Debates of March 4th, 2008

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Don Valley East.

I am proud to stand in the House to participate in today's debate on the government's budget. I represent the riding of Churchill, which is a diverse and very large riding. It is over half the land mass of the province of Manitoba.

As diverse and complex as Canada is as a nation, our federal budgets are often equally as comprehensive, or at least they should be. We have over 300 unique constituencies in Canada that require different services and programs due to regional, linguistic and many other considerations.

However, despite our vast geographic size, Canadians are united in the mutual understanding and appreciation of our differences. It is perhaps one of our greatest gifts and one of our greatest strengths.

However, after a careful review of the government's budget, it is clear that the budget is not as comprehensive as it should be. It does not include the vision or needs of northern Manitoba and it is yet another lost opportunity to address the challenges and opportunities for Canada's first nations, the Métis nation and the Inuit.

In addition to the fall economic update, the budget demonstrates poor, long term fiscal planning, particularly with a potential U.S. recession, which, today, in one of our national newspapers, is being called a recession. It provides nothing to address poverty, housing and homelessness and it provides nothing for women's equality or for arts and culture. It provides no support for families in regard to early learning and child care.

I want to focus on a couple of items because I have such a short period of time for my speech. I want to discuss the fiscal planning. It is a bit outrageous that the current government inherited from the previous Liberal government a strong economic picture, consecutive balanced budgets and a surplus of $14 billion.

Had the government been more careful in its previous budgets and its fall economic update, this budget could have addressed the urgent needs of many Canadian communities and families. However, the Conservatives spent all of the surplus and the cupboard is bare, with little focus on vulnerable communities and those most in need.

It is of particular concern that the Conservatives' projected surplus of $2.3 billion for this year and $1.3 billion for next year are well below the $3 billion contingency fund that the Liberal opposition considers the bare minimum to cushion against unanticipated economic shock.

As I said, given the current economic climate in the United States, which is facing a recession, it does not take an economist to understand how dangerous this is.

Moreover, the government lost an opportunity to address Canada's infrastructure deficit through acting on the Liberal proposal to use the $7 billion of this year's debt pay down to fund infrastructure projects across the country.

I would now like to touch on poverty and low income housing. It is troubling for ridings such as mine and it remains one of the most troubling issues in my riding. While in some communities multiple families are forced to reside together, some individuals and families, tragically, do not even have that option.

Extreme poverty and homelessness continues to exist in the north and it is an element that the budget has once again overlooked. In a country as rich as Canada, it is completely unacceptable.

However, implementing the housing initiatives alone will not tackle the homelessness and the poverty that persists across the country. The Conservative budget does little to alleviate any of poverty's root causes. The only party with both the will and the capacity to actually implement a plan to tackle poverty is the Liberal Party of Canada. I am proud to say that this past year the leader of the official opposition announced a plan to reduce poverty.

I will focus my remaining time on two things: first, the labour market needs of my riding and, second, the aboriginal community within my riding. Sixty-five per cent of the population of my riding of Churchill is comprised of aboriginals and first nations people. We have over 30 first nations, dozens of Métis communities and very strong Métis locals. Again, aboriginal people have been left out of this federal budget.

I would like to quote the AFN national chief who called the federal budget “a bitter disappointment”. He said:

It is disheartening that this government sets out reducing the cost of a toaster by a couple cents as a national objective, but not helping First Nations children finish high school or grow up in safe homes. That this government can afford billions of dollars to rebuild Afghanistan but not support schooling, healthcare or jobs for First Nations. It is difficult to believe Canadians support these priorities.

I also would like to quote Sydney Garrioch of the Manitoba Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin who represents 30 first nations in northern Manitoba. He said:

The government's budget does not alleviate poverty in our communities. The lack of substantial funding in the budget announcement for our people does nothing to promote healthy communities. We were optimistic that this government would provide funding and grants to improve crucial housing needs and we were working toward transformative change on health services by building and staffing our own health centres, but the budget does not support this development.

Those are quotes from two leaders of first nations communities in my riding. The impact is devastating for first nations.

I will not go on and reiterate the Kelowna accord and the commitments that the previous Liberal government made which amounted to $5 billion over five years in the areas of housing, health, education, economic development and governance capacity building.

However, in terms of this budget, allocations have been made contingent upon tripartite agreements with the provinces. It is reprehensible that, given the strong financial picture, the government cannot find, not only within its legal responsibility and fiduciary obligation to first nations people, but in terms of an economic picture, the funds to help first nations people.

We have the largest growing demographic of any population in Canada. Fifty percent of aboriginal people, that is first nations, Métis and Inuit people, are under the age of 30. In pure economic terms, it would make economic sense to invest in aboriginal people in Canada.

In terms of my riding, our primary industries include mining, forestry and hydroelectric power and they have labour demands. In 2006, mineral production in northern Manitoba was valued at $2.1 billion. Some of our mining companies have a combined generated revenue of over $1.2 billion. With the continued strength in metal prices, we look to labour market partnership agreements to ensure that we can contribute to the economy.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the speech by the hon. member brings me to the fact that the budget has no new funding for affordable housing in aboriginal communities, whether on reserve or in big cities such as Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg, et cetera.

There is really no new funding for child care, no funding to fight poverty and hardly any investment in young people whatsoever.

My colleague talked about the importance of investing in people who are most disadvantaged, and the aboriginal people are certainly part of them, and yet the hon. member's party has decided to support the budget. I do not quite understand how one can talk about what is wrong with the budget, what is missing from the budget and how it is not fair for working families and yet decide not to oppose such a short-sighted and wrong budget. This budget will put Canada on a completely different track, a track that the NDP believes is totally wrong. I do not know why that hon. member is supporting the budget.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is an unfair budget. It does not recognize the urgent and dire needs of vulnerable communities in Canada. Without a doubt, some of the poorest communities in this country are in my riding. Adults and children living in my constituency are going without the benefits of the Canada Health Act and basic health services.

I do not know how the member has the audacity to stand and ask me why we are keeping the government in power when it was her party that put the Conservatives in power in the first place. It is beyond me why those members would have the audacity to stand in this House when we are dealing with such critical issues.

I think that party would have a $350 million election every 18 months if it could because it seems that its game is about its party and not about Canadians. It is going--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservative government cancelled the Kelowna accord it took $5 billion away from aboriginal people. This budget has $660 million, which is about one-tenth of that money, so it leaves the government $4.3 billion behind what it has taken away from aboriginal people.

I would like to ask my colleague two questions. The first one is with regard to the $70 million in the educational part of the budget. There are two years to support tripartite agreements with first nations and provinces. What is wrong with the Inuit and the territories? My understanding is that the minister said, in an interview with the Whitehorse Star, that was a typo, but I hope it will be officially corrected.

My second question is with regard to Inuit and first nation health programs. The budget states:

...First Nations groups have indicated a willingness to discuss integration of the First Nations and Inuit health programs with provincial health systems....

The federal government deals with first nations and Inuit health right now so to have it dealt with by the provinces would be a major policy change. I am not saying that is good or bad.

I wonder if the member could comment on this huge change that shows up in the budget.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, for the price the government pays for its speeches, I am very shocked that there would be a typo.

There are critical health services that come under FINHB, which is for first nations and Inuit people. It is not under Canada's Health Act. It is critical that they are engaging in a discussion together. I have a lot of concern about this because Jordan's principle is still not being addressed by the government. Children with a disability who reside on reserve are not entitled to receive the same health services as all other Canadian children receive.

I have a very difficult time when the government talks about off-loading to provinces.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents of Don Valley East, I am pleased to rise today to provide my comments on the Conservatives' federal budget introduced last week.

I am an accountant by trade and I like to compare numbers, especially when it comes to tax policy. I was therefore surprised when the finance minister seemed particularly sensitive to the criticism that he and the Conservative Party are “blowing the surplus”.

Usually a budget speech delivered by a federal finance minister is a well crafted and dignified message intended to assure not only Canadians but also financial markets at home and around the world that the Government of Canada is in full control of its finances and confident of its economic future.

The fact that the finance minister found it necessary to fend off critics even before he outlined his budget plan suggests that he is not confident of his numbers and that the prospect of the Conservatives running a deficit is a very real and distinct possibility.

Budget 2008 is the third budget delivered by the Conservatives. After three kicks at the can, one might expect the finance minister to have a better grip on the country's finances and purse strings. Yet, he continues to make some historical gaffes.

For example, I think Canadians will agree that the first disaster was the income trust scandal. Page 32 of the 2006 Conservative election platform entitled “Stand up for Canada” clearly states that a Conservative government would not attack retirement savings by ensuring that it would not impose any more taxes on them.

What is the first thing the finance minister did on October 31, 2006, barely six months after assuming office? He shocked thousands of Canadian investors, many of them seniors who relied on their income trusts for monthly income, by imposing a tax, breaking a campaign promise and wiping out more than $25 billion in savings overnight. Those seniors have not forgotten that, nor have they forgiven the finance minister, and I do not think they ever will.

Another jewel in the Conservative misstep in its platform was to enshrine property rights in the Constitution of Canada, which it has conveniently dropped.

The Conservatives like sound bites, but these sound bites are not intelligent bites and so the Conservatives have had to flip-flop constantly.

On page 16 of the Conservative election platform under the heading, “Real tax relief for Canadians”, it states, “A Conservative government will...eliminate the capital gains tax for individuals on the sale of assets when the proceeds” are delivered.

Canadians have been patiently waiting for years, and while the Conservatives have delivered three budgets, there is absolutely no mention of capital gains relief. Could it be that the Conservatives have broken yet another campaign promise?

Canadians are beginning to literally stand up and take notice. Last year the finance minister made history with his 2007 budget that came along with the curious title of “Aspire”. It was the most inflationary budget and the Minister of Finance was called the “biggest spending finance minister since Confederation”, by whom? By none other than Andrew Coyne, who at the time was with the National Post.

This year budget 2008 is entitled “Responsible Leadership”. Let us see what sort of leadership it is. The Conservative government inherited from the previous Liberal government a $17 billion federal surplus and now, in less than three years, the Conservatives have placed the country dangerously close to a federal deficit.

Let us look back at the economic situation 15 years ago. In 1993 the Liberal government inherited a $42 billion deficit and a massive federal debt from the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. It took many painful years to turn the situation around and put Canada back on the path of prosperity. Part of the plan included a guarantee that no less than $3 billion a year would be taken from the surplus and used to pay down the federal debt.

Now the finance minister is telling us that he can no longer afford to pay off the debt in a balanced and predictable way. According to his predictions, he can only afford to pay $2.3 billion in 2008-09 and even less, $1.3 billion, in 2009-10. Is this what the Conservatives call responsible leadership?

The reason the Conservatives' debt reduction plan gradually decreased is precisely that the finance minister has in fact blown the surplus. As my distinguished colleague from Markham—Unionville has astutely pointed out, a $1.3 billion margin puts Canada perilously close to deficit financing. It takes a crisis like SARS or an ice storm to blow off this surplus.

How could the finance minister be so negligent? Canadians worked hard to get the country back on solid economic footing, and the finance minister and the Conservative government have spent like drunken sailors with nothing to show for it except a potential deficit.

To illustrate how incompetent the finance minister is, let us look at a practical example. In 2006 the finance minister cut the GST by 1% despite advice from economists all across the country that this was a foolish move. Then, to add insult to injury, he increased the income tax rate from 15% to 15.5% for the lowest income bracket and reduced the personal exemption rate.

For people in low and middle income brackets, the effect of the tax increase that these people lost was anywhere from $122 to $400. For the same people to take advantage of the GST cut, the low and middle income earners would have to spend $12,200 or $40,000. This is bizarre. The only people who could benefit from the GST cut are the wealthy ones.

Instead of helping the most deserving, the finance minister penalizes them, at a time when the federal treasury had $17 billion in surplus. Why did the finance minister squander away federal reserves without even stimulating the economy? Each 1% cut of the GST costs the federal treasury $6 billion a year, and since the Conservatives came to office, they have cut the GST twice, creating a federal shortfall of $12 billion a year.

Who pays for the shortfall? The Canadian taxpayer does, especially when the same economists have repeatedly told the Prime Minister and the finance minister that personal income tax cuts like the ones introduced by previous Liberal governments do far more for the economy than saving one or two cents on a cup of coffee.

Personal income taxes, especially those aimed at low and middle income taxpayers, do more for the economy because Canadians save money before tax. With more money at their disposal, low and middle income Canadians will likely spend or invest that money on their own behalf, therefore stimulating the economy.

Budget 2008 is a bare-bones budget. Of the $22 billion it projects as expenditures, only $1.4 billion is new money. This is smoke and mirrors. The money for infrastructure, claimed to be $33 billion over seven years, is really less than $4 billion because the other money has been there from the cities and communities agenda and a gas tax rebate introduced in the Liberal budget 2004-05.

The Conservative government lacks economic savvy, lacks vision, lacks leadership. The fact is Old Mother Hubbard has gone to the cupboard and found it bare. The Conservatives have blown the surplus and unfortunately, we the Canadian taxpayers will have to suffer the consequences. History repeats itself. Conservative times are deficit times and Conservative times are sorry times.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I will take one moment to congratulate the new government in Alberta. It was a pretty exciting win we heard about. It is one more reason to celebrate the longevity of Conservative governments not only in Alberta, but we are certainly looking forward to longevity of Conservative governments on the federal scene as well.

I listened very intently to the hon. member for Don Valley East. She talked about how we have not paid down the debt. Thirty-seven billion dollars is what we have paid down to date. As far as the guarantee to pay down at least $3 billion, if we average this year, which is aggressive but doable, with the next two years' debt reduction, we are still well over an average of $3 billion a year. Once again, the member made a pretty hollow argument.

I happened to be on a television panel on Friday afternoon with the hon. member from the opposition. She talked about the same false suggestion about the surplus that was handed to the Conservative government. She spoke at that time as if it were her money. I suggested that was the difference between Conservatives and Liberals. We think it is actually taxpayers' money.

I would like the hon. member to please bring us up to speed. I am uncertain after last night whether or not she is supporting this budget or whether she intends to vote.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is where it is very disconcerting to Canadians because the Conservatives can never accept facts. They want to ignore the facts on any issue, such as the fact that Alan Riddell was paid or Jim Hart was paid. Those facts are real.

The Conservatives have to accept the fact that during very good economic times Mr. Mulroney quadrupled the debt. Conservative governments since Borden, since the time of the sinking of the Titanic, have never been able to balance budgets. Now when they have been handed $17 billion on a silver platter, what do they do? They ignore it.

I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. member that at one point during the Mulroney era, the CPP was totally underfunded and now it is funded for 75 years. It requires leadership; it requires vision; and it requires the commitment of government to move forward with the people. The people in 1993 realized that. This is why they booted out the Conservatives, because they were such terrible economic managers.

I cannot understand why, despite having $17 billion in surplus, the Conservatives found it necessary to be mean to people who are poor, who are vulnerable. They cut literacy programs. They cut the Kelowna accord. They cut Kyoto. What is their agenda?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it feels like the twilight zone here because for 10 minutes I heard how bad this budget is and I heard the member accuse the “new government” of flip-flopping. My gosh, I heard that the Liberal Party does not like the GST cuts, but the Liberals went ahead and voted for the mini-budget anyway. They do not like the GST cut and all of the those cuts and the lack of investment in the poor, the most vulnerable. I heard so much passion there I was stunned and yet the member did not answer whether or not she is going to support the budget.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the NDP has no credibility. It goes for opportunism. If those members were so concerned about poverty and the vulnerable, why did they not support the Liberal government when it was dealing with the Kelowna accord and the Kyoto accord? The NDP members have absolutely zero credibility in economics and in anything they say.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would begin by noting that I will be sharing my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

As the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, it is a pleasure for me to speak to this budget, on which the final vote will take place tonight in the House of Commons. I would simply like to reiterate the traditional position developed by the Bloc Québécois on a series of issues.

Our leader said clearly, before the budget was introduced, that if it met the needs, priorities and expectations of Quebeckers, then the Bloc Québécois, in its role as advocate for Quebec in Ottawa, would vote for it, and that otherwise, the Bloc Québécois would vote against the budget, regardless of what position the other two opposition parties took, and whether those members were present or absent for the votes.

That is what we have done. Last night, in the vote on the Liberal amendment, with two exceptions, all of my Bloc Québécois colleagues were present. We will take exactly the same approach tonight. The Bloc Québécois will vote against this budget unless there is a major reversal and there are significant gains for Quebec.

The leader of the Bloc Québécois, speaking for its members in the House, clearly stated the terms on which this budget would be supported. One of the things they called for was significant progress for Quebec on the economy, post-secondary education, housing, social justice, the environment and culture. Our basic premise was that the Conservatives, with the Minister of Finance in the lead, were patting themselves on the back about having a $12.6 billion surplus for this fiscal year.

Our opinion was, and we are still convinced, that the Conservative government has the resources to agree to the reasonable and realistic demands of the Bloc Québécois. However, one of the things this government prefers to do is put all its extra cash towards the debt and that is what will be done with the surplus. It is not that we are opposed to reducing the debt. We have to reduce the debt, but we have to reduce it proportionately. There should be something paid toward reducing the debt, but also some substantial amount put toward improving certain programs and dealing with major crises we are currently experiencing.

In my last few minutes, I would like to come back to two crises, and in particular the crisis in the manufacturing and forestry sectors. I would note, by the way, that the riding I represent here in the House of Commons has been hard hit by the forestry crisis. And second, we have to address the entire question of improving employment insurance. In the riding I represent there are a lot of seasonal workers, and under the current scheme they cannot qualify for employment insurance. Here we are in early March, and before operations start back up in May, seasonal workers will have to get through what is called the spring gap, because the number of benefit weeks is insufficient to cover the time until operations resume. That is why the Bloc Québécois called for the employment insurance scheme to be improved.

However, as I said, this government opted to put all its extra cash towards the debt and to continue reducing taxes paid by the big oil companies, which just go on cheating us. I do not know what the gas price situation is in every riding, but I am certain that all my colleagues must be hearing about rising gas prices when they meet their constituents in the grocery store or the corner store or elsewhere.

We are literally being strangled by the big oil companies.

This government also has its approach to military expenditures. I should say in passing that the Bloc Québécois is not opposed to the troops. When we criticize the Conservative government’s military expenditures or its position on Afghanistan, we are immediately told that we are against the troops.

I am sorry, but in the Quebec City area, the Valcartier military base consists mostly of Quebeckers and I want to say again that the Bloc Québécois is very proud of soldiers from Quebec. We can have differences of opinion, though, on the government’s approach to Afghanistan. This is very evident if we just remember that since the Conservative government came to power, it has spent $17 billion on military equipment: tanks, jeeps, aircraft and ships. We know very well that there are a lot of other priorities.

I am running out of time and want to make sure in my remarks on the budget to draw attention to the crisis in manufacturing and especially in forestry. I was very disappointed as well with the billion dollars that the government announced in January and that we passed at the end of the month. Contrary to what the Prime Minister had said, the funds were tied to the budget passing. Finally he realized that it did not make any sense to hold working people hostage by tying the billion dollars to the passage of the budget. Thanks to all the hard work put in by the Bloc members and the premiers of certain provinces, including Quebec and Ontario, the Conservative government finally listened to reason and no longer made the billion dollars conditional on the budget passing.

In five years we have seen 150,000 jobs lost, most of them in the last two years since the Conservatives came to power. This government does not seem aware of the full extent of the crisis in the manufacturing and forestry sectors.

The most striking evidence of this is the fact that the billion dollars could have been increased in the budget, as the Bloc was demanding, because the method the Conservatives chose to calculate the amounts is unfair to Quebec. It will get only about $217 million for both its manufacturing and forestry sectors even though it accounts for nearly 33% of the forestry industry in Canada.

We feel that it is totally unfair to base these amounts on a formula that treats all the provinces equally. Some provinces are less affected. I cannot believe that Prince Edward Island will get a standard $10 million payment, because its forestry sector is less affected than Quebec’s, which accounts for almost 33% of the forestry industry in Canada.

I am being signalled that my time is running out and just wanted to finish by saying we would have expected improvements to the employment insurance system because it is ineffective and ill suited to seasonal workers who suffer job losses year after year. That is certainly not by choice. I meet these seasonal workers in my office all the time. If it were possible to fish all year long or work in the forest industry or the tourism industry all year long, these people would rather work all year long.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, does the member get aggravated when the Conservatives talk about what they are doing for seniors such as helping them get into the workforce?

The Liberals had a pilot project. For months after the Conservatives were in power, they stalled on that. Members of the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party kept asking them to do something for seniors. Because of that pressure, the Conservatives finally were forced into doing something, and they put some money forward. Yet when they give their speeches, it is as if they have come upon this on their own and they have done something great.

Does that aggravate the member?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is talking about the situation with older workers. One of the things the Bloc Québécois wanted was an assistance program for older workers.

In reality, when a worker aged 55 and up loses his job, he is essentially forced to turn to social assistance. It is not easy for someone over 55 to find a new job. We hear simplistic comments, like the ones from the member for Jonquière—Alma, who told workers in his region affected by the forestry crisis and workers from the CSN that all they had to do was go work in Alberta. The Prime Minister said the exact same thing to unemployed workers in the Maritimes, telling them to go work in Alberta, where there is a labour shortage. But it is not so easy to split up or uproot a family or a community.

We were hoping for an assistance program for older workers, especially since such a program would cost just $60 million for all of Canada, at a time when the government has a $12.6 billion surplus.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. It is amazing to think that the House will probably pass this budget even though it does not meet Quebec's needs.

Members of the National Assembly from all three political parties, including Quebec's Minister of Finance, have unanimously condemned this budget. In fact, had this budget been tabled in Quebec's National Assembly rather than in this House, not one single member would have voted for it, and all 125 would have voted against. Clearly, Canadian federalism is limiting Quebeckers' freedom to act in their own best interest and preventing them from choosing how they want to spend their own tax dollars.

As a Bloc Québécois MP, does my colleague know of a medium or long term solution for us, for Quebeckers, that would make us masters of our own destiny and enable us to set our own priorities for spending our own tax dollars?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber has hit the nail right on the head. Once we Quebeckers become masters of or own destiny, once we stop sending $57 billion in taxes to Ottawa, and once we decide to keep all of our tax dollars in Quebec, thereby preventing the federal government from deciding what our priorities should be, we will have a government that cares about Quebeckers' needs and priorities, regardless of which party leads Quebec's first sovereign government.

Every time the federal government invests money in Quebec, the ministers strut about smugly, make wonderful announcements and sign fat cheques, but we must not forget that the money comes from taxpayers. The people in the gallery who are listening to us think that they are paying too much for the services they receive. That money does not come from the ministers. That is money we send to Ottawa. That is our money.

As Maurice Duplessis said: “Give us back what is ours.”

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise here today to speak to the budget. I will likely be less eloquent and impassioned that my hon. colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, but my comments are equally relevant. I am pleased to join the budget debate and add a few remarks concerning the environment.

I would remind the House that this government had a surplus of more than $10 billion in its coffers for the current year. Among the demands of the Bloc Québécois, as my colleagues have already pointed out, we were calling for significant assistance for the manufacturing and forestry industries. We also wanted our seniors to be reimbursed the money that the government literally stole from them by refusing to make the guaranteed income supplement fully retroactive. Furthermore, we think that it is essential that there be assistance for the environment. With this budget, we called on the government to make a 180-degree turn and invest $1 billion in the environment. After carefully reading this budget, however, we are left dissatisfied.

This budget leaves something to be desired. First of all, we would have expected this government to invest heavily in renewable energy. We would have liked to see the $1 billion we were calling for help make household appliances more energy efficient, for instance, thereby contributing to the fight against climate change, which must be approached from two angles. It must first be addressed by reducing greenhouse gas emissions at the source, but also by ensuring that we have energy efficiency programs in order to curb our oil dependency. These programs were therefore very important to us. Unfortunately, the government did not meet our expectations.

In terms of the environment, the government and the Minister of Finance first announced $66 million over two years to develop its regulatory framework. I am referring to the so-called plan to fight climate change that was announced by the Minister of the Environment. From our perspective, there is no way we can support a budget that allocates financial resources to a framework that we oppose. I would remind the House that this regulatory framework aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions uses 2006 as the reference year in establishing the reduction targets for industrial emitters. We believe, however, that the only valid reference is that used by the Kyoto protocol, namely, 1990.

Our businesses have made efforts in the past. They have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by more than 7% or 8%. This regulatory framework would not take into consideration improvements that have already been made to industrial processes to make the business more energy efficient and to contribute to the fight against greenhouse gases, nor the fact that these companies are more productive. The link between the environment and the economy will always be there. However, the government chose to ignore it by designating 2006 as the reference year.

Second, by adopting intensity targets for greenhouse gas emissions, we are telling companies that emission reductions will be considered with respect to each unit of production. That means that targets and greenhouse gas reductions will be imposed, but only per production unit. In view of the fact that oil sands production is expected to increase fourfold or fivefold by 2015, Canada will not achieve absolute reductions but instead will record considerable increases.

We cannot support a budget that allocates $66 million to a regulatory framework that is unfair and that will not contribute to Canada's effort and responsibility in the international fight against climate change.

In addition, we also cannot approve this budget because, in essence, it grants $300 million to Canada's nuclear industry. Imagine that. In recent weeks we have seen the difficulties—and witnessed the bickering—associated with the departure of the president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Now the government is announcing that it is allocating $300 million to the nuclear industry, without any prior public debate on the issue. It is as though the government, in its budget, is telling us that it is beginning to change Canada's position on energy without even discussing it with Canadians.

We have to shed some light on the growth of this industry, which is continuing to create negative externalities. I will cite one: nuclear waste management, an issue we have not yet come to grips with. At present, the pools are overflowing with waste in the provinces, and we have not found any sustainable solution to that waste. And at the same time, our federal government is setting aside and increasing funding for an industry that creates externalities. We understand, of course, why the government is making this choice, because we know that there are projects in western Canada to expand oil sands production using nuclear energy.

We therefore cannot support a budget that gives the nuclear industry $300 million, when there has been no public debate and no debate in the House on this important issue.

There is another factor: $250 million has been allocated to carbon storage, for what is called “capture” and “sequestration” of carbon. That means that we are increasing and expanding our assistance to a polluting industry, an industry that makes enormous profits, by giving it $250 million for a pilot project in Saskatchewan to capture GHGs. Through absolute, mandatory targets and the establishment of a carbon exchange that would allow businesses to trade emissions credits freely, the oil industry and the oil sands industry in Canada could contribute to funding that project in Saskatchewan.

At the end of December 2008 the government also decided to cancel the ecoAUTO rebate program, that is designed to encourage the purchase of low energy consumption vehicles. It is a program that the public was expecting. Several months were put into implementing the program, and the government is now telling us that it is eliminating it.

To conclude, what this budget promotes is the polluter-paid principle rather than the polluter-pay principle. These are large figures. I mentioned the $300 million given to the nuclear industry and the $250 million given to the big industrial emitters for carbon capture. What this budget does is benefit oil companies and polluters, at the expense of a sustainable economy that has to be built on value added, which the renewable energy industry is.

We would have expected incentives for wind and solar energy production, but no, there is nothing. The choice made gives preference to friends in western Canada. There is nothing for Quebec. And there is $250 million in assistance going directly to the auto industry. In terms of the Canadian economy, the west is benefiting through assistance to the oil industry, central Ontario is getting incentives through aid to the auto industry, but there is nothing for Quebec.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question. The member for Western Arctic and members of the Bloc seem to be criticizing carbon capture. Climate change is devastating us the north. We certainly want to get that carbon out of the atmosphere. We want to make sure that when oil companies are forced by regulations to reduce carbon the technology is available.

However, I would like the hon. member to comment on what environmentalists have told me, which is that the government has cut over 100 programs that were in existence under the previous government. He mentioned some of them, including the renewable energy program and the EnerGuide. The government has either cut them or reintroduced them with less money and tougher restrictions. A good example of that is the EnerGuide program. There is less money and it is very hard to access. A lot of people have told us it is not even worth it any more, so I imagine the statistics are terrible.

Could the member comment on the reduction in programs that help the environment by reducing greenhouse gases, et cetera, and on the government renaming them and making them harder to access?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two points.

First of all, we are not opposed to the notion of the oil industry using new technologies for carbon capture and sequestration. However, should the public be the ones to pay for the testing of such technologies, through taxes and income tax, while the petroleum industry earns exorbitant profits? Rather, it should be up to the industry to invest in those technologies in order to ensure real greenhouse gas reductions.

Second, to answer the hon. member's second question, we definitely believe in energy efficiency programs. That is why we asked that $1 billion from this year's $10.3 billion surplus be allocated to the environment, specifically to the various energy efficiency programs that are producing results, contrary to the Conservatives' claims.

We definitely believe in energy efficiency and, furthermore, we believe in reducing greenhouse gas emissions at the source.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with much interest to the member's speech. However, it is important to note that for the past two years, the Bloc Québécois has supported all the Conservative government's budgets. It supported the 2006 and 2007 budgets. Even though the measures in these budgets were in no way taken in the interests of Quebeckers, the Bloc always supported the Conservative government.

Now, we know that the Liberals are supporting the Conservatives and that the Bloc is finally siding with the NDP. This is good, because it shows that the Bloc is acting in the interests of Quebeckers.

Given that the Bloc now supports the NDP position and is opposed to the Conservative government, I would like to ask the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie a question. Is the Bloc ready now to reconsider supporting the Conservative government on the softwood lumber issue?

The softwood lumber agreement cost Quebeckers thousands of jobs, and Quebec was harder hit than any other part of the country. What is more, in a few weeks, softwood lumber plants in Quebec will be forced to pay additional amounts because the government signed this agreement. The decision that is made will cost companies in Quebec.

Is the Bloc now ready to join with the NDP on the softwood lumber issue, as it has done on the budget?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has 50 seconds to reply.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is always so self-important. We will not be like the NDP. When the unions—he knows them well—and the forestry industry supported this agreement, we stood up in the House to defend the interests of workers and the industry.

The Bloc has always acted responsibly. Members may recall that in June 2006, that agreement was adopted unanimously. I do not know where the NDP members were at the time. Where was the member in June 2006?

We are acting responsibly. When we take a stand on an issue, we show up in the House and we do not sleep—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

Resuming debate. The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Social Development.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today and address budget 2008. I will be sharing my time with the member for Provencher, the President of the Treasury Board, and I look forward to hearing his speech.

I think it is important that I start out today by congratulating Premier Stelmach on his crushing victory last night in Alberta. As an Albertan, it is important for me to acknowledge that. It is particularly exciting to see him not only go way beyond expectations but reduce the official opposition to a fraction of what it was. I believe the official opposition was and is the Liberal Party. I am sure my friends across the way will not be very excited about that, but those are the facts.

It is important as we talk about budget 2008 that we place it in context. Today in Canada these are good times. The economy in Canada is strong. Jobs are being created. Taxes are going down. The budget is balanced. Our national mortgage, the debt, is being paid down. All of these are very good things. People have reason to be confident.

Canadians have reason to feel confident about the future. Our financial situation is more stable than that of any other G-7 country, and the government is showing leadership at home and abroad thanks to its long term economic plan, Advantage Canada.

Obviously, in this country today Canadians generally are doing extraordinarily well. That does not mean there are no big challenges in some sectors, but given some of the struggles we see in other parts of the world and certainly south of the border in the United States these days, these are good times.

However, we cannot take that for granted. That is why the Minister of Finance moved last fall to lower taxes to get ahead of some of the problems he saw coming in the United States. That is why we are paying down debt and being prudent in our spending. But when we do spend, we spend with an eye to making sure that this country can compete today and go forward. I want to talk a bit about some of those investments.

I am the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development and I am very proud of some of the changes that we made in budget 2008. I want to talk about some of them.

One of the most important things that any country can do is make sure it has an educated workforce. We have that in Canada today substantially, but we must do more. We face great competition around the world, so therefore it is incumbent upon us to do everything we can to make sure our workforce is ready to compete.

That is why in the last budget we invested heavily in training. Today, we invest more in training than any government in history. It is also why we increased funding for post-secondary education, colleges and universities, by 40% in a single year. That is $800 million. We are not resting on our laurels either. That is why in this budget we said we must do more than we do today to encourage students to enter post-secondary education.

Seventy per cent of all the new jobs that are being created require some post-secondary education. Today, we are not getting enough people into post-secondary education. We believe that one of the reasons why is that some of the tools we have in place today just are not encouraging people to take the step of going into post-secondary education, particularly knowing how expensive colleges and universities can be. We have made some important changes to encourage people to take those steps.

We are dissolving the Canada millennium scholarship foundation and replacing it with up front and predictable grants. These are called Canada student grants. They will encourage low and middle income Canadians to go into post-secondary education because if they are from a particular income group, apply and are admitted into post-secondary education, they will be eligible without respect for where they live in this country or what program they are going into, whether it is college or university.

Under the old program, the access grants, they did not get that. They did not get it under the CMSF. They will get it up front under these new grants. They will apply every year students are in undergraduate studies, whether it be in college or university, ensuring that people will have a lot of funding going their way to help deal with the problem of expensive tuition costs.

There will be $250 a month for low income people for every month that they are in university or college. There will be $100 a month for middle income people. We noted in the Speech from the Throne that today many middle income families struggle with the high cost of post-secondary education. It is our commitment to make sure that we start to deal with that very difficult problem for many Canadian families and we are proud of some of the changes that we are making.

By the way, this will touch a lot of people. Under the previous regime, the way it was established, the various types of support in the form of bursaries and grants touched only 140,000 people a year. The new initiative will touch 245,000 people every year and we are very proud of that. We believe that will encourage many low and middle income families who otherwise felt they could not afford it to take the step and go into post-secondary education.

We have made other important changes as well. One of the criticisms we have received is that student loan financing was very complicated. We did a survey of people who were involved in this sector and we talked to students, educators and families. They told us the system was far too complicated.

We have taken that to heart, so in addition to taking the previous six grants and boiling them down to one, the Canada student grant, and getting them to students who go to school, no matter whether college or university, we have also made changes that will allow students to go on and manage their student loan via one account. This is what we are working toward with the provinces. The provinces are very excited about it.

Up until now it has been extraordinarily complicated, Byzantine, when people attempt to get a student loan. We are going to simplify it and make it much simpler for students, so that they will be able to go online ultimately and manage their entire account, both provincial and federal, through one window. We think that will be a real step forward.

One of the other criticisms we received is that there are about 20% of students who, when they apply for a student loan, have trouble paying back the loan. Irrespective of the reason, this has been a real burden for thousands of students over the years. The changes we have made will make it possible for students to finally get out from underneath those loans and to make it possible for them to repay them in a way that is much more realistic.

For instance, we are now going to make sure that we attach the amount of student loan they pay back to their income. These student loan repayments will be sensitive to the income and will never exceed a certain percentage. This will be extraordinarily helpful to people like medical students who have complained for a long time rightfully that we are penalizing them for going into an expensive program and ultimately then we turn around and complain about the fact that we do not have enough people becoming doctors. We are fixing that and I am proud of that.

I want to speak for a moment about the guaranteed income supplement. We have made changes so that earned income will be exempted from the current $500 to $3,500, meaning that seniors can go out and earn income and will not have their benefits clawed back.

I want to acknowledge the work that the member for Wild Rose has done on this issue. He told me the story of someone from his riding who really could not go to work, help out in the labour force, and look after herself without losing those benefits. He pushed for this for a long time. I am very proud that we were able to introduce this in the budget.

I also want to make one final point to the important changes we have made to employment insurance financing. We have created an arm's length corporation that will make it impossible for future governments to rip-off the EI fund, like the Liberals did when they were in power, when they ripped off over $50 billion from workers. That will never happen again.

We have preserved the ability of Parliament and the government to look after benefits and that will not change, but never again will the Liberals be able to rip-off employment insurance like they have in the past. We are proud of those changes.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the minister said, and one of the reasons we will be voting against this budget is that it is unfair to seniors. I would like the minister to explain something to me. I will give him two examples.

I met with three seniors' groups in my riding in the past five weeks, and they all told me the same thing, “The government ripped us off. It made an election promise. In 2006, the government told us that it would give back our guaranteed income supplement for the past four years. We fell for it. Now we have nothing left.”

Some seniors are owed $4,000, $6,000, $8,000 or $10,000. The Conservatives told them—and this is what these people have asked me to say—that they would be giving them the missing guaranteed income supplement. Why has the government failed to keep its promise to give back the guaranteed income supplement in this budget, which is about to be passed because of the Liberals' absence?