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.

Topics

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Before I recognize the hon. member for Mississauga South, I would like to note that while he was asking his question, everyone was attentive. Maybe we could have some attention when we get the response also.

The hon. member for Mississauga South.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, let us talk more about accountability. In the press today a member of the Conservative Party is challenging his government with regard to the interpretation of accountability provisions under the accountability act.

Accountability is something that the government seems to have abandoned. The committee is of the view that the deputy ministers are accountable for the operations of their departments. They know what the roles of the ministers are and those ministers come and go. However, the deputy ministers and the senior bureaucrats have to be there to administer. They have the control.

Why is the member's party member challenging his government in terms of the definition of accountability?

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to accountability, starting January 23, 2006, we started to see accountability. We started to see accountability with this whole budget process. We started to see a budget process where the finance minister went out and consulted across the country. He acted on that.

Regarding the truckers meal allowance, the finance minister said that he could not believe or imagine that the truckers had gone on for 20 years when Liberals raised the allowance and then taxed it all back. That is not accountability. Accountability is when a finance minister reaches out and does the right thing for Canadians just like budget 2007.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to stand on behalf of my riding of Cambridge, North Dumfries. I want the House to know that this budget was written by people like those in Cambridge and North Dumfries, by mayors, councillors, owners of small and large businesses, patients and their doctors, moms and dads, students, singles and seniors.

The finance committee heard from over 500 witnesses. The minister set up an interactive website where he asked Canadians to participate by logging on at home or at the local library and give their concerns and their comments and, more important, their ideas for solutions. There were round tables and lots of meetings.

In the many meetings I attended, I spoke of the concerns that I had heard from my own mayors, problems like ongoing infrastructure and the tremendous traffic congestion, not only in the city of Cambridge, but on the 401. The mayors complained about the need for more money from the provinces, which of course meant the need for better support from the federal government. We spoke of the park and ride program, the long awaited mystery GO train and a simple theatre for our booming and growing community.

I listened to our councillors, who work very hard from all political stripes at the city and regional tables. They spoke of child care. They also spoke of transportation not only to and from the Greater Toronto area, but also around the growing Waterloo region. Mostly they spoke about predictability of funding and sustainability.

I also spoke to many constituents on the phone, at the malls and through emails. They told me of their desperate need for more tax cuts and of the problems with crime and drugs in our neighbourhoods. They spoke of health care, in particular the terrible revocation of a promise by the province of Ontario for funding of our hospital.

This budget matters because it is the product of the greatest consultative process that I can remember. All should support the budget because it has great progress to all those concerned. Of course the new Liberal leader will not allow his caucus to do what is best for Canadians. The Liberals said no long before they even read it. Why did they do that?

Let us look at the history. Last year the Liberals said no to the 2006 budget. They said that it was not broad enough, despite 29 separate tax cuts, $20 billion in tax relief and debt repayment. Remember the GST cut? This year the Liberals say that the budget is too broad. They did not get it done. Now is the their chance to show they can actually get something done.

I urge my colleagues opposite to vote for $16 billion in infrastructure money, a total of $33 billion in two years, like the kind of infrastructure money my mayors spoke about, that the region of Waterloo desperately needs. I urge them to vote for $300 million for a cancer vaccine for young women and girls, MedicAlert bracelets for children, a $2,000 tax credit to help families and a 40% increase in secondary school funding, $800 million for our students?

Let us talk predictability. Our regional municipalities wanted predictable and stable funding. We took the 57% GST rebate available to municipalities and upped it to 100%. That is millions of dollars for my city and my region alone. Also, the Conservatives came out with a gas tax rebate for cities. We did that in the last budget. That alone to the city of the Cambridge means just over $8 million. What is better is that we have extended it. That is millions more. Frankly, if done properly, my city can get that theatre by logging the money it knows is coming into that project.

There is something else. This is a shameful thing and I want to make this point clear. For 11 years firefighters have been coming to the Hill and they do not ask for much. One thing they ask for, not for themselves, is money for hazardous materials training to protect the Canadian people. Big cities can afford that but small cities like Cambridge and North Dumphries cannot afford that. Governments had ignored that request every single year they came to the Hill, until now.

In this budget there is funding for haz mat training to teach our firefighters how to properly protect Canadians against biological, radiological and chemical catastrophes. Why would the Liberals vote against that? Just because they did not get it done does not mean they should vote against it so no one else can get it done. How does that help Canadians?

Another key that members opposite should be ashamed of is the GST on school buses. There was a time when the school boards took the Liberal government to court and won. They felt they should not be paying that much GST on the transportation of their children. Right in the middle of a consent judgment, when some of the cheques had already gone out, the finance minister for the old Liberal government said, “No, I am going to change the law and make it retroactive”. Regrettably, the law has been changed. However, this government respects the court's rulings and in this budget is money for 29 school boards, including those in the ridings of members opposite.

I want to know why the group opposite continues to think that Canadians are happy with words and not actions. The one time Canadians will be happy with words is this time, and that word is yes.

As we roll out our agenda over the next few months, Canadians will see that Canada's new government represents a fundamental shift from the kind of government they knew with the Liberals. It is a clear choice between a government with a record of results and going back to drift, scandal and empty rhetoric. It is a clear choice between a country where individuals are free to make the best of their choices and the most of their opportunities versus a country where the state presumes to know what is best and how to best spend taxpayers' money and raise taxpayers' children. It is a clear choice between a country that takes practical, realistic action on the environment versus a country that sets insincere and unrealistic targets and then sits back and does absolutely nothing to meet those targets. It is a clear choice between a country that values safe streets and safe communities versus a country where the streets are ruled by gangs and guns, and thugs and drugs.

I am so honoured to represent the great riding of Cambridge. My riding will benefit from almost all aspects of this budget: child care, our air, our water, our land, women, farmers, truckers, seniors, students, doctors, patients, businesses, low income earners, married or not, everybody. On their behalf, I will vote absolutely yes to this budget.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the environment. He represents a riding in Ontario.

Given that the Liberal government had an agreement with the province of Ontario, the Canada-Ontario agreement for $6.9 billion in transfers and that was cancelled, how is he going to justify that to his residents? His leader has stated, and it is on paper in a letter, that carbon dioxide is good for us. Does the member agree with that statement and how can he talk about the environment?

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, regrettably the member's research is completely inaccurate. I have an extra intern in my office and I would be happy to lend him to the member to do some research.

The fact is that regarding restoring fiscal balance, and perhaps that is what is confusing the member opposite because the Liberals do not agree that there even is a fiscal imbalance, Ontario stands to gain $12.8 billion including $8.1 billion under the Canada health transfer, $3.8 billion under Canada social transfers for post-secondary education and child care. The list goes on and on.

I am not sure what the member is talking about. His record on the environment is pathetic. Frankly we knew he was going to vote against the budget because that is what he was told to do.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that the Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce said that the government came up short on infrastructure funding and offered no funds to Waterloo region's light rail. As well, it did not reduce the employment insurance surplus. On the whole it is disappointed and notes that the Tories are ramping up spending.

In terms of crime prevention, let me say to the member that in the Waterloo region we have the best crime prevention program in Canada. What he speaks about is totally contrary to what the chief of police in the Waterloo region has to say, what the regional chairman in the Waterloo region has to say, what the school boards in the Waterloo region have to say, and the list goes on.

The region of Waterloo had to spend $5 million extra out of property tax dollars on day care because the government slashed day care. It also had to pick up the cost of the EnerGuide program to do the evaluation because of what has not been done by the government.

What is the member doing to stand up for the people of the Waterloo region, for regional government, for the police on the questions I have raised?

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, what a smorgasbord of inaccurate statements. The member opposite should know that the light rail, which is called the rapid transit system, is not even in my riding. The gentleman does not even know the actual name of the thing. As the regional chair mentioned, this is a system that is years away. Clearly, the reason the Liberals brought it up in the Ontario budget this year is that it is an election year for them and that is what the Liberal provincial government does.

I spoke to the regional chair about child care and I am sure the member did not. In fact, we have $10,000 for individual spaces, and in this budget an additional $250 million to address the concerns that the member raised.

The member decided to vote against the budget without even reading it. I might suggest that he read it now because it is definitely worth voting for.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT

Mr. Speaker, the renewable fuels money of $2.2 billion really invests in consumption again. Where we should have seen investment in the budget is in conservation because that really does help Canadians. It lowers their cost of energy.

Why does the member say it is so good for the environment when in reality what we need is a conservation program that helps Canadians as well as the environment?

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member raised a good point. However, I would remind him that there are provisions in the budget to protect and conserve our water. For example, there are provisions to decrease the consumption of carbon based fuels by encouraging folks to buy better fuel efficient cars. There is also money in the budget for carbon capture to take this pollution out of the air.

Frankly, with due respect to the member, I think the budget addresses the needs of parents and children and ordinary working people while closing loopholes and tax havens for corporations. The member should be ashamed of himself for not voting for that.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member indicated that a statement in one of my questions was inaccurate. The statement I made was quoted from a letter that the current--

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The hon. member is rising on a point of debate, not a point of order.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kitchener--Waterloo.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

It is quite fortunate that I get to stand and speak after my colleague from the other side, the member for Cambridge, as we share the same region.

He made a comment that he spoke to the regional chairman and I did not. I do not know how he could make such a comment when the fact of the matter is I spoke to the regional chairman on Friday. Many of the people in the community, local politicians, federal politicians and provincial politicians were present. The reason we gathered at regional headquarters was the announcement that there is going to be an upgrade of highway 7 connecting Kitchener and Guelph. Of course the reason the hon. member on the other side was not there is that it was an announcement of provincial moneys by the provincial Liberal minister of transport with no help from the federal government.

I can tell the member once again that regional council--

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The hon. member for Cambridge is rising on a point of order. I hope it is a point of order and not a point of debate.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a point of order because it points to the member's attendance, where the member was. The member opposite should know that I was right here in this House on Friday.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Members of the House know not to note the presence or absence of members in the House.

I would just like to have the order of the House. I ask members to listen to the hon. member for Kitchener--Waterloo and if there are some who have questions, they will be able to ask them during questions and comments.

The hon. member for Kitchener--Waterloo has the floor.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

Mr. Speaker, thank you for pointing out the rules to the member because he clearly does not understand them.

The regional government spent five million of local taxpayer dollars on day care because of the savage cuts the government made to day care. It also had to pick up the EnerGuide evaluation component of the program, an important program for the environment and one which that member's party trashed.

In terms of safer communities, we have one of the safest communities in the Waterloo region. The Community Safety and Crime Prevention Council brings various groups together, such as the leaders of the community, the police, the courts, the mayors, the school boards, the service clubs and community volunteers, who work on crime prevention. Its response to crime is not the same as the Conservative Party's response to crime. It recognizes that the Association of Chiefs of Police has called for fighting crime through social development. It also says that more police officers, more jail guards and more jails will not make our communities safer but that they will be less safe.

I quote the response of the Chamber of Commerce in our area as to what it had to say about the budget. It was disappointed.

I represent a riding that, probably more than any other, demonstrates the importance of investing in education and in research and development. All one needs to do is to look at the community. We have the University of Waterloo, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary, Wilfrid Laurier University and Conestoga College, some of which I share with the member for Cambridge, seeing as a school of architecture is down there.

What my community dramatically demonstrates is that when we invest in education and in research and development a huge amount of wealth is created, which is clearly what happened in our region. To the extent that investments were made in education I say that is good, but to the extent that funding for the granting council did not match inflation, that is bad.

The biggest thing that bothers me about the budget was very well stated in a headline in Macleans, “Next time, perhaps, a vision for the future”. The budget really has no vision for the future. If we were to look at vision, we should be looking at things like early childhood education, which was slashed by the Conservative government, and the Kelowna accord, which was slashed by the government, that would have brought our first nations out of a cycle of poverty. The Kelowna accord would have allowed all governments, territorial, provincial and federal, to make progress on that file. We only need to look at what happened to Kyoto? The budget has no vision on those things.

I will specifically mention something good in the budget. The Perimeter Institute received $50 million. The previous Liberal government gave money to the Perimeter Institute. The provincial government gave two grants, one to Perimeter Institute for $50 million and one to IQC, the Institute for Quantum Computing, for $50 million. Unfortunately, the Conservative government did not see the wisdom of giving money to the Institute for Quantum Computing. If we solve the puzzle of the quantum, then we will be at the forefront of the next revolution, the kind of which mankind has not seen. It really takes investment in those kinds of things to make that happen.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Before I open for questions and comments, I would like to make a comment of my own. We all know that we should not mention the absence or presence of members in the House and that is based on one principle and that is the presumption of good faith. If a member is absent from the House, it is not necessarily because of the bad faith of that member but because that member is on duty somewhere else.

That presumption of good faith should also count for activities that happen outside this House. So if the member for Cambridge was absent from an activity in the regional municipality, we cannot from that presume his bad faith since he was in attendance in the House at the time. We can all debate much better in this House about all subjects when we presume the good faith of all members.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cambridge.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that comment. I want to make one comment and then I have a question.

The member opposite knows full well that 75% of the folks who signed up for the EnerGuide program actually could not go on with the program. The government switched it and now the government will pay up to $5,000 to go on with the program. The member's comments, although I do not think it was on purpose, mislead the House.

The Waterloo Catholic District School Board in the region of Waterloo, in the member's riding--and I am assuming he has some schools in his riding as I do in mine--stands to lose $182,000-plus if the member votes against this budget. The Upper Grand School Board stands to lose $650,000 if the member votes against this budget. He mentioned no money for research, which is completely misleading. The budget contains $50 million, by his own mention, to the Perimeter Institute; Genome Canada, $100 million; and $170 million over two years to federal granting councils. I could go on but I do not want to take up the time.

Will the member vote against the school boards in and around his riding receiving money from this government?

The BudgetGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

Mr. Speaker, I first want to say that the rule we have is that we do not make mention of a member's presence or absence in the House. The fact is that I was accused by the other member of not having talked to the regional chairman, although I do not know how he could possibly know that. However, I did point out that I had an encounter with the regional chairman on Friday because we had this good news announcement that was happening. Granted it did not have any federal dollars attached to it. A member on the other side stood up and said that I was not in the House. It was totally out of order for him to make mention that I was not in the House and that is who you should direct your commentary to, Mr. Speaker.

The member talks about voting against the budget because we must vote against the budget. I would like to tell the member that the cost of this budget and the cancellation of the programs that I mentioned previously far outweigh anything that this particular budget does.

Further, I made a comment about there being some money for research in this budget and I said that I welcomed that, but the granting councils did not receive enough money in terms of inflation. I said that we should be ensuring that inflation is covered for the granting council because that is the price of our productivity.

In terms of trying to somehow portray this side of the House as being under the grips of a dictator, I would remind the House that when the minister of intergovernmental affairs resigned as minister because he disagreed with the Conservatives' stand on Quebec as a nation, he was not able to stand in this House and vote against that motion.

I have been in the situation where I had to vote my conscience and I have had to vote against my own government even though I was parliamentary secretary for a particular portfolio. I voted against the anti-terrorism bill and the Immigration Act. I do not need lectures, particularly from the member for Cambridge telling me to vote against the government when he has never defied a whipped vote.

Maybe the members on that side of the House need to take some lessons from this side of the House. We did not run this place like a dictatorship, which is what they are doing on the other side. Perhaps they could think back to their Reform days when they used to stand in the House and say that they represent their constituents and that if their constituents instruct them to vote against the government or against our party, they will do so.

I do not need any lectures from the member for Cambridge.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to speak to the Conservatives' budget that was tabled March 19.

Traditionally, budget time is the most exciting time of the year for any government, with intense media speculation and buzz surrounding which initiatives will be included and will be left out. The anticipation around a budget is so high because it is the centrepiece of a government's forecast for the country. It is the clearest message a government can send to its citizens about the path on which it wants to lead our nation.

This is the second opportunity during this parliamentary session that my colleagues and I have had to address this House on the government's most important piece of legislation and, boy, what a disappointment.

I remember how years ago, while I was a full time practising accountant, the employees at the firm where I worked would sometimes be working on last minute tax planning for our clients until the night before the federal budget was tabled in case certain policies would be introduced on budget day that would adversely affect our clients. In those years, the speculation always surrounded what new tax policies would to be introduced that would increase income taxes and sometimes those new tax policies would come into effect the same day of the budget.

When the Liberals took power, the country's financial house began to be put back in order. The Liberals did not have to punish hard-working Canadians by announcing drastic last minute tax measures to cut into their incomes. As the former Liberal government started to reduce the deficit, the country began to see budgets that had a vision for the future of this country.

In light of the excellent financial situation it was in, the government committed an unforgiveable act when it tabled its budget, giving our leader a reason to declare, “—so little with so much”.

Last week's budget should have been about a vision for the future, a vision that would continue to lead Canada into the 21st century. All the ingredients were there. Thanks to the previous Liberal governments, the Conservatives inherited the biggest surplus and the best economic situation this country has ever seen. The Conservatives could have used this budget to make real improvements to keep Canada on the cutting edge of innovation and prosperity in the global economy. Instead, the budget tells Canadians nothing about a vision for this country.

With the overall inaction and lack of vision in last week's budget, all Canadians can now realize that the Conservative government wants to sacrifice our country's long term prosperity.

Some have called the budget a piece of electioneering. Even if that is the case, the budget fails miserably. It is an unfocused document that delivers practically no substantial help to Canadians. Some have called the budget a paint ball budget that sprays paint everywhere but never fully hits its targets. Some have called it a chocolate cake budget but without the chocolate and just the sprinkles and, therefore, no sweetness.

As I listened to the budget speech, I was astounded at how many times the finance minister took credit for positive Liberal initiatives and tried to pass them off as Conservative ones.

The finance minister is getting the label of being able to deliver a speech with so much and yet end up delivering so little for Canadians.

After last year's budget, the last fiscal update and the budget tabled this year, it is obvious that the Minister of Finance can say what he wants, but at the end of the day, the numbers do not lie.

Canadians are just now beginning to see the effects of how negligible last year's budget was in terms of tax fairness. Canadians see it as they file their 2006 income tax returns.

As vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, I want to focus the remainder of my time on the ideas and items all members of the committee from all political parties heard about during the prebudget consultations. My statements today will be based on the facts that the committee heard and will not be the usual political grandstanding we hear from the other side.

Without question, the top two items the committee heard most about, whether it was from individuals, businesses, community groups or non-profit organizations, were about how Canada needs to maintain a balance between, first, a competitive tax regime and, second, the ability to guarantee Canadians the social programs they cherish.

Most groups understood the correlation between having government provide tax cuts to promote and enhance productivity while at the same time needing to collect enough revenue to provide for social programs. Canadians understand that this balance needs to be maintained. They look to the government to balance the two, but Canadians also expect the government to provide new and innovative programs to make sure that in today's Canada, as the member for LaSalle—Émard, our former prime minister, indicated on many occasions, no one is left behind.

Unfortunately, the government does not understand the balancing act. This was evident in last week's budget. It is primarily for this reason that I cannot support the budget.

At a minimum, the personal income tax at the lowest rate needs to be reduced to 15% to match the 2005 rate. The finance minister claimed that this new budget would take thousands of Canadians off the tax rolls, but what about the hundreds of thousands of Canadians put back on the tax rolls when the Conservative government increased the basic amount to 15.5% in its last budget?

Just because the finance minister says something does not necessarily make it true. At least the government had the good sense to abandon its ill-advised plan to lower the GST by another percentage. However, I suspect that it had no choice but to abandon the proposal it announced in its last budget in order to pay for the incredibly high expenditures contained in the current budget.

Last week's budget saw a year over year increase in spending of 5.6%. Economists have stated that this is way too high. Even 3% is tough to sustain. An astronomical increase in spending does not equate to a vision for the country, but in fact equates with simple vote buying and electioneering. This budget is not a plan of spending for the long term prosperity of our country.

In 2007, given the surplus this government had, we might wonder why the programs abolished in the previous budget were not reinstated in this budget. I am talking about programs such as the court challenges program, the Law Commission of Canada, the women's program at Status of Women Canada, and literacy programs, just to name a few.

New and innovative social programs start with national leadership. It is up to the federal government to undertake great new projects and to have Canadians embark on new ideas that will keep us the envy of the world, programs such as those the former Liberal government started: a national early learning and child care plan; a real and effective environmental plan to address climate change; a plan to respect our Kyoto engagement and lower our country's greenhouse gas emissions; and education strategies to ensure that all Canadians from coast to coast to coast have access to post-secondary institutions.

National leadership would also do what is right and would ratify agreements such as the Kelowna accord to make sure that first nations and Métis people have the same opportunities as all other Canadians.

The government needs to tell its citizens that our country is in a position to provide for the future of all Canadians, not just the chosen few, whether it is people entering their retirement years, young families with children or young people entering the education field or the workforce.

It is also about businesses having the knowledge and assurance that investing in Canada will provide them with a competitive advantage. How can any business, national or foreign, have confidence in this government after witnessing the surprise Halloween attack on companies structured as income trusts?

Not only did the Conservatives' decision to tax income trusts eliminate the opportunity for companies to convert themselves into trusts, but now all existing trusts will be treated as corporations. After this Halloween treat, businesses must be wondering what horror lies in store for them next.

Businesses need choice. Income trusts gave companies an additional mechanism to invest in Canada and obtain the capital needed for their businesses. It was not an ideal structure for everyone, but it was an additional option.

How can a business have the confidence to invest in Canada when it cannot have confidence in Canada's government? The insensitive and meanspirited manoeuvre to tax income trusts will harm Canada's economy for years to come, as investors must now reassess whether or not Canada is a safe place to put their money.

Moving on to another point, the finance minister made concrete claims that this budget favoured hard-working Canadian families, but just because the finance minister says something does not make it a fact.

Last week the Conservatives announced a $300 non-refundable tax credit to families for children under 18, but at the same time they are levying a $4,000 tax on the purchase of their minivans. They talk of helping families, but not one child care space has been created in the last year. How does that help hard-working families?

I will wrap up, although there are a few other issues I would like to speak on. There is one positive thing. The changes for accelerated CCA are definitely a good thing but, for the other reasons I have mentioned and many more, I am opposing the government's budget for doing so little with so much and for failing to offer a vision for a prosperous Canada. All members should oppose it as well.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for a very interesting speech about the financial issues in the budget.

One issue that he did not cover, and which I was having trouble covering, is one that had been brought forward by the finance minister in his speech. It is the discussion about closing the tax loopholes. I went through the whole budget document trying to find out if anything was addressed toward this, trying to find out whether the government had set any targets, identified any areas or was proposing any real solutions for the tax loopholes that exist.

Earlier I heard in the House that there are Canadian assets worth some $88 billion in offshore companies. This is a huge issue. For the finance minister to say in his speech that he is going to do something about it, without any indication of what that is going to be, where that is going to take us, or what the proposed targets are going to be for that kind of action, is just another case of window dressing.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague, who is on the finance committee and has heard representations on this issue, if he could enlighten me a bit about this.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the finance minister. That was part of my presentation. No matter what the finance minister says, it does not necessarily mean those are the facts.

Regarding tax havens I am not sure what the member was referring to, but I understand that one of the items he was referring to was income trusts. I am not sure what the tax loophole was in income trusts. Income trusts are a vehicle. People or companies were not necessarily using them to avoid income tax.

I know that some members from the NDP chose to take income trusts as being a way to avoid income tax, but in actual fact money earned from income trusts by individuals is actually taxed at a higher rate than revenue generated directly from a corporation, which would be taxed at a lower rate. So I am not sure what the finance minister was talking about.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech.

I sit on the finance committee with the hon. member. As he is well aware, a lot of the representations we heard in committee are present in budget 2007, including some very significant funding for things such as the HPV or human papillomavirus funding of $300 million, which should prevent the spread of cancer among girls and women. This is very positive.

There is a 40% increase in post-secondary spending. We heard about that numerous times right across the country from representatives of post-secondary facilities who wanted additional funding and wanted that post-secondary school funding broken out of the budget so they could see how much it is. We know how much it is now.

We also see in the budget over $500 million for the Canada Foundation for Innovation.

Those were representations that we heard time and time again. I know the member supports these measures. What I cannot understand is why he is not supporting the budget.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to engage in debate with the member and his colleague sitting next to him.

It is just a difference of opinion.

If there is a proven science for cervical cancer, I am definitely for it. I think we had it included in our prebudget report.

I think additional funding for foundations was also in our report.

I have no problem with providing money for post-secondary education, but the problem is in the way it is delivered.

The past Liberal government was accused of swimming in surpluses. Now the present government has been given the same opportunity. The first thing it should be doing is reducing income tax. We heard that from every type of group imaginable during the prebudget consultations. I do not see why that cannot be done. That is the first step.

The other step is on post-secondary education. Sure, we should be breaking it down, but that still does not help students. This is going to help unload some of the obligations, but this is not going to help students. We heard from student groups that once students have graduated they have problems with debt. There needs to be direct help.

There are a lot of good things in the budget, but that does not necessarily mean that the budget overall is a positive budget, so I still cannot support it.