Debates of Feb. 7th, 2008

Prebudget Consultations

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak on prebudget consultation as we lead up to what is arguably the most important legislative instrument of the government on an annual basis, the introduction of a budget.

It is interesting today that the debate is around where to spend the surplus. That was not always the case. It took years and it was a struggle for all Canadians, not just a Liberal government that worked to reduce and eliminate the deficit. However, over a period of time all Canadians made sacrifices and worked together to achieve what was to become the soundest fiscal situation in any of the industrialized world. A declining debt to GDP ratio, a capacity for governments both to lower taxes and increase spending. In fact, the Conservative government inherited the strongest fiscal situation of any government in the history of Canada upon entering office.

It is interesting that the member for Yellowhead said something that was extremely telling a few minutes ago. He posed the question as to why the Liberals still cared about the Kelowna accord. Why did Liberals include the Kelowna accord as one of their priorities? Why did Liberals still considered the Kelowna accord to be important? According to the member for Yellowhead, in the consultations across the country, he did not hear many Canadians speaking about that.

A responsible and progressive government would defend the rights and interests of all Canadian, regardless of whether they form the majority. The government and the Conservative Party have demonstrated a remarkable capacity under the Prime Minister to pit one group against another, to write people off if they do not believe they will vote for them. It was for easy for them to write off the Kelowna accord.

They did a simple political calculation and politically the aboriginal and first nations people in Canada would not vote for the Conservatives, so they were expendable. It was very easy for them also to eliminate early learning and child care. They calculated that by and large young women would not vote for them according to the polls, so they wrote them off. They took them off the political balance sheet.

Good governments and principled governments do more than help those people who vote for them. They help all Canadians. There is a responsibility, particularly for aboriginal and first nations communities, to work with them, to address the economic and social challenges that are faced by aboriginal and first nations communities. It not just good public policy for them to ensure equality of opportunity, but it is good public policy for all Canadians, particularly as we see aboriginal and first nations communities being one of the fastest growing populations in the country.

If we do not, as non-aboriginal political representatives, take this seriously, we are letting down all Canadians on what could be a massive economic and social challenge. We need to not only bring back the Kelowna accord and address those social issues, but we need to move beyond Kelowna and address the economic challenges and opportunities for Canadian aboriginal people.

My riding in rural Nova Scotia has three aboriginal reserves, the Cambridge Reserve, Port Reserve and Shubenacadie Reserve. The challenges being faced by people in those communities is immense. As a government, we invested in schools at Shubenacadie Reserve and we invested in people. We were prepared to move beyond that with the Kelowna accord on a national basis. I would like, as one the priorities of a future Liberal government, to restore the Kelowna accord and to move beyond it.

We believed in early learning and child care. In fact, it is not just good social policy; it is good economic policy. An article in The Economist magazine called “A guide to womenomics” focused on the kinds of economic policies that not only could address equality issues, but also address economic growth and prosperity. It pointed to the countries that enjoyed the greatest level of economic growth, particularly Scandinavian countries. These countries not only did the right thing in terms of reforming their tax systems and cutting corporate and personal taxes and moving to a more competitive tax system, but they also invested in social policy, particularly early learning and child care.

If we do not have a strong network of early learning and child care, it will hurt women disproportionately. Women pay a higher career cost and earnings cost than men, typically, for the responsibility of raising children. Regardless of how progressive couples become, that continues to be a fact.

The degree to which communities and society work together to share that burden and opportunity will reduce the barriers for women in the workplace and increase the economic prosperity of the country. That was made clear by The Economist. It is not a left wing or right wing principle; it is just good, basic, sound economic and social policy.

Beyond that, we are in a situation where other countries, and I mentioned some of the Scandinavian countries, countries like Norway and Sweden and Ireland and Australia, have reformed their tax systems to be more competitive. One of the benefits we have as a country in a surplus situation is we can reform our tax system. There is no country in the world, however, that is reforming its tax system by cutting a consumption tax. Canada is the only one.

The global economic consensus is that a country is better off cutting personal income taxes and reducing income tax. In fact, with the $14 billion per year that the Conservatives are expending with the GST cut, they could have increased the basic personal exemption, the point at which Canadians start paying income taxes, to about $20,000 per year. It is currently around $9,600. We could take millions and millions of low income Canadians off the income tax rolls altogether and provide a tax break through the income tax system to all Canadians and have a more competitive tax system.

The fact is our corporate tax rates are still higher than many of our OECD competitors. While statutory corporate tax rates may be becoming as competitive, the actual effect of corporate tax rates are still higher in Canada. The problem is it is a moving target. The Conservatives are saying that in five or ten years Canada will be one of the most competitive corporate tax environments in the world. In five or ten years other countries are going to move faster, address corporate taxes and become more competitive and we are going to be sitting here. They say in the long run that we will be more competitive. John Maynard Keynes, the economist, once said, “In the long run, we're all dead”.

We actually have a responsibility to be nimble, to move more quickly and to reform our tax system for growth, prosperity and equity more quickly. Cutting the GST is not the best way to achieve that. I believe it is more important to cut personal income taxes.

Beyond that, it is critically important that we not ignore the looming economic challenges facing the country. The reduction, or practically the elimination, of the fiscal envelope or fiscal capacity of the government to act in times of crisis is troubling. The latest edition of The Economist magazine said, “Economists reckon that Canada's fiscal and current account surpluses could disappear”.

Who would have thought, even a few months ago, that a country with as massive a surplus as Canada was enjoying, a country that had been lauded by countries, economists and finance ministers around the world as a beacon of fiscal probity and economic innovation would have The Economist magazine say, “Economists reckon that Canada's fiscal and current account balances could disappear?”

It is a very serious situation because it speaks to the bad economic management of the government. Not only is it incapable of investing in sound social policy, but it is also incapable of good economic growth policy. I would not mind it being completely market reliant and laissez-faire if it in fact understood the market.

Beyond that, Canadians are looking for long term investments on recreational infrastructure. Across my riding, facilities were built in the memorial wave of federal investment. Facilities, arenas and recreational facilities were built as part of the centennial wave of federal investment. However, across my riding there is a tremendous infrastructure deficit in places like Lantz, Brooklyn and Windsor.

We see child care facilities that need investment and parents who need help to afford quality child care.

We see an agricultural industry that is facing immense challenges. I hope one of the questions will be on agriculture, because we need to address agriculture and the government does not take--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Victoria.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member's comments. He was very quick to point out his former government's good fiscal record, as he put it, but we are all aware of that government's not so good environmental record.

Does he not think that the present government's problem is very similar to the former Liberal government's problem in the fact that it is caught in this false dichotomy that pits the environment against the economy? It seems unable to balance economic, environmental and social factors in its decision making process.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the hon. member's question, I was in fact part of the cabinet in 2005 when we introduced a budget referred to by the Sierra Club as the greenest budget in the history of Canada.

We did take steps to address environmental issues and climate change issues. In fact, our present leader was the environment minister who introduced project green, a plan to green the Government of Canada. As minister of public works, I established in my department the Office of Greening Government Operations, which aimed, through green procurement, green building management, and LEED's gold standards in buildings, to address that.

The fact is that I want to see governments do more. This is something I share with the member. She said something that was extremely important, that is, that economic growth can coincide with environmental responsibility. She is absolutely right.

Innovative governments and companies around the world are seizing the green agenda, the green rush. They are investing in clean technologies and the research, development and commercialization of those technologies. It is broadly felt that in fact environmental technologies and clean tech will be the fastest growing area of the 21st century. Canada has the potential to be a global leader in clean energy and clean tech, so I agree with her on that.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are engaging in these budget deliberations and we honestly believe this is the right thing to do. Canadians need to be heard.

However, a member of the Liberal caucus, and in fact it might even be the member across the way who just spoke, has been quoted as saying in the National Post on July 17 that this kind of budget deliberation would be like asking a “janitor for budget suggestions”. It is this kind of sort of shameful comments about Canadians that really kind of irk Canadians when it comes time to respect this kind of process.

I see the member opposite shaking his head so perhaps it was not him, but that a Liberal member would have the gall to say such a thing about Canadians participating in a budget process, what does he think about that?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the hon. member table that because in fact I did not say it. I would hope that the hon. member, when he does table it and when it is found that I did not say that, would apologize to me, withdraw his comments and apologize to the House for misleading the House, because I certainly would not say something like that. I think there is human dignity in every job that anyone does because there is pleasure and dignity in service. I would not ever say that and I did not say it, so I would hope that the hon. member, as an honourable member, will do exactly that.

I know the hon. member is from a rural riding. I have been to his riding. I know that he in fact lives in a beautiful part of the country and operated or operates a tourism facility there, a very nice one. He should understand the importance of the government's lack of commitment to tourism and the fact that the government eliminated the GST tax credit for individuals and damaged tourism at a time when the declining U.S. dollar already had dealt it a blow.

As a rural member, he should understand the importance of agriculture. I meet with farmers in my riding on an ongoing basis. I hear of the importance of a buy Canadian plan, focusing on encouraging Canadians to buy local and encouraging more Canadians to think about food security, and to think about the importance of a national food policy.

I hear about the importance of investing in infrastructure to help farmers sell their goods and farmers' markets in places like Wolfville, Windsor and Halifax. There is a proposal to have the most innovative green market anywhere in Canada in Halifax. ACOA turned it down because it did not see the importance of farmers being able to sell locally to consumers who want the best products grown in Canada.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I must say that it will be my pleasure to split my time with my colleague, the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

There are various ways to approach a prebudget consultation in a prebudget speech. One can roll out a series of economic facts. One can talk about certain specifics or one can lay out certain principles and backgrounds and begin to develop what one thinks. I think that both methods are positive. Both methods have their strengths.

Having listened to a number of my colleagues go into specifics today, I thought I would concentrate more on a general aspect of laying out my philosophy, my background and where I come from so that the voters of Saskatoon—Humboldt, the people I represent, could better understand where I come from on a principles basis, so they could understand what their representative thinks, what goes into his deliberations, and why he comes to certain perspectives when he casts his vote. I hope that my colleagues will bear with me as I take a slightly different approach.

I would first like to lay out for my electorate and the population at large my background so that they might know my bio. I come from a very middle class family. My dad was a farmer. He has an education degree and taught for a while before going back to his first love. My mom is the local town librarian back home. We were not by any stretch of the imagination a rich or wealthy family.

So when I went off to the University of Saskatchewan, from which I ended up graduating with degrees in geophysics and economics, I did not have some major trust fund or any great amount of wealth to support me. I think this was very good for my education and for my background in understanding basic economics.

To pay my way through university, to be able to afford to go and have the privilege to earn some degrees at the university to provide for my future and to help with my education, I had to work each summer. I had to get down and do physical labour and do something that helped to build and mould my character.

In particular, I ended up working at a couple of different places. I worked at Good Spirit camp as the manager, chopping wood and managing the store. There I learned about fiscal responsibility. I also worked at tree planting for three summers in B.C., which was very important for my practical economic understanding. While the theory of economics was wonderful in the classroom, piecework tree planting is very good for practical economics. I understood very quickly that if one did not plant that tree and do it right, one did not get paid. There was a direct and immediate correlation and responsibility between the work one had done and the payment. I had the privilege of receiving that paycheque only for what I did and was responsible for.

I value those summers because they taught me about responsibility and valuing money, things that I think are sometimes lost today on people who do not come from a background where they are forced to address those questions directly.

Before I begin to speak today, I note that those are the experiences I come from. I took those prejudices and that background and began to apply them to my general principles approach as to how we should do our budget deliberations.

Based on that background, I began to work through my principles. First and foremost, in regard to all the expenditures of all the money that we receive from the people of Canada, we as parliamentarians must consider that it is not our money. It is not the government's money.

It is the money of the people of Canada. They individually worked for it by the sweat of their brow. It was their effort. It was their initiative that caused the creation of wealth. We only hold it for them in trust. This is a trust that we must hold in higher regard than we hold our personal finances. I think we must remember that in regard to every penny we spend in budget 2008 someone worked for it, someone sacrificed and someone made decisions to try to create that wealth.

Therefore, instead of having the government come to this with the assumption that we have the right to spend the money, that it is ours to decide, we as the government and as members of Parliament should be required to justify each and every expenditure.

We should be able to say in regard to each year's budget that every penny was well spent. We should go through them over and over again. Just because program spending was appropriate in one year does not mean that we should continue it in a future year.

We must continue to justify to the voters, the electorate and the citizens of Canada that their money needs to go to whatever programs we put into the budget, because it is ultimately theirs and we only hold it in trust. It is not our right to decide what to do. We only get that right as it is given to us by the voters and only in trust.

If we are to hold that wealth from our voters in trust, it must be required that whatever expenditures we make, we do them with the utmost efficiency and for the creation of more wealth, not less. We must use government expenditures to create more opportunity to create services that cannot be provided through other means, and we must use those services with maximum efficiency. We must not waste money in any way, shape or form.

With those basic principles underlined, we look to history to see where they have been best applied, where governments have held money most in trust, and where have they gone out and applied these principles in an economic fashion with the greatest efficiency.

We can see that very clearly throughout history this has been best applied by government administrations that have applied some basic principles. They are governments that have emphasized free markets, not a collectivistic approach. They are governments that have supported free trade rather than a mercantilist style of approach, one that would hoard for an elite and keep a country looking inward instead of using the economic efficiencies of the entire world. This means a government policy that uses the currency as a means of trade and not as a means of manipulation for the power of the state to tax through inflation.

With those historical premises and the philosophical understanding, how do we then begin to apply that to what we have? I think the government has been quite good at applying those basic principles.

First of all, we have paid down the debt that was built up and which was predominantly a legacy of the Trudeau administration in our history, with some other administrations also sharing lesser degrees of blame. We have paid down the debt by $37 billion and will continue to pay down that debt by a minimum of $3 billion more per year. That is wise and prudent management of the public finances, because that debt is taxation for the future. It was caused by irresponsible and wasteful squandering by previous administrations.

Second, we have emphasized lower taxes, because again it is back to that principle: we hold the money in trust. While there have been criticisms of certain specific tax cuts, I know of no tax cut that is a bad tax cut. They are all good.

I must say that I am proud of the government's business tax cuts. While certain parties in the House may sharply criticize corporations, they do not criticize the investments in things, which teachers, farmers and workers across the country receive from these corporations in the forms of dividends and appreciated stock value. It is people's retirement that is being boosted as these companies are being supported.

Most notably, we have also dropped the GST by two full percentage points. Again the opposition criticizes us, although there is a certain degree of irony since two of the parties that were around at that time were harshly critical of it when it was first implemented and used the exact reverse of their arguments then.

I realize that parties are not the same throughout their history. They are organic, living and changing things, but there is a certain irony when the exact same people who in some situations criticized the imposition of a consumption tax are now reversing their position to criticize the decreasing of a consumption tax.

We have done other things. Among them, we have helped to increase the basic deduction for income taxes.

As I see my time is winding down, let me say finally that cutting taxes and watching the deficit are two of the most important things, but we must also make sure that we spend on necessities, not frills. We have increased spending on certain things such as infrastructure and direct targeting to communities in need. Those sorts of things are necessary to promote and protect our society, particularly regions of our society that are at a disadvantage due to outside forces.

Targeted wise spending on solid things, cutting the budget, cutting the deficit by balancing the budget, and cutting taxes are the priorities of the government. They are the priorities--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I hate to cut the hon. member off, but I will have to do so to allow for some questions and comments. The hon. member for Malpeque.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I will admit that I enjoyed the member's remarks because he was basically trying to point out how governments should be responsible, how members in the House should be responsible when they are using taxpayers' money for programs, and what they must do to review expenditures. I believe he said not to waste money in any shape or form.

I would take from that, that the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt would also, in a more indirect sense, believe that the government when it is passing legislation, that it should do so based on sound discussions and economic analysis. That is where the government has failed terribly.

I will quote from the Federal Court from July 16 of last year, in the court case over the government's illegal activities in terms of trying to put in place regulations. The director general of marketing policy for Agriculture Canada testified under oath at the Federal Court.

Question:

Did the government or the civil service or anybody retained by either do any analysis of how the amending regulations would function in the marketplace - are you aware of any studies of the kind I have mentioned to you?

Answer: “No”.

Question:

Was anybody retained to analyze that in the recent past?

Answer: “No”. Basically the bottom line was that no, no one was aware of anybody in the government who had done that kind of analysis.

Does the member really think the government is being responsible when it does not--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I will have to stop the hon. member there to give the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt a chance to reply.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, for people who are watching and who are not aware, he was discussing some matters involving the Canadian Wheat Board, particularly about barley.

If I may point out to the hon. member, there has been a considerable amount of discussion and papers prepared outside the government, so I do think it is prudent for the government to take information from outside the public realm, from outside the civil service, and examine it to see if it has been well and thoughtfully done. The government can then use information papers researched from outside its own civil service to help it come to conclusions.

I, for one, would not want the public purse to again re-invent the wheel by spending more money to come to the same conclusion as papers would have from outside research.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, one issue that was raised by the Conservatives in the development of their budget and their mini budget was the concept of fairness as it applies to taxation. I think that is one thing that I did not hear in my colleague's comments.

When we adjust the tax system to favour one group or the other, surely he would see that not all tax cuts are necessarily fair to the other parties in society. I know my experience in municipal government dealing with the ratio of taxation for commercial businesses and for residences suggested that we have to look at fairness in the system very carefully.

Now we have made some very large tax cuts that are going to serve the needs of the larger financial institutions in the country to the greatest extent. How does that compare to what we have done--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt has less than a minute to respond.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with my hon. friend. One of the other jobs I did not mention in my preamble that I had done was that I worked in a bakery from 4 a.m. to 12 noon each day and paid out unemployment insurance each and every day. Some of my colleagues had been there for 10 to 12 years making a low income, minimum wage and were paying this payroll tax.

I agree with my hon. colleague, that instead of emphasizing sometimes the redistribution of things, we should be fair and let the working poor keep their wages, keep what they have worked for, and I would suggest cutting payroll taxes is one of those fair ways to cut taxes.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great for me to participate in these prebudget consultations. I think it is paramount that all of us in this House have that chance to speak for all Canadians.

As everyone in this House is quite aware, we live in a global economy with very fierce competition and growing uncertainty from time to time. In an environment like that, government needs to find bold and innovative ways to stay ahead of the curve. Part of that process is, as insinuated early, listening to Canadians. That is why we hold these prebudget consultations every year.

We look to Canadians for ideas to help the government create an environment that rewards hard work, encourages growth and improves our quality of life. We are well on our way down that road.

We are making broad-based, long term tax reductions.

We are reducing record amounts of debt. That is something that we have to continue to do. We have to look at the debt that this country has incurred and that has been added to since the 1970s as mortgages on people's houses that they pass on to their children and their grandchildren. I do not want my granddaughter and any possible future grandchildren to have that debt. We need to work on it all the time.

We are spending responsibly and efficiently.

While Canada is certainly on a solid financial footing, we are mindful of the various challenges that confront us; global pressures and domestic challenges that vary from region to region and certainly from sector to sector.

Some examples that come immediately to mind are: the appreciation of the Canadian dollar that has left a variety of sectors struggling; increasing economic competition from abroad, especially from emerging economies like China, Brazil and India; and, aging infrastructure and increased gridlock. We have to address these issues.

These challenges require a clear plan to guide us into the future. That plan is our long term economic plan called “Advantage Canada”.

The “Advantage Canada” plan focuses on creating five key advantages: a tax advantage, a knowledge advantage, an entrepreneurial advantage, a fiscal advantage, and an infrastructure advantage.

On the last point, an infrastructure advantage, Canadians have told the government that they are concerned about the state of Canada's infrastructure: our roads, bridges and public transit.

I can tell members that those concerns are no less warranted in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I hear from my former colleagues in municipal government, the mayor and councillors there today, that it is one of their biggest concerns at that level and I certainly understand that. We are going a long way toward addressing that.

In addressing that, we are making the largest investment in infrastructure since World War II, $33 billion over seven years, through this building Canada plan. This is new money to build roads and rapid transit lines, rehabilitate bridges and water systems, and upgrade our international gateways, trade corridors and sewage treatment plants.

So, what exactly is our building Canada plan? Building Canada would fund strategic investments in projects designed to produce results in three areas of national importance: a growing economy, a clean environment, and strong and prosperous communities.

Building Canada would provide long term, predictable funding right up to the year 2014. It would provide the provinces, territories and municipalities with the certainty they have been looking for. In fact, over half of the funding under the building Canada plan would be provided directly to municipalities.

Specific elements of the plan would include maintaining the increase to 100% in the GST rebate, which, combined with the GST rate reduction, would provide municipalities with $5.8 billion in predictable revenue from now through to 2014 that could be used for infrastructure priorities.

I remember my 12.5 years in municipal government. It always irked me that municipalities had to pay GST on any of the projects and any of the purchases that they made. We did get 58% of it back, but it still was not right. It took staff time and government staff time as well. This is clean and it should have been done years ago.

We would also maintain and extend the federal gas tax fund, providing municipalities with $11.8 billion over the next seven years for a range of infrastructure investments such as public transit, water and waste water infrastructure, and local roads.

The plan will create an $8.8 billion Building Canada fund that will in part support larger strategic infrastructure investments of national and regional significance, such as improvements for the core national highway system.

As well, the Building Canada fund will provide the necessary financial support to smaller community-based infrastructure projects. I have a lot of those in my rural riding.

Building Canada focuses on upgrading our border crossings and gateways through our $2.1 billion gateway and border crossings fund. This includes a significant investment in a new crossing between Detroit and Windsor to improve the flow of traffic at our most important gateway.

The plan will provide $1 billion for our Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor initiative. Through this initiative we are making important infrastructure investments that will allow Canada to take advantage of the growing Asia-Pacific market.

Each province and territory will be provided with $25 million minimum in base infrastructure funding annually, which amounts to $175 million each over the next seven years.

The plan establishes a $1.26 billion public private partnership fund, the first initiative of its kind in Canada, something that really excites me. We are also providing $25 million over five years to set up a federal public private partnership office.

On this public private partnership, or P3s as it is commonly known, the government is doing its part by providing long term, predictable infrastructure funding. There are not many instances of a better way, a different way, of doing business than the use of public private partnerships.

There are many success stories in other countries around the world. Perhaps one of the best known in Canada is the Confederation Bridge linking Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. I had the privilege of crossing that bridge this past summer. It is quite a sight. This kind of public private partnership has worked very well there. Another good example is the Royal Ottawa Hospital right here in Ottawa.

When managed properly, P3s can help close the infrastructure gap. We have to be innovative in finding ways to address the infrastructure deficit in this country. I would like to emphasize that smart investments in infrastructure drive productivity, support trade, and fuel economic growth.

In today's highly competitive, just in time world, modern, efficient infrastructure is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Replacing our aging infrastructure is going to be a challenge. It is also a priority if Canada is to continue to be competitive in today's global economy.

We need our roads, our bridges, and our trade corridors in order to move our goods efficiently. We also need public transit to move our people quickly and safely but also to decrease the effect and harm to the environment.

We need our water systems to provide us with clean water.

Following our “Advantage Canada” plan, our government has developed a forward looking infrastructure renewal plan that balances regional needs with national priorities.

Building Canada provides historic and long term funding for provinces, territories and municipalities, so they can build modern and healthy communities today and for future generations.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound sits on the agriculture committee with me and we have had lots of good discussions. We both understand the agricultural industry.

He mentioned the global economy in his remarks and the fact that there is fierce competition. He also mentioned that there should be a reward for hard work. He also talked about broad-based tax deductions. If anyone should know about hard work, it is that member who is a farmer and his neighbours who are also farmers in the hog and beef sector.

Can anybody on that side of the House tell me what good broad-based tax deductions are going to do for those folks who are not in a taxable position? What good are they going to do for hog and beef farmers who are going broke while the minister sits on his hands? Those deductions are not going to do any good.

In the finance committee report, the UPA in Quebec also talked about the problem. The high Canadian dollar has a profound effect on Canada's agriculture sector, creating reduced competitiveness, loss of market share, and a decline in prices.

We do not need to wait for the budget to deal with the hog and beef crisis. We cannot wait for the budget. I would ask the hon. member, what would he propose for hog and beef producers right now?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way and myself do sit on the agriculture committee and I believe his concern for agriculture is the same as mine.

Yes, we do have some problems in a couple of sectors right now. Just last night I had the privilege of sitting beside a young farmer in my riding at the Dairy Farmers of Canada. We were talking about agriculture in general and he congratulated us on the amount of money that has gone out.

Just recently I met with a number of the pork and beef producers, as I have a number of times in recent months. Some of the money we have put out there to help address some of the costs of production is helping. We are looking for other ways, in cooperation with industry.

The record amount of money that we have put out there to help agriculture over the year is hitting home in some places, but enough is never enough sometimes.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I was not in the House for all of my hon. colleague's speech, the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, but knowing the member as well as I do I am sure it was a lively and informative speech.

I am wondering what this budget does for the hon. member's own riding in particular. He has always been a great advocate of rural Canada and his own riding in particular. What does this budget do? What did the previous budget do and what will the upcoming budget and the budget consultations do for his own riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound in Ontario?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this budget will do a lot of good things for my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, a very rural riding. I have a large population of seniors because we are right on Lake Huron and Georgian Bay. Many seniors come to my riding as tourists and end up staying because they like it so much.

Infrastructure is an issue I touched on earlier. Some big projects in rural ridings may not seem so big in a place like Toronto.

The federal funding that will be going to Ontario this year as a per capita investment will mean $996 for every person in Ontario and that will go up to $1,079 next year.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby.

For me, this year's prebudget consultation process included hosting a public town hall meeting in Victoria that was well attended, presentations and attending finance committee hearings in Victoria by the committee last December, reviewing hundreds of letters and emails from my constituents and having countless conversations with folks on the street.

Throughout this process, I heard two predominant messages from the residents of greater Victoria. First, invest with vision in a more socially, environmentally and economically sustainable future. Second, that investment in Victoria should begin with housing.

They asked the government to review the massive corporate tax cuts announced in the fall fiscal update in favour of targeted measures to restore balance in our communities and in our social and physical infrastructure and to tackle climate change.

I would like to highlight a few of the excellent presentations we heard in the Victoria meetings of the House of Commons finance committee. The non-profit group, Heritage B.C., spoke eloquently about the importance of conserving heritage buildings and rehabilitating them for modern use, especially affordable rental housing. Its very pragmatic proposal would strengthen the federal historic places initiative by restoring the commercial heritage properties incentive fund and creating a federal tax incentive to amplify the success of tax measures in Victoria and Vancouver that has allowed us to protect some properties but, unfortunately, has not been supported by the federal government.

We heard from the BC Sustainable Energy Association, which expertly warned not only of the environmental hazards of the government's non-response to climate change, but also the economic hazards of being left behind as the rest of the world shifts to clean, renewable energy while we stay wedded to an obsolescent fossil fuel economy of past centuries. We must put a price on carbon to turn this around. Left unchecked, global warming could cost B.C.'s economy in the billions of dollars.

The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society identified six key actions that the federal government should take to protect healthy ecosystems in the face of climate change. I hope it considers those seriously.

The president of Results Canada made a compelling call to increase our foreign aid which he noted has actually dropped even further below our commitment of a 0.7% target from 0.34% of our gross national income in 2005 to 0.3% in 2006.

Before the finance committee came to town, I hosted a public town hall meeting to hear the priorities of my constituents that were not necessarily linked to the narrow focus of taxes. Overall, those in attendance expressed a strong desire to see the federal government re-establish its leadership role in the arena of social policy and to nurture the social contract we have together as Canadians.

However, overwhelmingly, the number one area of urgently needed investment in Victoria continues to be housing and homelessness. In October, the City of Victoria released its task force report on breaking the cycle of mental illness, addictions and homelessness after four months of work. The task force did an excellent job analyzing the problem and mapping a way forward, but many of its recommendations cannot be implemented without support from Ottawa. In fact, the report clearly identifies the past Liberal government's withdrawal from the social housing sphere in the early 1990s, along with cuts to federal transfer payments, as two of the contributing factors to our current crisis. Now the Conservative human resources minister does not even bother attending housing meetings with his provincial counterparts, pretending it is not his problem.

The chorus of voices pleading for federal help from the perspective of ethics and social justice has been joined by that of members of Victoria's business community who have come out as forcefully and unequivocally as they possibly could.

I would like to quote briefly from the testimony of the Victoria Chamber of Commerce. It stated:

...the Government of Canada needs to take a far more aggressive lead in solving the problems of chronic homelessness across our country.

So much for the absence of our federal human resources minister from the meeting with his provincial counterparts.

The Chamber of Commerce added:

In this time of record government surplus, it is absolutely necessary for the federal government to apply a focused effort to reducing homelessness across Canada, and in doing so improve the business environment for thousands of Canadian companies.

This sentiment from the Chamber of Commerce echoes what I have heard on the doorsteps in Victoria. Even in the more affluent areas, I frequently hear concern for affordable housing and homelessness mentioned on the doorsteps of homes that might cost $700,000 in Victoria. These residents understand that even if this issue does not afflict them personally, it is relevant to them because they are members of the Victoria community.

It is that community spirit, the truly Canadian quality of caring for one's neighbour and choosing to contribute solutions to our common problems, that is alive in Victoria and in communities across Canada, which the Conservatives do not seem to recognize in their obsession with tax cuts, especially corporate tax cuts that benefit the banks and large financial organizations. It shows that affordable housing is a fundamental issue that strikes the hearts of all Canadians and it shows that tax cuts are not universally popular if it means that some in our society go without.

That brings me to a couple of other areas that require targeted investment in the upcoming budget, according to my constituents.

First, it is time for the government to accept the majority will of Parliament and allow the NDP's early learning and child care act to pass. Bill C-303 has now passed two votes in the House and one in committee. Parents across Canada who desperately need affordable child care cannot wait any longer and parents who want to choose quality early learning over big box day care deserve that option.

Next, one million Canadians struggle to repay student loans, which have reached record levels, and they need help. The federal government expects to make $497.9 million in interest on student loans in the coming year. Every dollar in interest is one more dollar that a low or middle income student pays for his education compared to other students whose parents pay for theirs.

It will not be easy to level this structural inequality in our post-secondary education system. However, a good starting point in this budget would be to reduce the interest rate paid by students, to establish a system of immediate grants based on financial need, to improve options for lightening the debt load and to establish a student loan ombudsman's office to help students navigate this inefficient system.

Finally, public research informs good public policy, but it would appear that the Conservatives are allergic to both. They have cut key funding for the Canadian Climate Impacts and Adaptation Research Network, eliminated the federal science advisor, overruled and fired Canada's nuclear safety regulator and continue to grossly underfund research in the social and human sciences.

Meanwhile, corporate influence on Canada's campuses and in university research continues to rise because the Liberal cuts from a decade ago have yet to be adequately restored. Our colleges and universities need stable, adequate core funding that corresponds with their economic growth in order to remain internationally competitive and provide the best possible education to our children.

We need increased funding for research in the public interest if we are to avoid letting profit become the guiding factor in public health, safety and environmental decisions. Budgets 2006-07 were colossal missed opportunities to invest in key strategic areas for more sustainable--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the speech that the member for Victoria just gave is certainly the best that I have heard this afternoon. She really hit the nail on the head in terms of the priorities that need to come from Parliament.

I would like to ask her about the missed priorities of the Conservative government. She mentioned a long list of fundamental needs and issues of fairness that are not being addressed. Yet she also mentioned, and other members talked about this, the massive corporate tax cuts of the Conservative government. It is just shovelling money off the back of a truck to the banks and big profitable oil and gas companies.

How does that sit with people in Victoria when they see the tax dollars just shovelled off the back of a truck? What do they think about this penny wise, pound foolish attempt by the Conservatives to waste taxpayers' money on the wealthy corporate sector when so many Canadians are in fundamental need?

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that 25% of the population in Victoria is living under the poverty line. This is at a time of supposed great economic boom for the Canadian population. The government chooses to ignore this, or indicated that it was ignoring it in its fiscal update and preferred to give large corporate tax cuts to the banks and larger financial institutions and the same thing to the oil and gas sector which is making profit beyond a sustainable level.

People in my riding are confused as to the priorities of the government. Frankly, they feel that the Prime Minister is leading us toward a new country, a country that we will not recognize.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to show my appreciation as well for my colleague who brought out many good issues in her speech.

I was interested in her comments about the oil companies. Imperial Oil posted a record profit last year of $3.5 billion. If we actually examine the nature of the corporate tax cuts that have taken place only this year, we find that they give Imperial Oil an extra $100 million in its pocket. That is what the Conservative government has put into the pocket of Imperial Oil this year, an extra $100 million. In 2012 if the record profits continue, that would amount to about $300 million.

When we examine those types of monies that are made from Canadian resources that represent a deficit in the resource base of the country being exploited by companies to make a profit, how does this match up with the effort made for the single mother with a child in this country?

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. The banks and resource sectors benefit the most from these cuts. The financial sector will get one-third of Canadian corporate pre-tax profits. The oil and gas and mining sectors will get one-sixth of Canadian corporate pre-tax profits. Yet the single mom who is struggling to make ends meet and has no day care, was offered $100 a month and yet in Victoria she has to pay about $1,000 a month.

Not only does it affect parents and ordinary families, but these across the board cuts will do nothing to target the sectors that we want to stimulate, like the manufacturing sector or green industries.

These are just untargeted, across the board cuts that will have no impact on our productivity. As former cuts during the Liberals' term have shown, there were no improvements in productivity.