Debates of June 11th, 2007

Budget Implementation Act, 2007

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting to listen to the member for Winnipeg North say how she was able, through her party, to negotiate a deal that would help housing, health care, environment and infrastructure with the former government. Before that budget was implemented, her party voted in favour of non-confidence, bringing the government down so the money could not be invested in the valuable things about which she talked.

It causes me to wonder this. Was she interested in doing those things, helping those people, doing the homelessness agenda, doing housing and investing in the environment, or did she want something for the resumé of the New Democratic Party in an election? What was the real interest?

The other question I would ask the member is this. She supported the Minister of Finance faster than he could utter the words “taxing of income trusts”. However, later at the finance meeting she heard from a lifelong member of the New Democratic Party who said that he would not support them again because Tommy Douglas would turn in his grave. She found out that $25 billion to $30 billion of seniors' investments was lost, $10,000 to $15,000 a year for individual seniors, on the premise of lost revenue to the federal government. She found out in evidence that it was the taxation of income trusts that would reduce the revenue to the government, causing increased taxation to the ordinary Canadian.

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

Mr. Speaker, first let me remind the member that the deal the New Democrats were able to wrangle with the Liberal government back in 2005 happened because the budget passed and went on to be implemented.

The member obviously still has sour grapes about the fact that the Liberals could not get their act together to continue to make a minority government work and to deal with other problems that the NDP identified. However, that does not negate the incredible achievement of the New Democrats back in 2005 with $4.6 billion going to valuable programs for Canadians as opposed to corporate tax breaks.

He asked where I would see money going today. Let me name a few. Maybe a few million dollars could go to housing in Winnipeg by ensuring that the Kapyong barracks are not sitting empty and are transformed into housing for people who desperately need it. There is a need for the government to invest in crime prevention programs that make a difference, such as the ambassador program in my own constituency.

I would suggest--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear what the member for Winnipeg North had to say about the plight of seniors. She is absolutely right that this budget did absolutely nothing for the people who built our country.

She pointed out how quick the government is to try to recover money from seniors. If we look at today's Ottawa Sun, the headline is about the government trying to get money back from pensioners. The article states in part:

The federal government is working to recover more than $7 million in public pension overpayments....

The department has appointed a special team to manually review the...files in an effort to recover all the cash.

We have raised in the House over and over again that seniors were shortchanged between 2001 and 2006 as a result of a miscalculation in the consumer price index. Seniors are owed, by our estimates, about $1 billion and by the government's own estimates, perhaps as high as $3 billion.

I wonder if through the hearings in the finance committee, the member got any sense at all about when it is the government is going to stand up for seniors, do right by them and make sure that they are reimbursed the money owed to them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could give my colleague some assurances that the government is in tune to those needs and is ready to act. Unfortunately, there has not been a single indication that the government, just like the previous government, is prepared to address the very serious problems that seniors are facing in this country. It will not take responsibility for the mistakes made at Statistics Canada regarding the consumer price index.

There has been no move on the part of the present government, or the previous one, to live up to a long-standing commitment to ensure some sort of catastrophic drug coverage which would be a great help to seniors.

There has been no move on the part of the government to deal with the failure of the last government when it eradicated the national housing program. There is no commitment to put in place the beginning steps of a reasonable housing program that would deal with the needs of seniors, as well as many others in our society.

This budget is devastating from the point of view of meeting the realities facing many groups in our society. The prosperity gap has actually been made wider as a result of it. That is a scathing comment on any government. If it cannot at least hold the line, what is the point of even being here unless it is to serve the interests of the corporate sector, the big banks and CEOs who are raking in huge amounts of profits and pay and benefits.

Let me conclude by saying those who found the Conservative budget to be contrary to anything fundamental in terms of a civil society include the Caledon Institute of Social Policy, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Toronto mayor, the Climate Action Network, Greenpeace Canada, the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, the National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada, Campaign 2000, which deals with poverty among children, and the list goes on. These are all reputable organizations that feel that the government has failed this country.

Bill C-52--Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to third reading of Bill C-52, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of the proceedings at the said stage.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-52, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007, be read the third time and passed, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Third Reading

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the people of my riding of Davenport with respect to the government's 2007 budget. My comments today reflect not only my personal views but the comments that I have heard repeatedly from residents of my community and indeed people across the country.

People have written to me, met with me or called me to discuss their deep concern that the Conservative government is taking us down an uncharted road, a road that leaves most vulnerable Canadians far behind.

Canadians have come to expect both leadership and inclusiveness from their governments. They know that in many respects Canada was built based on the solid leadership of great prime ministers and forward looking governments. These leaders looked beyond the horizon of the day and led our nation to become a country recognized internationally as a model of inclusiveness, innovation, tolerance and opportunity. Canadians also know that while words have power, they must also be supported with action.

It is not enough to speak of the importance of the arts. We must also make sure that the arts have the financial support they need to grow.

It is not enough to deplore the conditions of Canada's aboriginal people. We must also be willing to invest the funds necessary to create justice and fairness.

The true language of leadership is not what one says but what one does. Canadians have heard the Prime Minister's claim of moderation but they have seen the true colours of the government reflected in the budget. It is anything but progressive or moderate.

It is difficult to know which part of the flawed budget to address first because so many groups and priorities have been neglected by the government. I think it is only fitting to begin with those who first called this continent their home, the aboriginal people of Canada.

In 2005 the federal government brokered a historic agreement with aboriginal people and the provinces. Finally we had a federal government that was prepared to take a historic and long overdue step in acknowledging the low standard of living of many first nations people. In Kelowna, British Columbia the former prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, brought everyone to the table and brokered a real solution to the issues facing aboriginal people in this country. The agreement was not about headlines, it was about doing the right thing.

When the current Prime Minister took over the government of this country, he broke the federal government's commitment to aboriginal people and he continues to do that today. The government's budget does not do anything to address the real inequalities and historic injustices faced by Canada's aboriginal people.

Is it any wonder that more and more we are seeing frustrated first nations people resort to desperate measures to express themselves. These are the actions of Canadians who have no other recourse to highlight the deplorable living conditions that face them each day. International humanitarian groups have said that they are looking at setting up aid delivery in our country.

In this nation of plenty where the economy is thriving, why is it that the government insists on leaving aboriginal people behind? Where is the real measurable help for first nations people in the budget?

While speaking of broken agreements with the provinces, let us look at the government's proposed child care plan. Despite what Conservatives like to tell Canadians, the Government of Canada clearly entered into legally binding agreements with the provinces to fund child care spaces across the nation. Many provinces were counting on the money. Canadian families were looking forward to real and affordable child care. Instead, the government abandoned its commitment. Countless studies have shown that not one child care space was created by the Conservative plan, leaving thousands of children without child care.

I want to make it clear that I have heard from people who say that they do not need child care as they have decided and can afford to stay at home. Those fortunate few in our society who would not need a federal child care system are exactly that, the fortunate few. On the other hand, there are countless families that are desperately crying out for child care. The reality is that $100 a month simply will not cover child care for a poor single mother who has the unconscionable choice between not working, which means no income, and leaving her children alone at home.

Canada can do better and we must do better. Sadly, this budget does nothing to effectively deal with this issue. The former Liberal government had a plan. This plan would have worked. Where in this budget do we see any kind of real help for those who need child care in this country? The short answer is that this kind of help is nowhere to be found in this budget.

Young Canadians also needed support as they strive to gain career skills that will propel them successfully into the future. The Government of Canada has historically played a vital role in helping young people get jobs through the summer career placement program pairing them up with community organizations and companies. This was a win-win program for Canada. Students got jobs and skills. Non-profit organizations received enthusiastic, talented workers and Canada invested in its economic future. In the wake of this budget, the Conservative Party has so grossly mismanaged this program that no one can even tell Canadians how much is being spent, how jobs are being awarded and why the government initially denied funding to vulnerable organizations in communities across the country.

Let us hope that these future business leaders of Canada do not take the definition of transparency and accountability from the government's shameful example.

The budget is also sadly lacking in respect to education needs of Canadians. For our nation to remain prosperous, for Canada to remain a leader in the world, we must be on the leading edge of the knowledge economy. Our universities must be training grounds for a generation of leaders. Instead, this budget fails Canada's undergraduate students.

The budget does not put a penny in the pockets of those who need it most. Instead of removing barriers to higher education, the government is content to rest on its laurels, whatever they may be, and wait for Canada to be overtaken by other countries that h have the foresight to invest in their post-secondary students and institutions.

That is not the only place where the Conservatives are abandoning Canada's place on the world stage. The repeated failure of the Conservative government on the environment has been nothing short of unforgiveable. We have now seen not one but two failed environmental plans. We have a Prime Minister who spends his time at the G-8 bragging about his climate change denial, a minister who called climate change a socialist scheme and a climate change policy more comfortable with George Bush's Oval Office than in nations across the world.

There is a gaping hole in the budget when comes to innovative environmental programs. It is nice that the Conservatives are reintroducing the successful Liberal programs it cut but that is not leadership, that is backpedalling.

Our cities are being neglected more and more by the government. It was the previous Liberal government that committed gas tax moneys to Canada's cities. It was a huge step forward. For the first time the federal government was taking a leadership role and recognizing that municipalities are an important level of government badly in need of help.

Our cities are in desperate need of reliable, substantial and consistent federal funding. The Liberals' new deal for cities was a great first step but much more needs to be done. As a former city councillor in Toronto, I know that our municipalities are the front lines in terms of need and services.

A city like Toronto is charged with fighting homelessness, hunger, poverty, infrastructure, public health, public transit, culture and much more. It must have the economic tools to fulfill its obligations to Canadians who live there.

When I asked the government about this last week, all I was heard was rhetoric about maintaining prior commitments. Everyone in Toronto and indeed all major cities in this country know that there is much more to be done. It is time for leadership and no more rhetoric. This budget simply fails Canada's cities.

Among the hardest hit of all by the government's neglect are Canada's poorest citizens. At this time Canada has no minister of housing and no affordable housing plan. Constituents in my riding of Davenport do not need an explanation of why a housing strategy is such a necessary element of a national safety net. They see the need every time they walk down a main street. They see it in their elderly neighbours whose pensions and meagre savings are not sufficient to keep a roof over their heads.

The government has no strategy to help thousands of homeless Canadians. There is no program to help ensure that every man, woman, and child in Canada has a place to call home. This is simply not acceptable.

If the Conservative cabinet ministers cannot see this then I invite them to walk down the streets not five minutes from this Parliament. They will have the opportunity to talk with some people living on the streets. They are Canadians too and they need help. Sadly, this budget ignores--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is always unfortunate that when people are trying to make a valid argument about a point that is important to them in this House of Commons they need to rely on using what I call emotional blackmail.

A number of comments made by the member were completely unfounded. Did none of those problems that the member expounded on today, the homelessness issue and the other issues that he has brought forward, exist under the previous government? I certainly hope that is not what he is trying to make Canadians believe because that would be an absolute falsehood.

This particular government has put a great deal of money and effort into trying to resolve those issues for Canadians. We realize it is a serious issue and it is across this entire nation.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the member was trying to allude to.

In terms of emotional blackmail, does the member actually think that when a member of this House speaks about the homeless situations in our cities, the problems that are faced by poor people who cannot find child care, who cannot find decent housing, that that somehow is emotional blackmail? I would think not. These are important issues that we as parliamentarians have a right to speak to because these are important issues facing our country and our cities.

What I was trying to get at concerns the budget. We have a major surplus, due in large part to the good fiscal management of the Liberal government. The member may not want to believe it but most Canadians do believe that. Because the Liberal Party had good fiscal management for many years, we now need to ensure the investments are appropriate to the right places. I must say that child care is a very important piece of that socio-economic brick that could assist people out of the poverty lines. That is the point I was trying to make.

The government has taken away child care. It does not have a minister of housing. I have not heard one minister yet in this House speak about the importance of housing and homelessness in our cities. Those are the priorities I am talking about but the government has other priorities and they are not the same priorities that I have.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was speaking about child care. My wife and I were eligible for the $100 credit as well. I have not had the opportunity to apply for it because it is so complicated, but it is not about that $100. My parents are living with me in my home, so it is not the child care, it is the early learning that we get. I am spending about $1,000 for early learning for my three year old.

The parliamentary secretary was talking about emotional blackmail, but an association like the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada gives a failing grade to the government on child care. I am sure this association is a very non-partisan group and I would like to ask if the hon. member would like to comment on this association giving a failing grade to the government on child care.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. colleague for the excellent work he has been doing. I agree with him 100%. It is about the importance of early learning and the child care spaces that we need to have in our cities and our communities across the country.

It is one thing to hand out a cheque for $100. Every person would love to have $100. If the government were throwing $100 to every family, that would be fantastic, but it is a question of priorities. How do we set priorities in this country? We do not have an infinite amount of money. We need to ensure that money is properly allocated to programs that alleviate poverty, homelessness and where we can get children into early childhood learning programs.

The only way we can do that, with the amount of money and the budgets that we have, is by making strong investments in child care programs, which is what we were doing. We were doing that in partnership with our cities and in partnership with provincial premiers across this country. That is a very important piece of the pie that the government, unfortunately, has missed out on when it talked about early childhood education.

It is not about just handing $100 to everybody. Some people may even call that buying votes. This is about making investments, an investment in our children, an investment in our communities, and an investment in early learning, which is exactly what our plan had but the government killed it.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my hon. colleague from Newton—North Delta talk about the Child Care Advocacy Association so I thought it would be appropriate to ask him a question.

At last count, we had noticed that the Child Care Advocacy Association had received, I believe, $6 million in funding from the previous Liberal government and yet created zero child care spaces by its own admission. I am curious. When the member refers to the association's strong record on child care, is he is talking about the spending of $6 million on a lobby group?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would not characterize it as a lobby group. The reality is that it is doing incredibly important work.

Child care is an extremely important issue. When Mr. Chrétien was the prime minister and the member for LaSalle—Émard was the minister of finance, we invested incredible amounts of money into the provinces for child care spaces. The provincial government at that time, Mike Harris' Progressive Conservative government, tried to block that money from flowing to the cities. Therefore, we could not create those child spaces in cities like Toronto. About $180 million were given directly to the City of Toronto through the transfers from the federal coffers to the provinces. We could not access that money when I was in city council because the government at that time, the Progressive Conservative government of Mike Harris, refused to transfer that money.

Maybe that is the Conservatives' hidden agenda. If they do not believe in the child care program they should be honest and say that they do not believe in child care spaces, that they do not believe in investing in early learning and child care spaces, that they do not believe in investing in our cities and that they do not believe in investing in housing, in communities and in helping the homeless and the poor in our country. What they are not able to say directly, their programs and their actions clearly indicate exactly where they stand on these issues. They should be honest with their constituents and our people and say quite clearly that they do believe in these programs.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague has a great deal of interest in the issue of undocumented workers. I note that the money for the removal of undocumented workers has been increased to $420 million. I wonder what my colleague would have to say about that because undocumented workers are actually assisting in growing the Canadian economy and without them we could be in a great deal of trouble.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief because I know my hon. colleague, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, wants to get to the second part of the debate.

I would say that the issue of undocumented workers is a big one because it affects thousands of people in communities all across Canada. A motion was passed in the House with unanimous consent that there would be a moratorium. I would hope that the government respects the will of Parliament and has a moratorium on the deportation of undocumented workers.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, here we are, just one week short of three months since this bill was introduced and we are still debating it, notwithstanding the efforts to pull a sneaky motion on Friday and then the government House leader introducing closure earlier today.

I am wondering why it took the government so long. It possibly has something to do with the lack of popularity of this budget.

It used to be the rule of thumb that if people were still talking about the budget 48 hours after its delivery, then the budget was a failure. By that standard, this budget is a colossal failure.

I only have to point everyone to today's headlines. One states that the Prime Minister “faces growing Atlantic Tory backlash”. It says, “Nova Scotia premier leads charge against federal budget and 'our quiet talks are about to get a whole lot louder'”. The article states: “It is clear the Finance Minister is 'determined to undermine these efforts and undermine our good faith discussions', the Premier said in a telephone interview”.

The next headline states that “Mulroney phoned” the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley “in bid for Tory unity”. That article states that the “Nova Scotia MP [for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley] said Mr. Mulroney called him twice in the days before a second-reading budget vote to see if any accommodation could be reached between the veteran MP and [the] Prime Minister”.

I can pretty well understand why the government does not want this debate to go on for too long. When we have headlines like that, it is not a good day for government, and certainly this is well past the 48 hour cut-off period to determine whether in fact this is or is not a good budget.

What must be very disappointing for the Prime Minister is that this was to be the central piece of his one step-two step lead-up to the election. His first step was to get the premier of Quebec elected and the second step was to have what we could call a goodies budget.

The first step was a bit of a disaster. The premier of Quebec almost lost his seat. The net result was Quebec's first minority government certainly in decades and possibly into the previous century. We have now cumulatively the majority of members who are either full-out separatists or quasi-separatists who are called autonomous, whatever autonomous means. That step one did not exactly come off the way the Prime Minister planned it.

Step two was a goodies budget, so to speak. Instead of being a goodies budget, it has turned out to be a victims budget. The budget has many victims. In fact, I recommend that in the event the government ever gets to deliver another budget it should precede the budget with a victims bill of rights, because when we start counting up the victims this budget has incurred, it gets to be quite extraordinary.

The fundamental rule of budget making is to not make the lives of Canadians worse by delivering a budget. The idea is to actually make their lives better. It is not as if the finance minister did not start out with hordes of cash. He has just declared a $13 billion surplus. He is somewhat reluctant to give credit where credit is due. He appears to prefer to blame the previous 13 years of government mismanagement, but when there is $13 billion in the kitty that is of course all his doing.

Then the finance minister proceeded to victimize literally millions of Canadians and all kinds of people and groups. He started with the premiers. The premier of Newfoundland and Labrador was first out of the box. He was quite eloquent in his declaration that this budget in fact was a fraud on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Next up was the premier of Saskatchewan, who said the promise that was made during the election was that non-renewable resources would not be touched. Now we have the premier of Nova Scotia saying that the quiet discussions “are about to get a whole lot louder”. This is not exactly the way to create a peace in our times budget.

All three premiers have in common a simple understanding that a deal is a deal is a deal. When the Atlantic accords, as they have come to be known, were entered into, that was a deal. It was not a deal that could be changed unilaterally by one side of the partnership. It was simply a deal.

It reminds me of a real estate agent who sells someone a house and two years later says he really did not intend to sell that house but he has a better one to sell. Maybe, just maybe, the premiers and the people of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Saskatchewan think the house they have is perfectly fine, thanks very much, and they do not want the alleged benefit the finance minister is holding out to them.

Indeed, there was an extraordinary event when the premier of Saskatchewan accepted the invitation of the finance committee to appear before it and talk about the budget. It was not a particularly good day for Conservative MPs at the finance committee, particularly those from Saskatchewan, who were in the uncomfortable position of having the premier of their province deconstruct the budget in a fairly precise way. They were left in an unenviable position. In fact, he quoted chapter and verse from the Conservative platform and how the government of Saskatchewan would be affected.

The three premiers plus all of the people of the provinces they represent is one rather large group of victims.

There is another group of victims and those are the income trust folks. Some have said that up to two million people were victimized by the decision of the finance minister and the Prime Minister to reverse their election promise. Not only did they reverse their election promise, but they executed it in such an incompetent fashion that they literally wiped out multiple billions of dollars of hard-earned savings.

I have an email from one of those victims. I do not know this man, but he sends it to me from Ladysmith, B.C. I will withhold his name because it is a bit of an embarrassment to him. He wrote: “Dear John: Thank you for so succinctly stating my situation around the income trust fiasco yesterday in the House of Commons. I personally lost in excess of $100,000 in investments of close to $400,000. More importantly, I have lost it. I can't recoup it now even if the Minister of Finance backed off completely”.

He continues: “I deregistered what was left of my self-directed RRSP and incurred a whopping $36,000 in income tax”.

It gets worse. He goes on: “Part of my investments had been leveraged with a mortgage on my principal residence. In order to service that debt we need to sell our home and relocate in a much more modest home”.

So much for their retirement. I am sure they will be terribly interested in income splitting.

His final paragraph states, “It isn't worth much, I know, to hear a thank you from me, but it's all I can offer you at this time, that and the promise that I and my family will be voting Liberal in the next election”.

That is not exactly the way to win friends and influence people, but it is just so typical of the literally thousands if not millions of people who have been victimized by the decision of the finance minister.

Students have also been loaded on. In my riding last year we received something in the order of $340,000. That $340,000 was spread over 121 students. They were at the West Hill Community Services centre. They were at the University of Toronto, the Scarborough College branch. They were at the East Scarborough Boys & Girls Club. It was not a huge amount of money in the case of each and every one of those people, but it is a terrific resumé builder and a terrific experience for these guys.

We tried to find out what was happening. I sent an email to my staff. I received an email saying that the short answer is that “we'll never know”, that they called so-and-so, who was not answering his phone, and they wanted someone named Vince to explain it to me. The government cannot and will not give us a list. I guess it is easier to shift money around if it is kept a secret. The open and transparent new government sure works in mysterious ways.

Then, of course, we have the interest deductibility decision, with a whole collection of victims.

Mr. Speaker, I see you indicating to me that my time is up, which is really quite a shame because there is such an endless list of victims from one end of the country to another. It really is an unfortunate occurrence that I cannot tell the House about all of these victims.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's story. I did take from his comments one of the interesting points about how a deal is a deal is a deal.

Both he and I worked extremely hard as members of the finance committee in trying to make sure that time was allocated to the opportunity for witnesses to come forward, as the member explained, one of which was the premier of Saskatchewan, and to make sure that ample opportunity was provided for us to listen to what they had to say.

Also, the fact is that from his discussions and mine during the morning, at the end of the day we came to an agreement that the budget in fact would move forward based on what he wanted to make sure was going to happen. He then met with the member for Wascana to make sure that was okay. I did the same.

At the end of the day, I have a question for the member. I certainly am not going to hold the member personally responsible because it was not his decision as to why we are here now, but in fact we did keep our side of the bargain. We made sure they had ample opportunity to get this out. I would like to know from the member why the Liberal Party did not keep to its side of the arrangement.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what actually precipitated this deal—and I agree with him that he and I had an understanding which I thought we had worked out in the presence of the House of Commons chair of the finance committee—was frankly the desire on the part of the government to immediately go to clause by clause without the calling of any witnesses whatsoever, which was completely unacceptable to the members of the opposition on the finance committee. That was what precipitated the deal.

Then we actually did work out an arrangement, which as I say was in the presence of the chair of the finance committee, who apparently had taken a leaf out of the secret manual of committee chairs, because when we came back after the break, suddenly the deal that we thought we had worked out, which the hon. member, to his great honour, has acknowledged, was broken there in the presence of the committee. The deal ceased to be a deal and that was really—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

On that note, we will move on to the adjournment debate.

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

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on March 23, I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women a question in order to raise the problem of funding for artists and culture in Canada. I asked the same question this afternoon during question period. On March 23, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration answered that the Conservative government had allocated $50 million in new funding for the Canada Council for the Arts.

Fifty million dollars is one third of what the previous Liberal government allocated.

I recall the minister's own words when during the last electoral campaign she said:

We will respect the promise of $306 million for the Canada Council, which will double the budget of the organization, because we believe in the importance of the council for the Canadian arts community.

We are today very far from the minister's promise of $306 million. The minister seems to be a less than effective advocate for a community which she boasts she represents proudly in the House of Commons.

Aside from the amounts allocated, I feel that this Conservative government has no desire to create an environment that fosters the development of culture, the arts and especially artists. Nothing in the measures that the Conservatives put forward in their last budget indicates any desire on their part to give artists a major role in our society. Quite the contrary.

Worse yet, nothing in the Minister of Canadian Heritage's speeches and statements has shown a real long-term commitment to Canada's cultural community.

The minister should listen to the Canadian artistic community. It is not happy with the direction the minister and her government are taking. Members have heard from the Canadian Museums Association, which is disappointed because no words have been forthcoming regarding the highly expected museum strategy.

We have also heard from the Canadian Conference of the Arts, which has argued, and rightly so, that the government missed an important opportunity to articulate a long term vision for the arts and culture sector in Canada.

Furthermore, it is not enough for the government to rely on private sector investment only to support arts and culture. I know there are a lot of laissez-faire officials within the government, but if there is one sector that the government should put serious efforts into it is culture.

The government knows that every dollar invested in culture creates eight or nine dollars in economic spinoff, so they cannot argue that it is not profitable.

The minister should consider these factors when dealing with the festivals file, which she has handled so ineptly and condescendingly.

Why is she so stubbornly refusing to give the festivals the money they so badly need? She says that small and medium festivals will be funding priorities, but she must be aware that nearly all festivals take place in the summer.

That is why I do not think it is only a question of creating new guidelines, guidelines that already exist. If the will to help the cultural industries of Canada really existed, there would be no problem.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, for 50 years Canada's national arts funding agency has been providing support for professional Canadian artists and arts organizations. Canada's new government believes firmly that artists and art are an integral part of our national identity. Also, the government believes in the important role played by the Canada Council.

I know and this government knows that artists and arts organizations make an essential contribution to the social and economic fabric of our communities and our country, and the 5,780 grants provided by the Canada Council in the last complete fiscal year, 2005-06, have played a key role in supporting that contribution.

Over the past year the minister has met with artists and arts organizations around Canada to identify the priorities in the arts. She has worked tirelessly to optimize the role of the federal government.

The council has received the first $20 million of the $50 million announced in the 2006 budget. It will receive $30 million for 2007-08. This will raise the council's total parliamentary appropriation to $181 million, a large amount of money which benefits artists and arts organizations in all parts of the country.

I am pleased that the Canada Council has set clear priorities for these new resources. The budget included an announcement of $30 million each year for the next two years to strengthen the cultural experiences of Canadians through events celebrating local arts and heritage.

Access to the arts is also improved by upgrading our arts infrastructure. That is why we announced in December an additional $100 million for our national cultural institutions to address their urgent infrastructure needs.

The budgets presented by the Government of Canada have contained a long term plan for infrastructure. This includes a building Canada fund valued at $8.8 billion over seven years, with spending allocated among provinces and territories on an equal per capita basis. It will support investments in a broad range of infrastructure, including cultural facilities.

Canada's new government is committed to ensuring that the work of arts organizations takes place in a more stable and sustainable environment. One of the ways we are working toward this goal is to make it more attractive and easier for individuals in corporations to contribute to the arts.

In our government's first budget in 2006 we did just that. We removed the capital gains tax from gifts of publicly listed securities to charities and in budget 2007 we have gone even further, building on this initiative by extending the elimination of capital gains tax on donations of publicly listed securities to private foundations. I am confident that this will benefit the arts as well.

While many factors influence the donation of listed securities, it is estimated that the elimination of the capital gains tax on these donations to charities has resulted in more than $300 million since budget 2006, of which $20 million has been given to the arts. This is good news.

It is because this government believes in the contribution made by the arts that it is making these substantial commitments to Canada, supporting the arts in Canada. I can assure the House that the minister will continue to work with the arts sector and other partners to ensure that it has the necessary resources to do its important work.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is quite incomplete, in my opinion. We are talking about huge sums of money that seem to be a panacea, and I can believe it. But the problem is also when these organizations will receive this money.

In my riding of Laval—Les Îles, I see small museums and associations that applied for federal funding and had received money from the federal government for years, but were told they would get money in the fall of 2007. Everyone knows that most if not all activities across the country take place during the summer, in June, July and August.

Giving money to these groups in the fall is like saying they cannot hold any activities. It is the same thing for small museums. Large museums sometimes manage to get by—