Debates of June 4th, 2007

Motions in Amendment

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is quite the panacea the member is living in over there, I suppose, by his closing comments and I will start with that. I find it remarkable that the Liberal Party, with the support of nobody else in the House and nobody who came before committee, has made the proposal on income trusts that it has made. I really want to get to something that is more important.

The member is from Ontario. He should know that the government of Ontario specifically talked about what a great budget this is for Ontario. It is great for all of the country because it gives more to all regions and provinces but specifically Ontario. This budget will give Ontario $12.8 billion in 2007-08. There is $8.1 billion for health transfers and $3.8 billion for Canada's social transfer, including a 40% increase in post-secondary spending alone.

How could the member stand in the House and oppose this budget? Does he stand up for his constituents or not? This budget works for his constituents. Dalton McGuinty loves this budget. I cannot understand why the member does not. He can take the fight wherever he wants, but hard-working Canadian families and Canadian small businesses know this budget works for them. That member is not down with them at all.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is noteworthy what the member did not say. He did not refute any of my five pieces of evidence pointing to the desperate incompetence of the Minister of Finance, so I can only assume he agrees with me on the essential point.

It is a bit much to suggest that the Conservative government supports Ontario when it gutted the Canada-Ontario agreement that had been passed by the previous government. The Conservatives took billions out of the pockets of Ontarians by gutting that agreement, not to mention that their environment policy was slammed by the premier and the environment minister. The Conservative government is not standing up for Ontario. Ontarians are not fooled.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. I would like to correct some of the information he provided.

In a report of the Standing Committee on Finance, the Bloc Québécois put forward a proposal to mitigate the negative impact of the income trust issue.

However, had we amended the budget implementation bill, we would have prevented it from going through and prevented implementation of the budget, which, financially at least, made it possible to partially correct the fiscal imbalance for Quebec. Quebeckers would never have forgiven us. As to income trusts, a basic issue had to be resolved. However, as to implementing the bill, further consideration may be required. We could not continue in that direction.

Does my colleague agree that in light of the situation, the Bloc did the right thing by choosing Quebec, by working toward eliminating the fiscal imbalance and by asking for more discussion on this matter?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are very straightforward. The Bloc itself recommended a 10-year period. Yet, in the end, the Bloc voted against its own proposal. The Bloc abandoned Quebeckers and Canadians who had bought into income trusts. That is what I said: the Bloc abandoned Quebeckers on this issue.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time this morning sorting out the Conservatives from the Liberals on some of this debate. The Conservatives have moved to a position now where they are beginning to close some of the loopholes that we as New Democrats have always complained about. The Liberals at one point agreed with that, although when they were in government they certainly did not move to resolve that issue.

The member is aggressively and passionately opposed to closing some of these loopholes. How does he propose that we get the taxes that Canada needs to continue to provide health care, housing and drug coverage, et cetera, to the many seniors whom he purports to be the champion of here this morning when we that kind of money is taken away from the public purse?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member does not seem to realize is that there is no such thing as a tax leakage. The government is losing revenue from its income trust policy. I return to my earlier point that Tommy Douglas would be spinning in his grave when that party that purports to be social democrats abandons hundreds of thousands of Canadians of--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating report stage of Bill C-52, the budget implementation act.

Of course, it is very important for the Bloc Québécois to see this struggle through to the end. We are the ones who raised the fiscal imbalance issue in this House. We feel that this government has taken some steps, thanks to the Bloc Québécois' support—because without this support, Parliament would not have passed this budget. In order to at least improve the fiscal, financial, monetary imbalance, it was to our advantage to support the government on this.

We continue to believe this, and we know that Quebeckers support our position. The Bloc Québécois has led other parties in this House to adopt the same position. Only the Liberal Party does not support this position. Furthermore, it is voting against this budget, when all is said and done.

Today's debate at report stage allows for an amendment that results from an ill-considered decision on the part of the Conservatives, who decided to eliminate the GST-HST visitor rebate, thereby reducing Canada's appeal as a tourist destination. As evidence that this step had a negative impact, the Canadian Tourism Commission has had to shift some of its budgeted funds intended for Canadian tourism within Canada and use them to attract tourists from outside our borders, because we are losing ground to the tourism appeal of other countries.

Given the criticism and arguments received, particularly from the Bloc, in order to allow outfitters and conferences, for example, to continue to benefit from such a program, the Conservative government decided to propose an amendment in the context of budget implementation. This will help correct the situation, at least for outfitters and conferences.

This does not address the issue of duty-free shops, which remain victims of the government's decision. Initially, in the fall of 2006, the government made a series of rather drastic cuts to various sectors without really analyzing the situation, and it got rid of this program—which cost something to administer but attracted tourists—instead of modifying it and finding other solutions. In response to representations from various organizations, supported by the Bloc, the government made a partial correction.

What has still not been corrected is the situation of duty-free shops, which also play an important role in promoting tourism. Previously, when tourists visited duty-free shops, they obtained a credit that they could spend in the shop right away. As a result, the money quickly went back into the system.

In my opinion, no one, not even the Conservatives, is denying the aim of this program. The problem lay in the cost of administering the program. Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, the government should have let the program keep on attracting tourists and found other ways of funding it. I hope that discussions will continue and that a satisfactory result can be reached.

Today, at the report stage, adopting this amendment will correct the situation with regard to outfitters and conventions. Representations were made by groups including the association of Quebec outfitters. When a convention is being planned and organizers want people to hunt and fish with the help of our outfitters, we have to make this prospect as attractive as possible so that people will choose to come here instead of going to other countries.

One of the benefits of coming here had been removed. Now, thanks to the amendment that is before us, we can maintain that benefit. It will therefore be important to adopt this bill at the report stage. The Bloc Québécois will support the bill at this stage, as it has done at all the other stages, so that the bill reaches third reading as soon as possible and the government can finally finish putting in place the measures to correct the fiscal imbalance.

It is clear how much Quebec needs this money. An important debate was held in the National Assembly of Quebec last week and for good cause; in the end, additional money from Ottawa became available. However, that is a monetary solution. A complete, legislative, fiscal solution is needed, which would transfer tax points to Quebec in order for it to no longer be dependent on the federal government's decisions, the vitality of the Canadian economy and other such factors. As of today, this is a three-year program that will have a significant financial impact and that is why the Bloc supports this bill. However, it will not resolve the matter permanently.

In fact, the Conservative government itself, which says that the fiscal imbalance is solved, has run attack ads against the Liberal Party and its leader stating that, if the Liberal Party were to return to power, it could overturn the decision on the fiscal imbalance. The Conservative Party has contradicted itself. On the one hand, it says it has solved the fiscal imbalance and, on the other, in ads taken out to denounce the Liberals, it says that the decision could be overturned. The solution is to ensure that permanent arrangements are made and that the transfer of tax points is put in place.

The starting point remains the same: the needs are found in the provinces and Quebec, but it is the federal government that holds the money. The announcement last week that last year's surplus is about $13 billion illustrates this reality better than any explanation. The federal government still collects a great deal more money than it needs and allocates most of it to paying down Canada's debt.

It makes sense that some of the funds should be allocated to that, but in the meantime, the provinces need money. They need money to pay for their own services. They have to be able to develop multi-year programming and plans. The Bloc will continue to work toward eliminating the fiscal imbalance once and for all through tax point transfers. Then, when Quebec wants to implement social programs and programs to support business, it will be able to do so within its jurisdiction because it will have the necessary financial means.

After the report stage, the bill will come back to the House for third reading. It also includes measures that will affect the manufacturing sector. We followed a number of recommendations from the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. However, the Conservative government will have to do better than the positions it has put forward on this issue. For example, the committee recommended accelerated capital cost allowance over five years for businesses to buy equipment to improve their productivity. The government is only offering this over two years.

Nor is it giving refundable tax credits to businesses that do not make much profit, which is now the case in several sectors that are in trouble because of global competition. The government should be even more creative, and it should follow the 22 recommendations of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology instead of barely touching on them or following the ones that suit it best. That is the next step, to come with the fall economic update.

In the meantime, I think that Quebeckers have made their views known: they agree with the Bloc Québécois, which supports the Conservative budget because it delivers considerably more money to Quebec. Quebeckers want to truly correct the fiscal imbalance. Thus, the Bloc Québécois is representing the will of Quebeckers, and wants the budget implementation bill to be passed as quickly as possible. We have made a significant and positive contribution towards achieving that, and we want the money to be available this year and in years to come based on what was announced in the budget. So no matter what government is in power in Quebec, the necessary funds will be invested, the proper political debates held and the money spent on the right things.

But there is a big problem: we have no guarantee that these funds will be available. This is a weakness of the Canadian confederation and Canada's federal system, which must be permanently corrected by the transfer of tax points. Let us hope that the Conservative government will move in that direction as soon as possible so that we achieve this permanent and long fought for correction. For four years, the Bloc has been arguing for this. I remember the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and the member for Joliette, who preceded me as finance critic. We hammered away at this repeatedly. The parties in the National Assembly did the same thing, and today we are taking another step towards putting this in place. Let us hope that it will come about as soon as possible.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's particular focus on the tax rebate for tourists who come into the country. In my own community, an area where tourism is very important, that hit very hard. From what I am gathering from people in that industry, what the government has brought forward by way of replacement is very narrow and will not benefit everyone. It will benefit a few, mostly in larger centres, but it will not benefit in a significant way or attract tourists to my area.

I also want to ask the member about the fiscal imbalance. This weekend I was listening to some of the conversations in the media, particularly by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, stating that the fiscal balance has probably hurt municipalities and communities more than any group or government in this country. How does he see this response working its way down so that municipalities now get the money they need to provide the services they are asked to provide?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my hon. colleague that the current situation with respect to the GST visitor rebate program comes as a result of the rather drastic cuts made by the Conservative government, which did so without really thinking it through.

After hearing some arguments, it partially corrected the situation in the case of outfitters and conference organizers.

I agree with my hon. colleague. A large part of the problem still needs to be addressed. Duty-free shops, for example, need a similar solution.

This program helped draw tourists. Eliminating the program and giving up its advantages simply because of problems with administrative costs was, I believe, a bad decision on the part of the Conservatives. This comes at a very bad time, because tourism to Canada is currently at its lowest, compared to other countries.

We have seen the figures and we recently received a letter confirming that the Canadian Tourism Commission had to reallocate its budgets from promoting Canada within Canada to promoting Canada abroad, although it should have the funds it needs to fulfil both objectives. We must therefore continue our efforts in this area.

With respect to the fiscal imbalance, I would like to complete my colleague's response. I think it is important that this debate continue, in order to ensure that Quebec and the provinces receive the money they need to fulfil their obligations. We must never forget that the municipalities are creatures of the provinces and they must set their priorities in line with what Quebec, for instance, wants to develop. There have been some initiatives in the past, such as the Canada infrastructure program. There could be others that we would be willing to examine, which would respect jurisdictions, but that—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know, from the parliamentary secretary's discussion about the income trusts, that there was an offset. She referred to it as “income splitting for seniors”.

The member may want to comment, but the budget in fact does not provide for income splitting for seniors. However, it does provide for pension income splitting for seniors but 70% of seniors do not have pensions. After we take out those, they are already at the lowest possible rate. In fact, only about 14% of seniors are eligible for any benefit under there. It seems to be a very weak response in terms of the damage that was done to Canadians who lost $25 billion in the value of their hard-earned retirement savings.

I wonder if the member would care to comment or to reaffirm that the budget provision relating to pension splitting only benefits about 14% of all seniors.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond quickly to my colleague. The measure taken is a step in the right direction. Further thought is needed. Let us hope that in the future, the Conservative government will ensure that the measures it puts forward are as fine-tuned as possible. One of the characteristics of the last budget concerns the fiscal imbalance and is a big victory for Quebec. Also, the Conservative government must work on its presentation and the details of its initiatives. This merits further thought. Let us hope that we will be able to pass other amendments that will ensure greater fairness for seniors and people who have reached retirement age.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to offer a few thoughts in this important discussion about the budget.

I find it interesting and somewhat passing strange that at a time when we should be discussing matters that affect the lives of all Canadians, which is the delivery of programs that support working families, their children and communities in some very challenging times, particularly in northern Ontario where the forest industry has struggled, continues to struggle and is collapsing in front of us, that we would be debating the importance of closing or not closing loopholes for people at the higher end of the income scale, for the most part. I will talk about income trusts in a couple of minutes.

In this debate it is hard to figure out who is Conservative and who is Liberal. Over the years, the Liberals, when in opposition, tended to talk from the left and speak a language that was compassionate and caring. They seemed to understand social justice. However, when they were in government, which we saw for 13 years, they became the most aggressive cutters and slashers of money going to provinces for programs that move us forward in a way that speaks to justice, caring, compassion and believing in community.

We are here today having this debate, listening to the two sides banter and bicker back and forth about who will or will not close the loophole and how that might happen, when what they should be talking about, in my view, is the very integrity of the taxation system so we have the resources at our disposal to provide for the programs that people out there know, understand and have come to accept that federal and provincial governments need to deliver.

I would like to be here listening to people speak about the imbalance that exists between the rich and the poor and the growing poverty in our communities because we are no longer providing the kind of national leadership and vision that the people I speak to want from this level of government. Many people are no more than a paycheque or two away from poverty themselves as they look at the way the economy is evolving and the insecurity that seems to have taken hold.

In my part of Canada, that wonderful forestry laden area of northern Ontario, community after community are losing their mills, their source of income, losing the place where people got up in the morning and went to work so they could bring a paycheque home in order to look after themselves, their children and their families. These are people who went to work weekdays and then on the weekends and evenings ran the soccer club, worked in the arena, organized the volunteer sector and volunteered at the hospital.

Because the government is not giving the kind of leadership that is required, where the economy and particularly this budget are concerned, people are finding themselves without jobs and without much alternative but to leave town and head to other places where there are possibilities of jobs, leaving their families behind, all of the stress that brings with it and all the difficulties it creates.

I have travelled across the country over the last nine months to a year looking at that sort of soft underbelly of many of our communities, particularly the areas where the economy is supposed to be booming and there are jobs. There is encouragement from government. We hear it here on a regular basis day after day that if people do not have jobs and are struggling financially that they should move to Alberta or British Columbia where the economy is doing well.

In some cases that is a good thing to do but for many people who actually hear that clarion call and respond to it because they have lost their jobs at home, their own community is suffering and they must leave, they find when they get there it is not the greener grass that they had anticipated or thought would be there for them.

There are all kinds of challenges that the government has not thought through or worked cooperatively with other provinces and communities to make sure that the fundamentals are in place, the foundational structure that needs to be there to support these people and their families when they come looking for work.

Over and over again, in communities that I visited, we have a housing crisis. We have people living on the streets. Calgary, for example, is a bastion of free enterprise, the place that everybody points to as the mecca. It is where oil and gas, and the benefits come from. While on one hand we as a government provide literally billions of dollars every year in subsidies to the oil and gas industry, we find that communities like Calgary are having a very hard time providing housing for their own people, never mind the new people who are coming in response to the invitation to come and work in Alberta.

When I was there, a study had just been done on the homelessness that exists in that city and it was wavering around the 3,500 level every night. I was there in the winter and I showed up at a shelter where in fact somewhere around 1,200 people were housed a night. The people drive up with city buses, load those two buses up and send about another 100 homeless out into the suburbs, where they bed them down in warehouses on mats on the floor.

These are people who are struggling in some cases, people with drug addictions, people with alcoholism, people with mental health issues, but mixed in among that group is a significant number of people who came to Calgary looking for work, who got work, but then discovered that there was no place to live.

The reason that we have so many of the poor now out on the streets in places like Calgary and Victoria is because these new people coming and getting work, who can afford to pay for housing, are pushing the poor out onto the street, and many of them are finding that even if they have the money, they cannot get the housing that they need anyway.

Therefore, we have this terrible evolution of difficulty and challenge happening out there for people who really do want to work, who want to work full time to support their families, but we have not, as a country, responded to some of the challenges and some of the difficulties that come with the way our economy is evolving and changing.

I guess I am a little disappointed here this morning that there is not much debate about that, not much discussion coming from the Liberals particularly about that nor the Conservatives. There is nothing in this budget that I can see, and maybe some of the Conservatives who are here, and there are a few who are participating in this discussion, can tell me what is in this budget that is going to respond in an immediate and constructive way to some of these real challenges that exist out there now.

As long as we do not do anything about them or respond to them, or in some instances ignore them or pretend that they do not exist, they will grow, and we as a country will pay the price for that. It will cost us more in the end because we will then have all of the social and health problems that come with not looking after the basic needs of people who need to look after themselves and their families.

That is one issue that I was hoping that I would hear addressed by the government members and hear some contribution to from the Liberals.

The other is an issue that was brought very forcefully, aggressively and passionately, to this place last week by the Canadian Labour Congress. It brought people here, literally thousands of them from across the country, who are struggling with the demise, the falling apart, and the difficulty that is being experienced by our manufacturing sector.

I have to look no farther than my own area of the country, wonderful northern Ontario, and particularly northwestern Ontario, where community after community over the last couple of years has awoken in the morning to find that their mills were closing. There is no alternative. There is no response. There is no coming to the table by the federal government to say, “We are having difficulty in the manufacturing sector. Here is a strategy that we are trying to bring in and roll out. Why do we all not get together on this and see if we can make something happen?”

The doom and gloom, the black cloud, that hangs over that part of the country and down into southern Ontario and across into southeastern Ontario is very alarming.

We had workers here telling their stories to members of Parliament, who chose to come, that were heart-rending, that were gripping in their honesty and intensity. Workers told us that with the loss of their jobs go the losses of any benefit packages they had to look after themselves and their children in terms of health, dental needs, loss of any support for glasses, all of the things that those who are working at good jobs with benefits and pension packages often take for granted.

Yet, here we are today with an opportunity to respond very directly and clearly to that challenge and not doing that. Instead, we are bantering back and forth, and arguing over whether a tax loophole should exist or not exist, and whether there should be fairness in the taxation system.

Well we all know that there should be fairness and that we as a federal government need to be looking after the integrity of the tax system, so that we can provide support and services to communities, working families and the manufacturing sector.

We need to get the country back on the rails, and ensure that everyone has a chance and an opportunity to participate and do well.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the member had asked me earlier about the manufacturing sector. I had a very brief time to answer, but I would like to address that again because he talked about that so much in his speech.

The member will know, because he has been involved in this, that the industry committee of the House issued a unanimous report on how to assist our manufacturing sector in meeting the challenges it faces in the new global economy.

The member will know that there were 22 recommendations to the government from the industry committee. He will know that these recommendations were unanimously put forward by all parties on the committee. This was a rare unanimous report.

The member will also know that the government accepted all 22 of those recommendations including $1.3 billion for this two year writeoff for manufacturers to buy equipment and technology that I reminded him about. There was $.5 billion for worker training that I spoke about, $33 billion for infrastructure renewal to help with our trade routes and our commerce, and $9.2 billion for research and development including a new science and technology strategy. The list goes on.

In addition to that there is our balanced approach to tackling climate change which gives industry ambitious but realistic targets to help it with transition to the new green economy.

What did this member's party do when the government accepted all 22 of those unanimous recommendations? It voted against these measures for equipment and technology, worker training and infrastructure--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is easy for the member to stand up and spout off all of these wonderful things that the government is looking at perhaps proposing to do somewhere down the line that might help or might not help.

What the people who were here last week were saying to us was that there is really nothing in their experience and in their understanding of what is happening in their industry and their community. There is no leadership. There is nothing in the budget that gives them any hope, for example, in the auto sector there is no strategy coming forward.

We are watching the demise of industries, forestry, the auto sector, going down the river in this country with each day that goes by. Yet, we have a government that is experiencing record high surpluses in its budget and there is nothing there to respond to the very real and heartfelt needs of those workers who were here last week telling us that they need answers. They want leadership. They want a vision for this country and they are not getting it.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie touches on several very important points.

I would like to ask him something specific. It has to do with the performance of the government over the last number of weeks and what we have seen with its approach to funding student summer jobs.

We have seen the mess that has been made in restructuring that program with the students who have been hurt and the community groups that have been devastated. The government has tried to keep the company line saying that this was the right thing to do, but it knows that it has jigged up. It has gone back to try to straighten it out and it is going back to try to support some of these very worthy groups. I commend the groups for being vigilant and trying to stay on this message and fight for what they have been doing over the years.

My question for the member is this. Where is this money coming from? There is no new pot of money. Will the government be stealing from other sources, perhaps from programs that could benefit the workers whom he represents? Is this going to be another excuse that, “We had to take the money to straighten out the mess that we made for the students”? Is this going to be another excuse to walk away from the workers who need that money now?

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very good point. Yes, the student summer job program was a disaster. As the Conservatives rolled it out, they tried to bring in a new formula, but did not think it out very effectively, so when it hit the ground, it did not provide the kind of support and jobs that we thought it should.

I would like to say to the member, though, it was in the last Parliament that those of us on the HUMA committee detected that the program under the Liberal stewardship was not working very well either and was not delivering the kind of results, particularly to economically depressed areas of the country, that it needed to deliver. In fact, it needed more money then.

The hon. member is correct that this program needs to be reviewed and implemented in a way that responds to the real needs of communities and students, and it needs more money.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, as the Conservatives go to their riding meetings and open houses their constituents are yelling and screaming them down. People across the country are furious. I want to use my time today to talk about the 10 reasons this budget and the government have so upset and betrayed Conservatives across the country.

The first reason is that when the Conservatives were elected to government people thought that they would get a cut in government spending. For years the Conservatives, especially the Reform Party, talked about how the government was overburdened, how the socialists were spending too much money on all sorts of things. They talked about how the government was getting way out of size and was overrunning the country. Then what did the Conservatives do? They brought in the biggest spending budget in history. It is no wonder that Conservatives were shocked. They could not believe what they saw.

The second reason Conservatives are shocked is they expected another thing from their government and they were jubilant when they were elected because they expected to see tax reductions. Much to their shock and surprise they saw their income tax rates go up. This occurred mostly at the lower level for the most vulnerable people.

I have with me the revised income tax schedule one. In the last year of the Liberal government the tax rate was 15%. On the tax form that everyone filled out this year that tax rate was 15.25%. People across the country will get a shock next year when they see it is 15.5%. The tax rate will be going up again.

The third reason a number of Conservatives across the country are so angry and feel betrayed is income trusts. The Prime Minister made a promise during the 2006 election campaign that income trusts would never be taxed. On October 31, 2006 the finance minister announced a 31.5% tax. This took $25 billion from the personal savings of Canadians. The Toronto Sun reported on February 21:

This is not fair to hard working seniors who have saved all their lives and depend on the income trusts' high yields to pay their bills.

Whether or not it was the right decision, the fact is that the Prime Minister said he would not tax income trusts. People invested in that mechanism based on the word of the Prime Minister. Canadians expect that the one person's word that they can believe for sure would be the Prime Minister's. This was a tremendous shock and disappointment and betrayal to Conservatives across the country.

The fourth reason that Conservatives are upset with the government is the broken promise on equalization. I quote from the May 8 edition of the Leader-Post of Regina, Saskatchewan:

Premier Lorne Calvert has reason to be peeved by Saskatchewan's 12 Conservative MPs and their lack of backbone in fighting for the equalization deal they promised the province.... Instead these MPs have demonstrated far more loyalty to the [Prime Minister] than to the voters.

It is not the voters' fault. They had no choice. It was the Prime Minister and the finance minister.

What about Nova Scotia? There is the unheralded example of a province talking about taking the federal government to court over the budget. Was it an NDP or Liberal premier? No. It is a Conservative premier.

What about Newfoundland? Everyone knows about the huge expenditure of taxpayers' money to run full page ads in newspapers across the country. People in Newfoundland and Labrador are so furious at the broken promise. Once again it is not a Liberal premier, not an NDP premier, but a Conservative premier.

The fifth reason that Conservatives across the country are shocked and dismayed by this budget and the government is regulatory reform. Canadians thought that they would get reduced government spending, but they did not. They thought they would get a reduced tax rate, but they did not. They thought that at least they might get some regulatory reform so that the government would get out of interfering with their lives and businesses.

The pipeline minister responsible for northern affairs talked about how the regulatory regime in the Northwest Territories was stopping development and it needed to be fixed. What has happened? Nothing. There has been no change. We heard recently from Exxon Imperial Oil that the biggest project in the history of the north may not go ahead partly due to regulatory problems.

What about their boondoggles related to the environment? This is from the National Post, a quite Conservative oriented paper with Terence Corcoran:

After last week producing a sound and lucid report on how Canada's Kyoto carbon emission targets were unworkable and economically dangerous, the Conservatives yesterday set course for even greater lunacy than Kyoto, led by...the Environment Minister. In a speech that even Sheila Copps in full discombobulated flight could not have delivered, [the environment minister] invented, distorted, misrepresented and fabricated his way to a potential regulatory nightmare.

The fifth reason is this lack of regulatory reform the people hoped they would see when they elected Conservatives.

The sixth reason, of course, is the elected Senate that the Conservatives when in opposition talked about and talked about. A few hours into government, the Conservatives appointed a senator as opposed waiting for one to be elected. It was not just any senator. He was made a minister of the Crown. And he is not just any minister. He is responsible for the largest spending department relating to contracts in government. A party which talked about the importance of accountability put the minister with all that spending power in the Senate where he cannot be asked questions.

Some members of the public who are watching may think that a minister could be asked questions in the Senate. Question period in the Senate is not like the one in the House of Commons where the ministers answer all the questions. It is the leader in the Senate who answers. The unelected senator appointed by the Conservatives for all that spending power cannot be asked questions.

Lack of accountability once again is upsetting Conservative members. The Prime Minister will not declare his 2002 leadership donors. He refused to make time for the Ethics Commissioner in the Gurmant Grewal affair. They are complaining that they are the laughingstock of the country related to accountability because they put out a manual on how to block and stonewall parliamentary committees, where the business of parliament is done. Once again, I cannot actually blame the backbenchers because they probably did not have a lot to do with that.

The ninth reason is related to gas prices. Another big area the Conservatives when in opposition talked about at length was the problem of gas prices and what they would do about it. What they have done about it is close the gas monitoring office that was recommended in the last Parliament that would let Canadians know whether there was any collusion in the setting of gas prices. It would provide all the information and details in this very complex field and let Canadians know. The man in the street would have felt much more comfortable knowing the background to these huge recent increases in gas prices.

Then of course there was the promise the Conservatives were really looking forward to regarding addressing the double taxation, taking the GST off gas prices, which the Conservatives promised as soon as prices were over 85¢ a litre. A couple of weeks ago in my riding the price was $1.40 a litre which is a lot more than 85¢ and yet the GST has not been removed. That promise has not been kept.

The tenth reason they are upset is that unlike the old Reform philosophy, the Conservative backbenchers and even the ministers are not to allowed to talk against the government or to vote against the government.

According to the April 20 edition of the Whitehorse Star in the story about the hijab, “One government member said an order not to comment came directly from the Prime Minister's Office”.

Now they have even cancelled the November policy convention where ordinary members could talk and complain about these things.

Those are the 10 top reasons the Conservatives across the country are upset by their government, the one they were originally excited about getting elected. If those are not enough, in case someone disagrees with one of those reasons, I will give a spare reason, the elimination of interest deductibility which the past chairman of the Canadian Tax Foundation said is the single most misguided policy he has seen in Ottawa in many years.

Those are just what members of Parliament from all parties in the House of Commons have seen as reasons that Conservatives are upset.

There are Conservatives who are talking about starting a new party. According to the May 12 issue of the Globe and Mail May 12:

“This new party will never be infiltrated by Red Tories, special interest groups”....“Has the Prime Minister been 'Otta-washed?'” Mr. Byfield, a strong voice for small-c conservative Alberta--

The article goes on about being deluged with e-mails and calls from people who are frustrated with the direction the Prime Minister is taking.

I share the disappointment of Conservative voters across the country. They are getting all these things that they did not expect from the government. If the Conservatives have a philosophy, they should at least be true to that philosophy and the promises they made to voters. The Conservative government should not disappoint Canadians by breaking so many promises.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. friend from Yukon. As a Conservative member for the province of Alberta, I have not been deluged with e-mails and faxes and so on about disappointment.

We have been given credit for making tough decisions on things that had to be done. Notwithstanding, we do not have to go back over the past 13 years as that has been done enough.

My hon. friend talked about $25 billion having been lost in the income trust market. Would he look beyond November 1 and perhaps look to May 31--

[An hon. member]

Maybe June.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

--or maybe June and see what the difference is. I think he would find that the difference is negligible for those who did not panic in the face of the Liberals' and other people's rhetoric which was so over the top that it in fact induced people to make rash decisions and is what caused anybody to actually lose money, not those who stayed with it and had the common sense to sit tight.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that particular member was not deluged with e-mails and calls like others are receiving, as I quoted from the paper.

Some people may have stuck with it and did not lose as much, but let me give the member an example of a single mother who contacted me with respect to this issue. Based on the Prime Minister's promise, she invested all her money from her child's registered education savings plan into income trusts and lost about 30% on the first day. A single mother who is scraping up money for her child's education cannot necessarily hold on through bad times in the hope that it might come back and she might have money for her child's education.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member outlined the fact that this budget does have a significant amount of new spending and the government has not been shy in pointing that out to people. I would like to point out to the member a bit about the spending.

First of all, the overwhelming amount of new spending addresses the fiscal imbalance that was created under the former government. This government promised to address the fiscal imbalance in order to provide the provinces with a lot more capacity to provide the social services we all rely on.

If the member looked at the monitor of federal government spending, he would find that the three areas where the government has increased spending in a very significant way outside the fiscal imbalance is agriculture, defence and child care, in that order.

I would like to know if the member would like the government to take any money out of those three portfolios. Perhaps he would like us to spend less money on assisting farmers, or perhaps less on defence. We know that was the Liberal way. Perhaps he would like us to take away money that is assisting hard-working families in Canada. Which of the three would he like us to take away?