It is bad news because unaddressed racism in our own country makes Canada's tough talk on matters of international principle and human rights seem hypocritical in the eyes of the international community. If a government truly wants to be tough on crime, if a government truly wants to encourage growth and promote the economic well-being of all Canadians, if a government truly wants to attract the best and the brightest the world has to offer, and if a government truly wants to earn the respect of the international community, it must work hard to eliminate racism within its own borders.
I see nothing in the Conservative budget which makes the battle against racism a priority or even a general concern. This, as I said, is bad news because racism harms all Canadians socially, culturally and economically.
The Conservatives I expect will attempt to trumpet their nominal efforts to promote the economic integration for new Canadians. However, this only demonstrates how little they understand the true nature of the problem. Economic integration alone will never eliminate racism and true economic integration is impossible so long as racism remains prevalent.
It does not matter how rich people may be or how prestigious their degree may be, in the eyes of a bigot they will always be treated as second class citizens. Bigotry, racism and social discrimination has to cross all levels of society and will only be conquered by the combined efforts of all Canadians and all levels of government, but especially the federal government. The federal government has a special duty to fund initiatives which will promote inter-cultural understanding, increase participation in community and civic life and combat racism.
One such initiative is Canada's much acclaimed official multiculturalism policy. Introduced in 1971 by Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Canada's official multiculturalism policy is highly regarded throughout Canada and the world. The policy, which operates within a bilingual framework, requires the government to assist all cultural groups to develop and contribute to Canadian society, to overcome barriers to full participation, and to promote cultural interchange among all Canadians in the interests of national unity.
Today, the Department of Canadian Heritage administers a number of multicultural programs which are meant to meet the obligations of the policy, including Canada's action plan against racism.
I do not really understand but both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity), one time members of the Reform Party, have both actively and publicly campaigned for the abolition of Canada's official multicultural policy and for the elimination of supporting funds.
Furthermore, the present Prime Minister publicly reaffirmed his long time goal of eliminating all federal funding in support of Canada's multiculturalism policy, although the numbers in Monday's budget on this issue are murky and deceptive, and this seems intentional. When we dig at it a little, it becomes apparent that the Prime Minister is one step closer to achieving his aim, and this disturbs me.
My claim is that straightforward racism remains prevalent in Canadian society today and if the government is truly intent on improving the well-being of all Canadians, it must work very hard to eliminate racism in the here and now. I see nothing in the budget which makes elimination of racism a priority.
Instead of writing cheques to aggrieved citizens tomorrow, I say let us push for a society without racism and without further cause for apology today. Nothing in the budget moves us substantially closer to this goal and should be a great disappointment to all Canadians. This is one reason again to vote against the budget.
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech and I would have to conclude that it is only dealing with platitudes, idealism and outright fiction. In fact, it is not based on truth whatsoever.
I would love to hear from the hon. member as to whether or not she thought the landing fee that was instituted by the Liberal government constituted racism or whether or not the failure of the Liberals to come up with any kind of system to recognize credentials for foreign workers constituted racism.
I would love to know whether her contention that poverty leads to gangs, violence and crime implies somehow that immigrants who are not able to get their credentials recognized become criminals? What exactly is she saying because it was extremely confusing to me and it sure dealt with a lot of fiction and not much truth.
Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders
Liberal
Colleen Beaumier Liberal Brampton West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I think that is a sanctimonious attitude. We know that the foundation of the Prime Minister was to get rid of multiculturalism. We know that the foundation and one of the five principles of the constitution of the Reform Party was to eliminate multiculturalism. I do not see how anyone in the Conservative Party, pretending that this is a new Conservative Party, can possibly deny the heritage that led to the formation of that party.
Shawn Murphy Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Mr. Speaker, the issue I will be talking about today is an issue that I believe has not been mentioned in this debate before. It is an issue that I consider to be extremely significant and will have profound and significant repercussions, especially to the smaller provinces and their ability to fund their health care systems, post-secondary education and social services.
I am talking about the fundamental restructuring and the changes to the funding formula for the Canada social transfer and the Canadian health transfer. These changes, which I consider to be profound and fundamental, have really gone on without too much comment from the media, the analysts or anyone else for that matter.
To put my comments in perspective I will go back to 1977 when the federal government, in an effort to allow the provinces the ability to fund the growing health care system and the growing social safety net, agreed at that time that it would transfer certain tax points to the provinces. The actual numbers were 13.5 tax points on personal income tax and one tax point on corporate income taxes.
The value of those tax transfers at the time was $2.7 billion. Subsequently, the value for that major tax transfer that took place is now $20.5 billion.
I should also point out that all calculations done by the Department of Finance subsequent to that basically refer to this major tax transfer that took place 30 years ago. This is fundamental to our understanding of how the federal government finances health care, post-secondary education and other social services in this country.
A tax point is worth different amounts in different regions of the country. An example would be that a tax point on the personal income tax side was worth $310 per capita in Alberta and in neighbouring Saskatchewan it was worth $150. That was the case then.
So, there was a major discrepancy and the federal government could not just take the tax points and transfer them to the provinces without coming forward with a correcting formula, which it did, and which had to be fair to all Canadians.
The government did make the tax transfers. A formula was developed and the cash revenue that was subsequently advanced to the provinces was based on the value of these tax transfers which would fluctuate up and down depending on the wealth or the income, I should say, of the individuals and companies residing in the applicable jurisdiction.
To give an example, currently in the last fiscal year, under the Canada social transfer, Alberta would have received $187 per capita. Ontario would receive $249 per capita and the province of British Columbia would receive $282. That factors in the value of the tax point based upon the original transfer that took place 30 years ago, and that was all in accordance with the original principles.
I should say that the health transfer and the social services transfer has changed over the years. It has gone from different formulas, but that basic formula acknowledged in the tax transfer that took place in 1977 has always remained intact. That would be taken into consideration when the basic per capita payments were made to the individual provinces.
What is going on now on the Canada social transfer is that we are doing away with that formula in its entirety and going to a basic per capita formula. When the health accord expires in 10 years time we are doing away with that as well. At that point in time we are going to a basic per capita formula.
Someone might ask, what is the problem with a per capita formula? The equalization formula is there so the provinces can offer compatible services at compatible levels of taxation. I have no problem with it at all, assuming that the original tax points had been kept. If the $30 billion were available to the federal government, we would distribute that on a per capita basis to all provinces for health care funding and social service transfers. That is not what happened.
So members can follow what I am saying, there has been a basic fundamental change in the way the federal government finances health care and social services for the provinces. There is going to be a small increase of $7 to $289 per capita in the social transfer, but to bring the provinces in line, Alberta will receive $333 million, Ontario will receive $445 million and the other eight provinces will share $14 million. Members can see the profound problems with this as we go forward. More important, in 2013-14 according to the budget documents, the very same formula will be applied to health care funding. This will have two or three times the repercussions that the formula change is having this year.
This all has occurred under the radar screen. I would urge all members of Parliament and provincial treasurers to pay close attention to this. Some members may think that they may not be in politics in 2013-14 so they really do not care, but members were sent here to represent the people who elected them. It is something we should be giving very serious consideration to as we move forward in this budget debate.
Some people may argue that it is only one thing and it may not be a big issue, but it is a continuum of a whole host of other programs, priorities and initiatives which basically dismantles the role of the federal government. When we look back at the history of this country, and the initiatives and the programs that were established by the federal government, it is significant.
The federal government was here when medicare was established. No one was saying that that was a provincial jurisdiction. The federal government was here when the baby bonus was established, which subsequently evolved into the child tax benefit and the child tax credit. The federal government was here when old age security, the old age pension, came into effect. The federal government was here when that was expanded and enhanced through the guaranteed income supplement. The federal government in this House developed the Canada pension plan. The federal government in this House also developed the employment insurance program which is now available to all Canadians.
I am not going to be as partisan or as foolish as to say that they were all Liberal programs; some of them were and some of them were not, but whatever happened, they were improved, they were enhanced and they were continued by successive governments. However, that is not the case here. These are all being transferred gradually, if we read what is going on in this budget and when we hear what is going on in this House, to the provinces, lock, stock and barrel. What I am saying is that those are not the values that built this nation.
There is a momentum going on in this House and in this country toward decentralization, individualism and privatization, which I consider to be very unhealthy. Canada is becoming a loose association of autonomous regions. These autonomous regions claim to define the national interest. My point is that Canada is larger than its diverse parts. We are in a race to the bottom and we may reach it sooner rather than later.
In conclusion, we are dismantling Canada as we know it and it is being done without a whimper. We are going to end up with a lesser country. I urge everyone to consider this issue very carefully, because it is important and significant. I urge everyone to vote against this budget unless this particular issue can be resolved to the satisfaction of all Canadians.
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, that was certainly interesting. The member actually indicated that he believes respect for jurisdiction is unhealthy. I find that kind of confusing, but not nearly as confusing as his presentation regarding equalization. He muddled that up with the Canada social transfer which we know is not the same thing.
In fact the Canada social transfer, as the member should well know if he has read the budget, has been significantly enhanced. There is over $39 billion in additional commitments over seven years toward social transfers right across the country. There is $33 billion committed to infrastructure improvements right across this country. There is significant support to municipalities through the gas tax revenues and through the elimination of GST to municipalities. There are tax cuts for seniors, incredible increases in health care, $42 billion over the next two years, tax cuts for families. Exactly what in this budget is the member voting against?
It is clear he does not understand the difference between the Canada social transfer and equalization. If I could help the member with that, would he support the budget? It seems to me that is the only part he is objecting to.
Shawn Murphy Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Mr. Speaker, you just got a lesson on how difficult it is to have an intelligent debate in the House.
I talked about the fundamental change in the Canada social transfer funding formula and then the member across stated that it has been significantly enhanced. I gave the figures. Ontario got $400 million and some, Alberta got $300 million and some, and the other eight provinces got $14 million. Those are the figures. No one in the House should say it has been significantly enhanced. It has not been significantly enhanced. It has been changed fundamentally. The very same change that I talked about in the Canada social transfer is going to take place in seven years' time with respect to the Canada health transfer.
Obviously there are those who do not understand the point I am trying to make which is that this is going to have significantly profound effects on the ability of a lot of provinces to fund health care and social services for their citizens. We have to go back to what happened in 1977 when the provinces and the federal government agreed to transfer tax points.
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the fiscal relationships the hon. member has described.
I will go back to revenues for provinces and the federal government. The one that really sticks in the craw of the NDP is the one reducing corporate income taxes at the federal level. That is one of the prime reasons we have trouble supporting the budget both now and in the past.
Is it not true that the best place to collect corporate taxes is at the federal level? At the provincial level we have seen the situation where the provinces are fighting with each other for the lowest rate in order to attract corporations to actually file in their province. When we degrade corporate income tax at the federal level, we are degrading the one that is uniform across the country and does not have this problem.
I would like the hon. member to speak to that point because the Liberals introduced the idea of reducing corporate tax a number of years ago.
Shawn Murphy Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Mr. Speaker, the corporate tax rate in Canada has to be competitive with other competing countries. The member touched on what I was saying. There is a role for a strong central government here in Canada. We cannot lose sight of that.
On that very point, and this is what I find somewhat ironic in this discussion, members in the party across have stated that taxes have been decreased. I want to remind them that as we are talking, people are filling out their tax returns. People know that taxes went up in 2006 and they are going up in 2007. People are in no mood to be spun by politicians that their taxes are going down, because when they fill out their income tax forms and write their cheques they know that taxes are going up and they are paying the money.
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kildonan—St. Paul.
I am honoured to rise this afternoon to speak in support of budget 2007 presented by the Minister of Finance. This budget has the potential to positively impact Canadians in each of our constituencies. I know that in my riding of Peterborough the additional support for working families, lower taxes, investments in infrastructure and more support for our seniors and students will relieve a heavy burden from many of my valued constituents.
In this vein, let us abandon our partisan adversarialism for a moment and put the best interest of Canadians before ideological pride. The finance minister has done this and budget 2007 reflects our government's commitment to institutionalizing what Canadians have identified as their key priorities.
I am proud to be part of a government that is committed to keeping its promises, a government committed to fiscal fairness and accountability, but more so, a government committed to working with and on behalf of all Canadians. What a refreshing change for Canadians to see their hard-earned tax dollars being invested in programs that will directly benefit their lives.
I would now like to speak briefly to some of the key measures included in budget 2007.
Let me begin with our government's tax fairness plan which allows pension income splitting, fairness in the treatment of RRSPs and a pension plan for those seniors who choose to work later in life. This will directly impact 20,285 of my valued constituents in Peterborough. This government's commitment to seniors finally offers them financial security in what should be their golden years.
The dark days that characterized the previous government's rule are officially over. There is light at the end of the tunnel. We have demonstrated this over the past year and will continue to do so in the years ahead.
Another example of our government's commitment to Canadians is reflected in our new tax relief plan for working families. The new working families tax plan will deliver a $2,000 tax credit for each child under the age of 18. For the families of over 24,680 children under the age of 18 in Peterborough this new tax credit will result in tax savings of $7.6 million.
This government is committed to helping families over the welfare wall. The working income tax benefit, WITB, will provide $500 for individuals and $1,000 for families. For the past year I have been a voice for hard-working families in our community and I am proud to deliver real results for them today. Mine is a working class riding and this is a working class budget. The introduction of a working income tax benefit will provide immediate relief to those in our community who work hard to make ends meet.
Our government is also committed to providing $1 billion in new assistance to farmers for improvements in the national farm income programs. Our budget addresses the high production costs involved in farming and we will make a $400 million direct payment to help relieve this burden. We will also invest $600 million to kick-start contributory style producer savings accounts. Unlike the previous government, our government recognizes that farmers feed cities and as such it is our responsibility to see that they do not go hungry.
Following 9/11, the SARS outbreak and the new requirements for passports under the western hemisphere travel initiative, the tourism industry suffered greatly. The creation of the foreign convention and tour incentive program demonstrates this government's acknowledgement that tourism is a driving economic force for many local communities.
In Peterborough alone, the tourism industry contributes tens of millions of dollars to our local economy. The rural townships surrounding Peterborough such as Otonobee South Monaghan and Smith-Ennismore-Lakefield rely on the tourism industry year round for employment. Urban municipalities such as the city of Peterborough use festivals as a means of attracting tourists to their communities. It is with this thought in mind that our government commits to investing $39 million in funding our new local arts and heritage festivals, as well as $5 million for historical and heritage buildings.
Our government is committed to the future. This is reflected in our increased annual support for the provinces and territories for post-secondary education by $800 million, for a total investment of $3.2 billion by 2008-09. This represents an increase in transfers for post-secondary education and federal support will continue to grow by 3% every year thereafter. This is good news for Trent University and Fleming College. This commitment to our future will position our citizens in a better place to prosper in an increasingly competitive global marketplace.
Overall, this budget is great news for working families in my community and across the country. As the details of the budget are being debated in the House of Commons, I will continue to stand up for Peterborough to ensure that the issues of importance to our community continue to be brought forward and discussed.
I call on members of the House to support budget 2007.
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Mr. Speaker, Miramichi is a great place in New Brunswick and I am sure the hon. member knows where it is.
I would like to refer to the fact that he has brought to the House today some very interesting statistics and in fact details of how the government affects his riding. In his speech, the member mentioned Trent University, and we have to be critical of the budget's outlook on the future of our country in terms of our youth, the education of our people, and research and development. I am wondering if he might now give us some information on how the people attending Trent University will be affected by the budget and whether or not there is any help for those students.
Second, on research and development and the money allocated in the budget, that small amount of money without an increase in the amount, how is that affecting the university in terms of its faculty, its students and the outlook for people in Peterborough?
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question and I am happy to answer it. I had a meeting with Trent president Bonnie Patterson on Friday, when we spoke at length about the federal budget. She was particularly thrilled with the additional commitment the government made for a 40% increase to federal spending on post-secondary education. She was even more thrilled with the 3% annual escalator clause in the budget, which means that the federal government's commitment to post-secondary education will be maintained at a level that meets the inflationary needs of the universities.
When we talk about post-secondary education there are two things to keep in mind. There is the cost, and we absolutely know that we need to keep post-secondary education affordable, but there is also the quality of post-secondary education. Certainly the presidents of Canada's universities have stressed at great length that they need funding so they can maintain the very highest quality of post-secondary education.
In addition to the funding allowing them to address both needs, we also made a significant investment of over $500 million in the Canada Foundation for Innovation. This is money that post-secondary education facilities across this country access and use to invest in research materials that provide our students with the very best education available. University and college presidents across this country are thrilled with this budget. I am very proud that the finance minister brought it forward.
Shawn Murphy Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Mr. Speaker, in his original comments, the member talked about promises. Breaking promises is something that the Prime Minister is getting used to, and he is actually getting quite good at it. We first had the income trust situation. A lot of investors invested based upon that promise and that commitment. As a result, they lost $25 billion in capital.
We heard the promise that all appointments would be made on merit, not patronage. I live in eastern Canada. I am not aware of any appointment east of Montreal that was not based on political patronage. If anyone on the other side, or anyone in Canada for that matter, can claim otherwise or knows of facts that support another assertion, I ask them to please contact me.
The most recent promise that the Prime Minister fundamentally broke is the Atlantic accord. He went to Newfoundland and Labrador, the province of Nova Scotia and the province of Saskatchewan and promised that there would be no clawback and no cap and that these accords would be honoured by the government. He put this commitment in writing. No caps. These letters are in the public domain. He broke a promise.
My question is for the member across. I do not know what you did in a previous life, but I am sure this is not the way you governed your life and this is not the way you did your business transactions on a day to day basis. When are you going to say that enough is enough?
The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
The hon. member for Charlottetown knows that he must address comments through the Chair, not directly to hon. members.
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, enough is never enough when it comes to supporting the provinces and their ability to support health care and education in Canada. I think the federal government has a responsibility to provide the provinces with exactly what they need, and it needs to do so on the basis of good government. I think that is exactly what the budget outlines.
As I said earlier, we are respecting provincial jurisdictions and, furthermore, we are enabling the provinces to deliver the services that all of our constituents want us to deliver, including health care, education and infrastructure, for which there were significant investments by this government in budget 2007. Again, I am sure proud of this budget and I call on all members to support it.
Shawn Murphy Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was about the promises that were broken and the member across did not in any way, shape or form try to address--
Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.
Today, we are debating the budget—
The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
Order. My apologies to the hon. member for Québec, but I made a mistake.
The hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul was supposed to be next. She is sharing her time with the hon. member for Peterborough.
I apologize once again for my mistake.