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
Order, please. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Richmond Hill, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Davenport, Government Programs; and the hon. member for Labrador, Transportation.
Greg Thompson ConservativeMinister of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I want to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the Minister of National Revenue.
I want to begin by thanking the finance minister for a good budget. I know he is in the House and will appreciate those words. I think those are words that should be coming from all sides of the House if politics were locked out of the discussion. However, we know in this place that cannot happen and will not happen.
We are focusing as a government, and particularly the finance minister in this budget, on the right things. We are focusing on hard-working Canadians, on families, on seniors, on students and on investing in our provinces and on solving the fiscal balance. We have done that in this budget. We are moving the economy forward by reducing debt, cutting taxes and a tax back guarantee from the finance minister and from this government. We are investing in infrastructure, post-secondary education and child care.
As the Minister of Veterans Affairs, it is important that I talk about what we are doing for veterans, our men and women in uniform. We are investing in our men and women in uniform, those men and women who have made Canada what it is, a country that is dedicated to freedom, democracy and the rule of law. We have done an exceptionally good job with our veterans and for our men and women in uniform.
I want to go through some of the things that we have done in the last year for our men and women in uniform, particularly the veterans. When I am speaking of veterans, I am speaking of their families and their dependant children.
In our first year alone we spent $352 million more than the previous government. As a result of this year's budget, we have added to that. After being in government just a little over a year, in total we are spending about $.5 billion more on veterans and their families than the previous government. That is a pretty good start.
One of the things I want to talk about is ex gratia payments that we extended to the widows and dependant children who were left outside of the new charter.
Just about a year ago, we implemented the new veterans charter, which was passed in the House of Commons by the previous government, but it failed to implement it. Just a little over a month after having been sworn in as the government, we implemented the new veterans charter.
Mr. Speaker, I know you are a great supporter of veterans. We did some events together at Lester Pearson High School on Flag Day, and it was a great event. If my memory serves me right, I think you are the only Speaker in the House who has a legion crest in his Speaker's gown. It is nice to have you in the chair while I am speaking of veterans.
We extended ex gratia payments to those widows and dependant children. The reason I want to mention this is it kind of gives a sense of how we, as a government, are committed to them.
As the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I often say we have to be as committed to them and their families as they are to our country. We send them on dangerous missions around the world. Whether it is peacekeeping, peacemaking or any other mission, they dedicate themselves 100% to the mission and to their country. When things go wrong for them and when they need us, we have to be there for them.
When we extended that tax free ex gratia payment of $250,000, that was what these families and dependant children would have received as the result of the death of a loved one if the new charter had been passed, which it was not. They fell between the cracks. It was one of the first things I ever went to cabinet and the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance with to correct this wrong.
The new charter has made a difference to the lives of many of our veterans. As we well know, every year we have 5,000 service people retiring from the service and coming into the system. Sadly, we are losing about 23,000 traditional World War II veterans every year because of old age. Now they are octogenarians and moving on at an alarming rate. We are there for them and for the new families of these new service veterans, new service members moving into the system.
Last year we also provided funding to what we call the Juno Beach Centre. We committed $5 million over the next decade to maintain that facility, Canada's only second world war memorial in Europe. In fact, that was an announcement we made in your riding, Mr. Speaker, $5 million The centre was started by some veterans and we stepped up to help them because we did not want that centre lost to history.
In this budget we have made some more advancement for veterans. We have announced that we will set up five additional operational stress injury clinics across the country. That is in addition to the five we presently have. We are doing this because it is not just bombs and bullets that injure our soldiers. A lot of it is mental stress and mental injuries that one sustains as a result of being in areas of conflict and areas of stress. That is something I am very proud of and we are moving on that.
In addition to that, shortly we will be announcing an ombudsman for veterans and enforce with a bill of rights for veterans, something veterans have been talking about for years, but no government moved on that. We are moving ahead with that as well.
At the end of the day, we are spending money and investing in the men and women who deserve it, the men and women who have always been there for Canada. I am very pleased to see those announcements in the budget. Until budget day, it is all a mystery to us, whether it will be in or out.
I thank the finance minister for considering our veterans and standing up for them. At the end of the day, all of us on all sides of the House applaud that type of support.
In regard to my home province of New Brunswick, again there is good news for the province. I always do this by comparing what we are doing as opposed to what the previous government did. I think that puts it in perspective. When members criticize what we are doing, as the Liberals often do, basically they are criticizing their past governments.
This year alone we are investing in the province of New Brunswick $203 million more than the previous Liberal government did on its watch. That is a significant amount of money in a small province. The investments include about $1.4 billion under the equalization system, $512 million through the Canada health transfer, $222 million under the Canada social transfer and $64 million more in infrastructure.
There are some major changes on the tax side. There is additional relief in terms of capital cost allowances for our companies that want to invest in new equipment, which will move the economy ahead. There is money for students and education, which are all important things for the province of New Brunswick.
I am very pleased with the budget, particularly as a New Brunswicker. I am also pleased with the things we are doing for veterans.
We will continue to move forward. At the end of the day, we are getting the job done.
Joe McGuire Liberal Egmont, PE
Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member from New Brunswick Southwest, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, comment on an article that was in the New Brunswick papers last week, the Telegraph-Journal in which Professor Donald Savoie of the University of New Brunswick termed himself flabbergasted that the Harper's long awaited fix to the fiscal imbalance—
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
Order, please. The hon. member for Egmont is very experienced. That is why he has a front bench. He knows that he cannot name other members.
Joe McGuire Liberal Egmont, PE
Mr. Speaker, Professor Savoie described himself as “flabbergasted” at the recent Conservative budget. The article goes on to say:
“It's a case of big dogs eat first," he said. “I'd like to know what kind of gerrymandering of the formula they've come up with.
“I'm flabbergasted at the amount of money flowing to Quebec and the rather piddly sum going to the province of New Brunswick.
“It's mind-boggling.
“I think it's probably the first government in the history of the country since equalization came about in 1957 to be so blatant about it.”
Savoie said he has more than an academic curiosity driving him. He said he wants answers "for my mental health as a Maritimer."
Further in the article, he asked, "How...did they rejig this payment so that the great majority, almost all, of this money flows to Quebec?”
Out of all the cash that was left for this government by the previous Liberal government, why did the minister and others from the Atlantic region get so little for the Atlantic provinces as compared to other parts of the country?
Greg Thompson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
Mr. Speaker, first, I fundamentally disagree with Professor Savoie. In fact, he is the economist who sometimes contradicts and disagrees with himself.
As a former minister of ACOA, the member should know that Donald Savoie was the guy who suggested ACOA should be scrapped. That is how much credibility Donald Savoie has on some areas. We have to consider that.
How does more become less? It is only with Liberal math that could happen. Think about it. This year we are transferring $2.3 billion to the province of New Brunswick, a province of only 700,000 people. How could anyone argue with that?
Donald Savoie, under the last Liberal lot, was given an appointment by guess who? The former finance minister and former prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard. That is the type of guy that Donald Savoie is. He is a nice man, I respect him at many levels, but he is a Liberal.
Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister present his views on the budget. Yes, there are interesting items in this budget and that is why the Bloc Québécois will vote for it. However, it also has some shortcomings. The most serious pertains to Quebec's manufacturing sector, which has lost 100,000 jobs—35,000 in 2006 alone— since this government came to power. In addition, in the first two months of 2007, we lost some 28,700 jobs. Some measures, such as tax cuts, have been introduced in this budget. Yet when a business does not turn a profit or if it goes bankrupt, it cannot take advantage of these tax cuts. There is also some provision for depreciation.
I find that the federal government is providing very little assistance to the manufacturing sector, a very important sector in Quebec and, as we know, not such an important one in Alberta, where it represents 7% of industry.
I would like the minister to comment on this matter.
Greg Thompson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
Mr. Speaker, I know the member asked a question in the House today about Shermag, which in the Sherbrooke area, if I am not mistaken. It is unfortunate that happens. I think the minister, who answered in question period, talked about the capital write-offs, as announced by the finance minister on budget day, that would make investing in new equipment a reality now for some of those companies. They can invest in new technology to move ahead and be more competitive because that is a very competitive business. We do not like to see any business shut down. However, I there is a lot in the budget for Quebec and all parts of Canada so companies can continue to—
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
Order, please. Resuming debate, the hon. the Minister of National Revenue.
Carol Skelton ConservativeMinister of National Revenue
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to budget 2007, a historic budget that will deliver more funds to Saskatchewan than any other budget.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Finance for an outstanding document and especially for fixing the fiscal imbalance in this country. I would also like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, the member for Calgary--Nose Hill, for all her hard work on the budget.
Restoring fiscal balance in Canada will bring federal support for provinces and territories to unprecedented levels. For Saskatchewan this totals more than $1.4 billion in 2007-08. I am pleased that Saskatchewan is the recipient of the largest per capita gains of any province under the new fiscal balance package. This budget contains an extra $230 for every person in our province.
I would like to discuss what $1.4 billion will actually mean to the people of Saskatchewan, and how each and every person's life will improve as a result of last week's budget. There is more support for families. There is more money for health care, more support for seniors, and more incentives for new industry in Saskatchewan.
The most important investment we can make in a country is to help families raise their children. I would like to discuss what this budget will mean for hard-working families in our province.
Let us take Vanessa and Mark Webber and their young farming family for example. Vanessa and Mark are two hard-working Canadians who live just outside of Goodsoil, Saskatchewan. They have two daughters, Kelsey, who is three, and Mia, who is one. Mark is a farmer and Vanessa is currently on maternity leave.
The introduction of the new $2,000 child tax credit alone will save this farm family $620 a year to be exact. Coupled with the new increase in the basic personal amount, this will result in nearly an extra $1,000 per year. Let us also not forget that this family receives $100 per child per month through the universal child care benefit. This universal child care benefit is particularly beneficial to this rural family that does not have access to day care.
As a result of our budget, this hard-working family will have almost $3,400 back in their pockets. This $3,400 will buy clothing, groceries and books for their family. I can assure the House they will not be spending this money on beer and popcorn. They could even put this money toward their daughters' RESPs. As a result of budget 2007, they can contribute as much as they want because there is no longer a limit. This is particularly important for rural families as these children will not have the option of living at home during their post-secondary education. All rural students face this financial burden and easing the restrictions on RESPs will be particularly helpful to them.
This is just one example of how federal money will go back directly into the hands of the people of Saskatchewan. However, this is not all this budget will do to help farming families such as the Webbers.
Saskatchewan farmers will receive approximately $250 million from budget 2007. The government has proposed a separate, simpler and more responsive income stabilization program through the establishment of a new savings account program for farmers.
The amount of $1.5 billion has been allocated toward operating incentives for producers of renewable fuels. This funding will help Saskatchewan farmers by creating new market opportunities and creating value added jobs here in Canada and all over Saskatchewan.
The Webber family is just one of the families in Saskatchewan that will benefit directly from this budget. I am pleased to say that every family will benefit.
I also received a letter last week from one of my constituents, Trent Lalonde of Saskatoon, owner of TA Lalonde Transport Limited. He had this to say about the federal budget:
I have been a truck driver for the past fourteen years, and the recent federal budget is the first and only help I have ever received from any government at any level.... The money I save will afford me the luxury of taking a little more time off each year to spend with my wife and children. Thank you.
The trucking industry will benefit from the budget and so will many other industries. The budget created a $500 million fund for Sustainable Development Technology Canada to support the private sector production of renewable fuels. Iogen, one of Canada's leading biotechnology firms, is seeking $180 million to build a new plant in Saskatchewan and would be a candidate for this funding. Saskatchewan will also benefit directly from the extension of eligibility for the mineral exploration credit.
To sum things up, I could not be prouder of this historic budget, especially for what it will bring directly to hard-working people in Saskatchewan. We have a wonderful province. Had the Conservatives' new equalization system been in place over the last 20 years, Saskatchewan's equalization payments would have doubled from $6.6 billion to $11.8 billion. Fully $1 billion of that increase would have been a result of fulfilling our commitment to exclude natural resource revenues in calculating Saskatchewan's equalization entitlements.
I am proud of what this government is doing for families. This government recognizes that the people and the families of Saskatchewan are what make it such a great province.
As Minister of National Revenue, there are several other budget items I would like to discuss.
Since I became minister, reducing the compliance burden for small businesses has been our priority. I am pleased to see that important steps have been taken in the budget toward reducing this burden.
Throughout the taxation year, businesses are generally required to pay their income tax in regular installments. Budget 2007 will allow small businesses to reduce their number of remittances and filings. These changes will reduce red tape for small businesses and improve cash flow positions for more than 350,000 small businesses.
The filing and remitting requirements for small businesses will be reduced by about one-third and for some small businesses the reductions will be up to 70%. This is a great first step toward reducing the compliance burden on small business. The CRA's action task force on small business issues will continue to provide useful input on how to further simplify the tax system.
This government is committed to a fair tax system, which is why I am pleased that the CRA will be provided with additional resources to strengthen the enforcement of Canada's tax system. Particular emphasis will be placed on complex international tax avoidance cases. In Advantage Canada the government committed to making the tax system simpler and fairer. Budget 2007 delivers on this.
I am asking all opposition parties to look closely at this budget, and before voting, to think what it will mean to all Canadians. We must think of Canada.
Gary Merasty Liberal Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the Minister of National Revenue and I will ask her a question based on the premise of certain situations for certain budget lines that I have talked about in the aboriginal community.
The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have thrown numbers around out of context, which is very dangerous, such as $10 billion or $16,000 per first nations person, which really drives a politics of resentment between people. These numbers are very dangerous out of context. Unfortunately, the budget has shown a degree of indifference toward the problems that poverty presents.
As a member of Parliament, I also have the responsibility to see through the eyes of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with respect to some of the initiatives.
I myself support market based housing and the $300 million that has been talked about, but at the same time when I look at my home community, for example, of 3,000 people in Pelican Narrows, there are a few hundred people employed, maybe 400 people with the ability and 80% or so who are in social housing. They want to break out of that. They would like to have social programs and supports, and so on and so forth.
I am a little concerned that those people are being shut out of opportunities to break out of living conditions of 10 to 12 people per house. There is no way out for them under the current process with any initiative in place. I would like to hear how we could address that. Maybe the minister could provide her opinion on that matter.
Carol Skelton Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Mr. Speaker, the member has raised a very thoughtful question. He understands where my riding is and the poverty and tragedy I see every day when I am in my riding in the city of Saskatoon. The Minister of Finance, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and I as a person living in the province of Saskatchewan, and through the portfolio of western economic diversification when I had it, and through my consultations with Chief Manny Jules, the Indian tax commissioner with whom I meet every month, are seriously looking at all those issues. These issues are of grave concern to us. I assure the member that there is great thought on these issues at all times and there will be as long as I live in the province of Saskatchewan.
Joe McGuire Liberal Egmont, PE
Mr. Speaker, the minister said she is receiving a lot of letters. I wonder if she has received any from the tax centre in Summerside where recently the finance minister cut 160 jobs out of the GST visitor rebate program.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Minister of National Revenue said that 60 of those 160 jobs would be reinstated. With the new program that is coming out to replace the one that should have been left in place in the first place, I wonder if any of those jobs will be reinstated. Will the program be administered out of the tax centre in Summerside?
Carol Skelton Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Mr. Speaker, the member's province is absolutely beautiful. It is great.
I visited the tax centre. It is an extremely efficient facility. The people who work there are top class. I reassured them that there would be no jobs lost there. We are working on the program and they are being looked at in every way. There will be no jobs lost this year or next year. We are looking at all kinds of programs to put in there because it is such an efficient place. The people in the member's province love to work and they are excellent.
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the minister's speech.
The minister is a thoughtful individual. She knows full well, as do the rest of us, that the real fiscal imbalance is the imbalance between the rich and the poor, the imbalance between the federal government's powers of taxation and the individual who pays the tax. There is only one taxpayer. We all have them in our ridings. We are all taxpayers.
I want to ask the minister a simple question. Given the fact that she sees in her riding and all of our ridings, the increasing difficulty of those who are in the poorest groups within our society, those who make less than $20,000 a year, why was there absolutely nothing in the budget for the people who are the most vulnerable in our society, those who make less than $20,000 a year? Why did she not try to influence the finance minister to reverse the change that was made, which was to increase the lowest tax rate? It is unfathomable and unthinkable to any member in the House, or it ought to be, as to why on earth the government chose to increase the taxes on the poorest in our society.
I ask the member, for whom I have a lot of respect, why did her government not deal with the real fiscal imbalance, the imbalance between the rich and the poor? Why in the budget was there absolutely nothing, a big fat zero for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society?
Carol Skelton Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Mr. Speaker, I think that if people in a thoughtful way read the budget and what we did last year as a government, and reads this year's budget, they will see that we are helping the poorer people of our country.
One has to put all our programs together. It cannot be just one item at a time. Everything should be put together. People will realize how we are helping all Canadians.
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the House for interrupting, but I think if you sought it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding Standing Order 33(2), the question on the Liberal amendment on the budget be put at 6:15 p.m.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
(Motion agreed to)
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Don Valley East.
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
It is an honour to rise in this House today to represent my constituents of Don Valley East.
Last week the Conservative government introduced budget 2007, its second federal budget since assuming office in 2006. I wish I could say that these past two budgets have improved the lives of low income and middle income Canadians, yet I am afraid that the facts speak for themselves.
It is a fact that in 2005 the last Liberal budget made a significant effort to deliver tax relief for those in our society who earn the least. The lowest tax bracket was dropped to 15% and, despite what the Minister of Finance said in question period today, those who filed their tax returns know that it was 15%. The amount that all Canadians can earn before taxes, the basic personal amount, was increased by $400 in the Liberal budget.
Putting more money in the pockets of low income and middle income Canadians represents true tax relief for those who need it most. Yet this year, Canadians earning $36,000 a year or less will be in for a rude awakening when they file their income taxes. This is because the tax hikes that the Conservatives levied on low income and middle income Canadians in budget 2006 will come into effect this year.
Those earning the lowest incomes will see their tax rate increase from 15% to 15.5% and the $400 tax credit that the Liberals delivered in 2005 will suddenly disappear. In fact, the income tax measures first introduced in budget 2006 will have the effect of putting 20,000 low income Canadians back onto the tax rolls, taxpayers that had been previously removed by Liberal tax cuts.
For example, it is estimated that a single individual earning $15,000 a year will actually see his or her income taxes increase by as much as $149. Furthermore, a single individual earning an annual salary of $35,000 will pay an extra $122. Does this sound like tax fairness?
The fact is that the Conservative finance minister has squandered an opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of 5.2 million Canadians who live at the margins. While the so-called new government claims that budget 2007 will somehow help low income Canadians aspire to a better life, the fact remains that this budget is financing its vote buying scheme on the backs of those in our society who earn the least.
Here is a real gem of an example. Chapter 3 of the budget outlines one of the Conservatives' foremost priorities: “Encouraging youth participation in Canadian heritage sports like Canadian three-down football and lacrosse with an investment of $1.5 million over the next two years...”.
I have nothing against football or lacrosse, but like most Canadians I wonder why the federal government would intrude so far into provincial and municipal jurisdictions and come up with a budget gimmick like this.
What about the environment? What about affordable child care? What about the quality of life for first nations?
And what about hundreds of thousands of seniors who lost their life savings when the Conservatives deliberately broke an election promise last October and wiped out billions of dollars from the income trust sector?
Canadians no longer trust the Conservative Prime Minister, who, as leader of the Canadian Alliance, called the Kyoto protocol a “socialist” plot to suck wealth from developed countries.
Nobody took the Prime Minister seriously with his sudden conversion to the environment, especially since last January he quickly sacked his environment minister, who happened to be a woman, to salvage his government's public image.
If the Conservatives are truly serious about climate change, I challenge some of the government members sitting on the opposite side of this House to please explain their position on carbon markets and why Canada will not participate even though business leaders, including the chair of the Toronto Stock Exchange, enthusiastically favour such markets.
However, the Conservative finance minister has distinguished himself on at least one front. With $12.7 billion in new spending, combined with various other tax gimmicks, he has established himself as the biggest-spending finance minister in Canadian history.
So much for the tax and spend Conservatives who, when they left office in 1993, stuck Canadians with a $42 billion deficit and the largest federal debt in history. Also, the finance minister left Ontario with an almost $6 billion deficit. Talk about fiscal prudence.
However, let us return to assistance for low income and middle income Canadians. What happened to affordable day care in this country? In 2005 the Liberal government signed an agreement with all 10 provinces and territories to create a truly national day care program. That plan created 14,000 newly licensed child care spaces in Ontario alone. The Conservatives destroyed that program and replaced it in their first 2006 budget with a naive scheme to create 125,000 new child care spaces simply through business tax credits.
How many new spaces were created under this plan? Zero. Nil. Not a single new space was created and the Conservatives wasted an entire year. Now they have quietly axed this program in favour of a meagre payment to the provinces and territories that pales in comparison to the $1 billion delivered by the former Liberal government.
The cancellation of the early learning and child care strategy was an insult to parents in the first place, and to witness the failure of yet another Conservative scheme is mind-boggling.
How about the first nations? One of the first acts of the Conservative government was to axe the $5 billion Kelowna accord, which would have had a significant impact on the quality of life for first nations. Budget 2007 contains very little for first nations and, once again, another year has been wasted.
Never before has a government done so little with such a large budget surplus.
Seniors who lost their life savings through the income trust announcement last October are asking what is in this budget for them. Nothing.
That is why I and my Liberal colleagues cannot support this budget. The Conservatives have squandered an opportunity for low income and middle income Canadians to aspire for a better life.
Worst of all, they have wasted an entire year and the entire budget surplus on little more than a public relations campaign designed to buy votes with the hard-earned tax dollars of Canadians. Hence, my colleagues will not support the budget.
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.
The member brought up an issue that all of us as members of Parliament have heard about from our constituents. We have heard loud and clear that there is a failure with respect to the government in terms of child care. The Conservatives promised 25,000 spaces. They did not deliver.
It is important not only to give people choice, because certainly in regard to the $1 or $2 a day the government has given Canadian families with children under the age of six, all of us know that $2 a day does not buy child care. This is important because some Canadians want to take care of their children at home and some cannot take care of their children at home. For economic reasons, some have to go out and work.
I want to ask my hon. colleague about two points. First, can she possibly fathom how the government failed to give low income Canadians a tax break and instead raised their taxes in the 2006 election? Could she describe for this House and for the viewers out there why it is important for Canadians to have a choice in terms of child care? For example, in my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, why on our military base are there 29 spots for children and a waiting list of 92 children? This is as important for our Canadian Forces families as it is for others.
Could my hon. colleague please tell the House what she would recommend in terms of what the government ought to have done to provide Canadians the child care spots they want?
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is a very important one. We keep on hearing that the rural communities can look after their own and that we Liberals were trying to impose solutions for child care on them.
However, an interesting study has just come out on farm communities and how it is important that in the farming communities, to get economically viable, women must have proper child care. Child care spaces are essential.
In fact, in one of the reports on the farming communities, a report released in 2006, women who came before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women stated that it was the lack of proper, affordable child care spaces that was their biggest problem. That is from a rural perspective.
On the rural divide, we keep hearing from the Conservatives that rural women stay at home and that is what they do, but no, they want to go out and be part of the working environment so they can support their farms.
The second aspect is that $2 a day is an insult to the urban communities. In my riding of Don Valley East, child care costs $1,500 a month. That tax deductible $100 does nothing for them but keep on making them poor.
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate and ask my colleague about something that affects my community, and I am sure hers, and that is medical research in this country.
We have invested much in our peer reviewed research through the granting councils. Medical research is big in my community, with five research institutes, and the impact of not having sufficient funds to do the ongoing research that is used throughout Canada and even throughout the world in effect will contribute down the road to us losing these highly skilled individuals in our communities.
On another point, I would like to raise the issue that this budget takes away the harm reduction strategy that has been there since the time before Liberal governments, back into previous incarnations of other governments. That has been taken out of the way that drug policy is done in this budget.
I would like the hon. member's comments on both of those areas.
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks a wonderful question. She brings to light something that is very critical. This budget has no vision. It has no vision for the future of Canada and Canada's place in the global economy.
If Canada wants to be competitive and to be up in that productivity agenda, Canada needs a vision, and research and development is one area that we need too. We have to be competitive in the global environment. In previous Liberal budgets, we put a lot of money into research and development. In this budget, I see no vision except gimmicks.