House of Commons Hansard #133 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

Budget Implementation Act, 2007Government Orders

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am sure those comments from the member for Peterborough are going to cost a few votes for his colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

I listened very carefully to the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor as he eloquently presented the statistics. He knows very well that when the Liberal government brought forward the Atlantic accord, the then opposition Conservative Party voted against it. Why did Premier Danny Williams not stand up and speak then? He knew he had an accord. How did he sell it to the voters of that region to vote against the Liberal government which said that it believed in fairness? Now the premier is saying that the Conservatives cannot be trusted and that they lied. What happened? Could the member elaborate? My constituents in Scarborough Centre are very confused and upset.

I am glad that he mentioned that Alberta and the provinces should have the right to build on their resources and build their economies. The Atlantic region should also have the opportunity to prosper and provide for its people, seniors and youth especially. Could the member elaborate on that for me?

Budget Implementation Act, 2007Government Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for reminding me of the rules. I would like to extend my apologies to all members in this House.

In response to my hon. colleague's question, indeed it has been a tumultuous event over the last three years to say the least. When the whole idea of being principal beneficiaries started, we talked about the fact that under the Atlantic accords we would be able to prosper much like Alberta did back in the 1950s and the 1960s and become an economic powerhouse. The Prime Minister pointed out, and as a matter of fact the current Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs pointed out the same facts and she was quite right. I would be disappointed if I lived in Saskatchewan which is next door to Alberta because Saskatchewan with its oil resources now faces the cap. It was not faced by Albertans way back when. There is a question of fairness to be resolved.

In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, the deals were signed. The offsets were agreed to right up to 2020 which covers a substantial part of development certainly for the oil and gas sector off Newfoundland and Labrador. The second part of that also helped in the case of Nova Scotia, which would be particularly disconcerting for it given that it is now in jeopardy.

Buried within the details as the economists point out is the implementation of these accords which the government says it is protecting. In fact, even the Minister of Finance said in a CBC interview that after 2012 we are done and that is it. Whatever happened to 2020? As I pointed out, even if it goes to 2020 under the new formula, we are getting $1 billion less despite the fact that there were no caps, there were no hindrances whatsoever. We were 100% beneficiaries.

The government even said that the province would not be worse off, yet we are getting $1 billion less. One billion dollars sounds like quite a bit of money. I am sure my colleague from Cape Breton would agree.

Budget Implementation Act, 2007Government Orders

6 p.m.

An hon. member

It is a lot of money.

Budget Implementation Act, 2007Government Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

It is a lot of money, Mr. Speaker.

Nobody on that side would agree. We have to sell what we put out there, which is perhaps the politics of deception at its best.

Budget Implementation Act, 2007Government Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Mr. Speaker, after the comments from the member for Peterborough I suppose I should meekly get up and say on behalf of Atlantic Canada that we are proud to be part of Canada. We are proud to be part of a Canada social transfer program, CST, that was developed in 1977, that transferred tax points to the provinces, and which has been very favourable to all provinces.

I wonder what my Newfoundland colleague thinks about keeping the Canada social transfer--

Budget Implementation Act, 2007Government Orders

6 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor has 30 seconds to respond.

Budget Implementation Act, 2007Government Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Mr. Speaker, therein lies the crux of one of the problems, equalization and the fair principle of it. The Constitution talks about equal services provided across the country based on a needs basis. Certainly the measures taken in 1977 with tax points, or as those members called it, back door equalization, was not back door for us. It--

Budget Implementation Act, 2007Government Orders

6 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel.

Budget Implementation Act, 2007Government Orders

6 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-52, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007. For the benefit of the Quebeckers and Canadians who are watching, this is the budget implementation bill, which must be voted on and passed.

Obviously, once again, the Conservative Party needs the Bloc Québécois to see this bill pass, just as it needed the Bloc for the budget to pass. It always makes me smile when other members call into question the presence of the members of the Bloc Québécois, my colleagues here in this House. Once again, this only proves the importance of our presence today. If the Bloc Québécois had not supported this budget, there would be no debate regarding the budget implementation. Lastly, the most important reason for the Bloc's support of this budget has to do primarily with the partial correction of the fiscal imbalance.

If I may, I would like to go over a bit of history with the House. As we all know, Quebec's motto is “Je me souviens”—I remember. Quebeckers certainly remember the Conservatives' excessive spending of the 1980s, which is what drove Canada into debt. I am sure we all recall the cuts in transfer payments to the provinces that the Liberal Party was forced to make, cuts that jeopardized Quebec's entire fiscal balance. I was affected by those cuts—not as a privileged witness, but on the front lines.

My background is in municipal government, so I remember the first deep cuts very clearly because the Government of Quebec had to pass on some of the costs to the municipalities. Those with experience in municipal government will remember the first reform, known as the “Ryan reform”. The entire secondary road network was transferred from the Government of Quebec to the municipalities, which had to pay and are still paying the bill for Sûreté du Québec. Quebeckers are well aware of this when the time comes to pay their municipal taxes. There is a nice little “Sûreté du Québec” item on the tax bill for people in the regions who have to pay for the Quebec provincial police. Obviously, the big cities were already paying for their municipal police forces.

I would just like to remind my colleagues that the Atlantic Accord and the agreements the federal government signed with the provinces are all well and good, but that since the federal government cut provincial transfer payments in 1993-94, it has begun to reinvest.

Perhaps I will have an opportunity to explain to what extent. However, I would like to paint a picture for you with respect to the 2007-08 budget, which is before us today, and the federal government's provincial transfer payment increases. Since 1993-94, when deep cuts forced municipalities and school boards to shoulder many new responsibilities, Quebec has recuperated 55% of what it lost, while elsewhere in Canada, the other provinces have recuperated 66%.

Today in Quebec, despite the restoration of fiscal balance, the Liberals and the Conservatives are at each other's throats. Nonetheless, many agreements, including the Atlantic accord and other natural resource revenue agreements, have been signed with the other provinces. I hope that my colleagues in this House, whether Conservative, Liberal or New Democrat, will never forget that Quebec has always paid for one quarter of all investment in oil, but that the rest of Canada has never contributed to the development of hydroelectricity in Quebec, which is our trademark and which Quebeckers have paid for through their electricity bills.

We received nothing from the federal government. We developed our own energy with our own money even though we paid for 25% of the cost of developing the energy of other Canadian provinces. In addition, they share the resources and the profits from these energy sources that we do not have. Today, the blame is being placed on the resolution of the fiscal imbalance, which is considered acceptable for the 2008 budget. Once again, there is a long way to go, because Quebec wants its due.

With the drastic cuts of the 80's and 90's, and the accumulation of debt by the Conservatives, who put Canada in the poor house, the provinces were the ones to pay. Quebec made a major contribution to repayment of the federal deficit.

Today, Quebec is asking for what it is owed. There is a reason why the Bloc Québécois has always called for a solution to the fiscal imbalance. It was neither the current Conservative government and its Prime Minister nor the Liberals who invented it. It was Bernard Landry's Parti Québécois government that set up the commission. Those who followed the debate in Quebec will remember the Séguin commission that presented its report in 2001 and declared that there was a large fiscal imbalance in Canada. That is easy to figure out. Ottawa has too much money compared to the provinces.

We must realize that the federal government does not look after health, education and transportation. So what does it do? Health, education and transportation are a large part of a citizen's life. The rest—the water from taps, waste and so forth—are municipal responsibilities. The federal government looks after security.

Here again, when we look at the gaping holes in Canada's security, we see that the government has not always done its job. It is not meeting the real, everyday needs of Canadians. It is only natural that Quebec, which feels it has contributed too much in the past, should want to correct this imbalance and have most or all of the 52.8% of taxes that Quebeckers pay the federal government come back to them. We know that the government keeps a lot for itself, but a portion has to come back to Quebeckers, and not in formulas invented for Quebec. We are not asking for anything new.

What the Bloc Québécois asked for and what the federal government has done in part is to modify the equalization formula. It was clear that the equalization formulas had to take into account the revenue of all 10 Canadian provinces, which was not the case previously.

The balance had to be right, and the revenue of all the provinces had to be calculated so that equalization would be fair. That is part of Canada's constitution, the famous constitution that Quebec never ratified, whereby the have-not provinces are compensated by the others.

Quebec would like to be a province that contributes more and that gives rather than receives. That is our goal. Quebec would like to stop seeing the aluminum ingots produced in Quebec taken to make cars in Ontario.

The only automotive industry in Quebec was closed and all the jobs associated with it were eliminated. In addition, we often manufacture our products and offer competitive hydro rates paid for out of Quebeckers' pockets. Here again, nothing comes from the federal government. We make products that are then processed in the other Canadian provinces. The people in those provinces have the good jobs. They think it is only natural that they should have the good jobs.

We are seeing this again with the Boeing contracts. Between 55% and 60% of the aerospace industry is in Quebec. Boeing negotiated an agreement for 30%, while the federal government required that just 15% of the spinoffs go to Quebec. But 55% to 60% of the aerospace industry is in Quebec. As the member for Mirabel, I know what I am talking about. Part of the industry is located my riding and elsewhere in Quebec: in Longueuil, Montreal, and in the greater Montreal area.

Once again, when contracts are negotiated, the Conservative ministers from Quebec stand up and say that private companies have to fend for themselves. They are probably glad because the private sector does more than it is asked to do. They are glad to leave private companies to fend for themselves. The Conservatives wanted 15% of the economic spinoffs to go to Quebec, but Boeing wanted 30%.

I am dumbfounded that such things still go on. Quebec will be penalized and 70% of the industry will go elsewhere with the contracts for the C-17s and the Chinooks. Military investment in the aerospace industry will go to other Canadian provinces and will create jobs. It will also create an even bigger imbalance.

There will always be hon. members in this House who will stand up to say that Quebec is always at the mercy of the rest of Canada. That is why the members from the Bloc Québécois would one day like to leave this chamber and for Quebec to become a country so that it can take care of its own affairs and stop being told it is piggybacking on the others.

When we are gone, they will understand that they are the ones who were piggybacking on Quebec, with its natural resources, its raw materials and all they transform outside of Quebec and for which we pay a good part.

The budget now recognizes the fiscal imbalance the Bloc Québécois had estimated. Indeed, the Léonard committee produced a report ordered by the Bloc and it estimated the fiscal imbalance at $3.9 billion. Even the former Quebec Liberal finance minister agreed with that estimation. So nobody should be surprised by it. That was the amount we requested to resolve the fiscal imbalance and the amount the government is giving us. We gave the Prime Minister another chance after last year's budget. He had said that he needed one year to review, analyze and study the issue and that he would propose a solution to the fiscal imbalance this year. I will remind the House that he promised to hold a first ministers conference. Finally, that never happened because he was unable to do it.

We ended up with the $3.3 billion we now see in the budget to resolve the fiscal imbalance. We asked for $3.3 billion in three years. The Bloc has always been a fair player. It has always showed great openness by acknowledging that this was not easy to do and that there were difficult decisions to make. We gave ourselves a three year deadline to get that issue solved. We got $3.3 billion when we were asking for $3.9 billion in 2003 dollars. No need to say that indexation had not been included. We did not want to risk being accused of all sins in the world. But the fact is that we would have considered $3.9 billion a real solution to the fiscal imbalance. However, the proposed $3.3 billion remains a useful amount and that is why the Bloc Québécois has given its support to the budget.

This started at the time of Bernard Landry's Parti Québécois government with the Séguin commission, which was followed by the Léonard committee, set up here by the Bloc Québécois. The committee used the federal government's numbers. No other party wanted to do it, and none of the parties in Quebec were able to do it because it meant taking a close look at the federal administration's inner workings. The Léonard committee spent a year studying all of the data to justify that figure, which, as I said, has not been challenged yet. So that resolves the fiscal imbalance in part. Fixing the fiscal imbalance for Quebec fixes it for the other provinces. Fixing equalization for Quebec fixes it for the other provinces too.

Thanks to agreements signed by other prime ministers, including the former Liberal Prime Minister, other provinces have received additional revenue. Those provinces want to keep getting the same equalization payments as before in addition to new money. It is never-ending. That is why I am saying that because it is so complicated to understand how Canada works, Quebec would be better off as its own country, taking care of its own business. That would be the ideal solution. It would save the rest of Canada a lot of trouble, and it would save us the eternal frustration of constant recriminations. Quebec is always wrong, regardless of the fact that its natural resources are taken away to be processed in other Canadian provinces, which rake in the cash and refuse to give any of it back. This has to end sooner or later. One day, the other provinces will understand. When Quebec leaves, they will miss us a lot because they will finally understand to what extent our natural resources prop up their economies.

Budget Implementation Act, 2007Government Orders

6:10 p.m.

An hon. member

They can come visit us.

Budget Implementation Act, 2007Government Orders

6:10 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC

They will be more than welcome.

That is why, when we feel progress is being made, the Bloc Québécois is always there to defend the interests of Quebeckers. Quebeckers have seen this once again. We do not hesitate to support measures that represent a step in the right direction, and one such measure was to correct part of the fiscal imbalance, to the tune of $3.3 billion.

We also fought for ecotrusts. Quebec demanded $328 million to meet the Kyoto protocol targets. Once again, this is not a simple matter, yet it is not complicated either. Quebec and Quebeckers are ready to meet the Kyoto targets. This should not be so difficult to understand. Why? Because we have invested the necessary money and effort in hydroelectricity and wind power. We are ready. Quebec is ready to go green, while the rest of Canada is mired in tar sands, oil, coal and nuclear power.

That is their problem. We have been investing in new energy sources for a long time, and it has not cost you a cent. That is the best part. Quebeckers have paid through their hydro bills and their taxes. I am not making this up. Zero minus zero equals zero. It is not hard to understand. The federal government has not invested a penny in developing hydroelectricity in Quebec. However, it has invested a few million dollars in wind power in recent years, because it was embarrassed to stand by and admit that it had never contributed anything. Quebec has provided 25% of the $600 billion invested in fossil fuels since 1990. We have paid our share. Today, we are ready. Quebec has reason to demand its fair share.

You are willing to spend money in order to reach the Kyoto targets. Quebec must receive its fair share. The Quebec government's demand was for $328 million. We fought to get it and now it is in the budget. We are pleased to see it. The Bloc Québécois supports this measure. Furthermore, the Bloc has always defended the interests of Quebeckers here in this House. This explains why this file was able to move forward and why this measure is in the budget. Your voices would never have been heard if we had not been here to say that Quebec is prepared to meet the Kyoto targets. Stop all this quarrelling. At least there is one Canadian province that is ready to act. Let it go ahead and act. Watch Quebec. It will lead the way, just as it did in the area of child care. We will also lead the way regarding Kyoto targets, as well as in other areas. We are ready to lead the way and the rest of Canada simply has to follow our lead. It is not hard. This is why we are calling for full control of our taxes and income tax dollars, in order to be able to develop as we see fit. We will be good neighbours and good friends. The only problem is that we are different. We are ready to meet the Kyoto targets, we speak French, we are proud and we remember. I repeat the motto: Je me souviens. We remember the drastic cuts that you made in transfer payments to the provinces. Those cuts were devastating to all municipal administrations and school boards, all health and education networks.

Today we remember that all the times we have asked you for something, to give us part of what we are owed, it is always a big deal, it is always complicated. The federal government always has to make an agreement with another province. It is simple. There are six Canadian provinces with fewer people than the former city of Montreal. It is no more complicated than that to understand. You are good people, we are good neighbours. The problem is that some provinces do not have enough people to provide service networks. I can understand that the provinces would want the federal government to handle child care and education. In Quebec, this has been sorted out for a long time. All we are asking is that when you create a program, that you give use back our money no questions asked, without making us accountable. We want the money. It is as simple as that.

In light of the fiscal imbalance, what we are asking for is fiscal autonomy. We do not want to have to account to anyone anymore. This means that tax fields have to be transferred. Sending transfer payments to the provinces is not enough; Quebec needs its own money. The federal government has to either transfer tax points or offload the GST on Quebec, which would then keep the money. In addition, the time has come to put an end to all the debates and for us to stop looking like beggars coming to you for money all the time, when parts of our economy keep being transferred to other Canadian provinces. That is what has happened in the aerospace sector. We are leaders in that sector, and you are chipping away at it. You want to get your hands on it because, for one reason or another, you are unhappy with the current state of affairs.

One day, you will understand that Quebec should be given free rein. With our natural resources and our own approach, we will grow and we will achieve the Kyoto objectives. We will become the finest francophone land in the Americas, the quickest to comply with the Kyoto objectives. That is the choice Quebeckers have made. It has always been their choice to keep a finger on the pulse of the planet, while the rest of Canada is more in tune with the pockets of multinational companies. That is your choice. One day, you will understand.

Budget Implementation Act, 2007Government Orders

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel said that he wanted Quebec to get its fair share. I think that is a very wonderful statement that he made.

My question is predicated by his statement. If he believes in that, does he not believe then that the rest of Canada, other Canadians living in Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, other Canadians living in Ontario, and other Canadians living in Saskatchewan should be treated fairly?

What I am referring to are the commitments that were made to my province of Ontario under the Canada-Ontario infrastructure program of $6.9 billion. Ontario got $1.4 billion. He said that Quebec asked for $3.9 billion and received $3.1 billion.

What happened to the Atlantic accord? What happened to the Kelowna accord? Does the member not believe that Canadians, wherever they live, whether in the beautiful province of Quebec, Ontario or Newfoundland should be treated fairly?

This budget, as we heard earlier heard from the member from Newfoundland and Labrador, was not fair to all Canadians. Does he believe in fairness right across the country? That is my question.

Budget Implementation Act, 2007Government Orders

6:25 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely nothing against the fact that the other Canadian provinces may find fairness where they think it lies. I have no problem with that. However, there is a problem when the Canadian Constitution provides that equalization is the way to deal with unfairness. Then, if we deal with equalization the way we should, that is by taking into consideration all the revenues of each of the ten provinces, the technicalities result in Quebec always being short-changed. If they have a problem with what is provided in the Constitution, then they can review it and amend it. I have no problem with that. The provincial premiers will simply have to sit down together and discuss the issue. In the meantime, we must play with the cards that we were dealt, the cards that were dealt to us under the Constitution.

We are asking whether it is possible to get a fair share through equalization and achieve a balance. Some gifts are given by prime ministers, some agreements were signed, some royalties on natural resources were paid to some provinces. I do not have a problem with that, not at all. We are not jealous, but Quebec is left with the transfers to the provinces. We just want the process to be fair.

Currently, the federal government is enjoying billions of dollars in surpluses, while Quebec is managing a deficit. That is what the fiscal imbalance is all about. There is too much money in Ottawa and not enough in the provinces. In the late eighties and early nineties, the federal government reduced transfers to the provinces in an attempt to pay down the national debt, the debt that was created by the Conservatives. That is the reality. Now, the federal government should give money back, but it does not want to. It is reluctant, it wants to keep that money, it wants to give presents or do something else. Quebec simply wants its share. It is that simple. So much the better if the others are also satisfied with the arrangement. We supported the Kelowna accord and a host of other agreements for the provinces. We just want what is owed to us. It is as simple as that.

Budget Implementation Act, 2007Government Orders

6:25 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of the Conservative budget. When we look at this budget closely, we see that indeed, some money was given to Quebec as part of the transfers to the provinces. The hon. member says this is not enough and that more money should have been allocated to Quebec. This raises a few questions. Is the Bloc Québécois disappointed? Especially, as my colleague says, since Quebec has a deficit. As far as the problems at the hospitals are concerned, I know that the response will be that this is Quebec's jurisdiction and not the federal government's. However, money is transferred to a province so that it can offer programs that it can manage itself under the Constitution. Under the Constitution, the provinces are responsible for health and education. At the same time, we see that the Charest government is turning around and lowering taxes instead of investing the money in the programs that interest Quebeckers. Tax cuts of some $700 million have been proposed, even though Quebec's health care system is suffering, the same way health care is suffering across Canada and in New Brunswick. People who are hospitalized end up in hallways instead of hospital rooms. The issue of privatization has come up with the new opposition leader, Mario Dumont, who said there should be more privatization.

Do you not think the money should have been invested in those programs, in accordance with the Constitution, instead of voting for a budget that gives money for lower taxes rather than—

Budget Implementation Act, 2007Government Orders

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

I caution the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel that he has less than one minute to answer the question.

Budget Implementation Act, 2007Government Orders

6:25 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that I do recognize that my colleague from the NDP has very centralizing views. When the health care system was established in 1960, the federal government was paying 50% of the costs. Had it continued to pay 50% of the costs, there would not be any problems in the health sector in the Canadian provinces. We are talking about a choice that Quebec made.

Not to pay its share, to siphon money from the provinces to pay the federal debt, to tell the provinces where to invest the money given back to them, that is a choice—

Budget Implementation Act, 2007Government Orders

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Order, please.

I would just like to say that, when the House resumes debate on this bill, the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel will have four minutes remaining.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

6:30 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, I had asked the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development a question in the House. My question had to with the fact that, not long ago, representatives of a company in Alberta came to northeastern New Brunswick to recruit employees. They came to see whether people wanted to go to work in Alberta. In northeastern New Brunswick, because the unemployment rate is under 16%, it is fine if people have an opportunity to get a job.

I had asked the government what it was doing to set up programs to help provinces and regions with high unemployment, so that young people are not leaving their home for work elsewhere when jobs can be created locally and retired people are not the only ones who stay in the province. Nothing is being done about this. And I have no qualms about saying this, because retirees themselves are saying that they will be the only ones left in the province.

What is the government doing to either create jobs or help plants get into secondary and tertiary processing? There is nothing happening, absolutely nothing. When we take a close look at the budget, we realize that it does not say anything about the government doing something to create jobs. It was exactly the same thing with the minister's reply. He said that money was given to New Brunswick, but we can see that no program was put in place to create jobs.

Therefore, now that the government has had the opportunity to think about its reply, and to look at what it could do to help rural areas create jobs, I would like to hear what it has to say. I am anxious to hear the government's reply.

6:30 p.m.

Calgary Nose Hill Alberta

Conservative

Diane Ablonczy ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the budget has been very helpful to the people of New Brunswick.

Members of the opposition, members of his party, obviously want to vote against the budget. They are trying to find reasons to do that. It is clear they have not actually read the budget.

What the member for Acadie—Bathurst has missed is all that the government has done for working families in New Brunswick. I would point the hon. member to page 226 of the budget plan where it outlines the measures in the government's new working families tax plan.

Budget 2007 proposes several measures that help working families to be better off and more secure. Together, the measures in this plan will benefit over three million taxpayers, removing 230,000 low income Canadians from the tax rolls. More than 75% of the tax relief will go to those with annual incomes below $75,000.

First, there is a $2,000 child tax credit that will provide up to $310 in tax relief for each child under 18 for more than three million Canadian families. More than 90% of families will receive maximum relief and almost 180,000 taxpayers will be removed from the tax rolls.

For New Brunswick parents, this amounts to an estimated $32 million in tax savings in 2007-08. On top of that, an increase in the basic spousal amount will provide up to $209 of tax relief to a supporting spouse or single taxpayer supporting a child or relative. This measure will save New Brunswick residents an estimated $6 million in 2007-08.

For New Brunswickers saving for their retirement, increasing the age limit to 71 from 69 for registered retirement savings plans and registered pensions will save them an additional $700,000 in 2007-08.

In light of the hon. member's concern for working families, I would also suggest that he read the section on page 78 of the budget plan that fulfills the government's commitment to introduce the working income tax benefit. This will help people get over what is often referred to as the welfare wall, a situation that discourages many low income Canadians from getting the jobs they and their families need.

This initiative will help make work more rewarding and attractive for an additional 1.2 million Canadians already in the workforce, thereby strengthening their incentive to stay employed. This represents up to $500 for individuals and $1,000 for families to reward work and strengthen incentives to work. Benefits for New Brunswick workers are in the order of $13 million.

So, we have a working families tax plan and a working income tax benefit. It does not get much clearer than that. Contrary to what the member for Acadie—Bathurst seems to think, Canada's new government has taken action to help working families, and that includes significant benefits to his own constituents.

6:35 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, on page 210 of the budget, they do not explain how this will create jobs. On page 74 of the budget, they do not explain either how this will create jobs. I am talking about people who have lost their job. I am talking about the unemployment rate in my region.

Will the fact that an ordinary worker will get a $80 annual tax reduction change anything in his life? No.

As for the budget we have here, we had asked that it include changes to employment insurance, since there is a $51 billion surplus. However, absolutely nothing has been put forward in this budget to bring about changes so that people in my region, men and women who work in fish plants, are able to stay when there is no more work and their job has disappeared. There is no program. I see none. Even ACOA has been cut by the Conservatives. They cannot say otherwise. This was—

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is under a misapprehension about the role of government. The role of government is not to make work. The role of government is to lighten the load for job creators, entrepreneurs, businesspeople and investors, those who are the job creators in this country. That is exactly what our government has done.

It has cut taxes for our investors. It has cut taxes for business. It has cut the red tape for business. It has increased the equalization money that goes to provinces, so that they can create the services that will attract people to a province. We have put $33 billion into infrastructure, which again helps the flow of goods and services, and helps create jobs.

We have created enormous opportunities for job creation in this country. The member should be supporting the budgets that do that instead of voting against them because this is exactly what New Brunswickers need, job creation that we have supported with our budget measures.

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON

Mr. Speaker, consultations were held throughout northern Ontario on FedNor in particular and the budget in general.

There was no mention in the budget about this issue and people in Thunder Bay are very worried, not only in my riding but throughout the north. They did not see any mention in the budget of what is of concern to them. They do not need any more worries. They want reassurance.

As we have been holding these hearings, the people have been telling us, in very plan language, that now is the time for government to recognize the needs of the regions. When they do not hear mention of the regional programs, whether it is FedNor or ACOA or the others, then all this talk in government of diversification means that there is a role for government to play. In the regions, a little can go a long way. Government must recognize that FedNor is already under-resourced. Indeed, it needs more money.

Last year's cuts of $4.6 million must be replaced and indeed upgraded. There is certainly enough demand, as I believe the parliamentary secretary is well aware, when we talk about the components through which FedNor administers the COMRIF program in the province of Ontario.

Just the other day the minister responsible for FedNor sent me a letter that talked of that $298 million over the next five years. That $298 million over five years may seem like a lot, but in the province of Ontario that money is for eligible counties, regions and municipalities under 250,000 people. We are talking about almost 375 jurisdictions of the 446 that exist in Ontario.

What happened over the past three intakes for infrastructure was that the engineering and professional fees were not included as part of that allocation. It becomes very costly for small communities and there is no guarantee that they will get in under any of those programs. There is no list. If one is successful the first time, one can apply a second or third time.

These municipalities do not get any advice as to the validity of their cases. They can apply three times and be out of pocket. Essentially it becomes a lottery to them. These become very heavy hits for small communities. What we need is a process to tell them where they are. It should have been in the budget. If they are not going to be successful in the first round, then at least they should know that they are on the list somewhere.

Also in the province of Ontario there are roads boards, which are composed of volunteers. In the past three intakes, only one has been successful in its COMRIF application. Their question on the budget is that if they are not going to be eligible, why does infrastructure include them? Why make them go through all these hoops, particularly when it is so difficult for them to come up with this money in the first place?

The budget also should have addressed the distribution of the gas tax to these roads boards in Ontario. As the parliamentary secretary is well aware--

6:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.