House of Commons Hansard #71 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was immigrants.

Topics

Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, it will stand the test of time.

Thirteen years, six Liberal ministers, four majority Liberal governments and the Liberals did nothing for the system except continue it with a backlog of 800,000 people and growing. That is not governing.

We are taking decisive steps to ensure this country can be built. Thirteen years of inaction is not the answer. It is time to do something and we are doing it now.

Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first speech in the House of Commons, before I do anything else, I would like to thank the people of Willowdale for electing me and for expressing their confidence in me. Becoming a member of Parliament is a tremendous honour and privilege, and I look forward to doing the best job I can for the people of Willowdale and for all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Scarborough Centre.

It is fair to say that when the Conservatives came to power two years ago they inherited the strongest fiscal position and the strongest employment growth in the G-7. With all of its inherited surpluses and until recently a strong economy, the government had an opportunity to make smart investments and wise tax cuts that would have strengthened Canada's productivity and competitiveness and better prepared the country for the uncertain times that confront us today.

We Liberals offered some advice. Last fall, the Leader of the Opposition said he favours deeper corporate tax cuts. We need to create a new Canadian advantage now that we can no longer rely on a relatively low dollar and we believe that a competitively low corporate tax rate is just that advantage. Interestingly enough, a few short weeks after the Leader of the Opposition's speech, the Conservatives acted on this Liberal proposal. At least they took our good advice.

Liberals have long been in favour of getting value out of taxpayers' money and shifting resources from areas of lower priority to areas of higher priority. Instead, the Conservatives chose to focus on reduced transfers to some of the most vulnerable in Canadian society, including literacy programs, the court challenges program, and programs to enhance the status of women in this country.

For a succinct analysis of the economic record, let me quote from a recent editorial in the Globe and Mail:

Which party took a country that was drowning in debt and instituted tough, painful savings to lift the federal accounts back into surplus, where they have remained for more than a decade? That would be the Liberals.

And which party, by failing to heed the warning signs of an economic slowdown and by both cutting the GST and spending as if there were no tomorrow, set the country up for a budget...that could, if the Conservatives don't watch their step, tip Canada back into deficit spending? That would be the Conservatives.

At the provincial level, in 2003, the finance minister and his Conservative friends in Ontario ran an election on a balanced budget and then lost. When Dalton McGuinty called in the auditors he was told he had inherited a $5.6 billion deficit, and he had to clean up that mess.

At the federal level, here is a small history quiz. Before the current Prime Minister inherited large Liberal surpluses, who was the last Conservative prime minister to actually balance the books, even in one year? It was not Kim Campbell, Brian Mulroney, Joe Clark, or John Diefenbaker. It was not even R. B. Bennett or Arthur Meighen. No, we have to go back all the way to Sir Robert Borden in 1912 to find a Tory government that balanced the books. This is a pattern of Conservatives who run big, fat deficits until voters call on Liberals to clean up the mess.

True to form we have now seen the largest spending over two budgets in a row. The finance minister has become the biggest spending finance minister in the history of Canada. He has brought us perilously close to deficit spending with no longer any contingency. Canada's government is now 14% bigger after the last two budgets.

What do we want to bequeath to our children and their children? Certainly a low national debt, and we Liberals reduced that debt from a peak of over 70% of GDP in 1994-95 to 35% in 2005-06.

We now have a massive infrastructure deficit: bridges that fall down, potholes, raw sewage dumped into oceans, and inadequate public transit.

For the benefit of both current and future generations we urged the government, rather than pay the full $10 billion allocated to debt paydown, to pay down that debt by $3 billion and to provide an immediate $7 billion injection into the infrastructure needs of the nation. This would have provided a significant down payment to address Canada's infrastructure deficit and would have been a much needed investment in our future. But no, this was good Liberal economic advice that the Conservative government did not heed.

I will stress that the Liberals understand the need to pay down the mortgage on the house. The Liberal government clearly did so when needed, but right now the walls are cracking and the roof is starting to leak. Our wonderful country has incredible potential, but we need investment in infrastructure critical for our future productivity and global competitiveness.

However, here is a separate concern. Including legislative changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in the bill is wrong. It is a blatant Americanization of the process to bury a contentious issue in a bill that, in weighing the alternatives, we otherwise did not find enough to warrant forcing an election on the Canadian people.

This clause has nothing to do with the budget. It should not be in the bill in the first place and should be separated out. These provisions put completely inappropriate discretionary powers into the hands of the minister, a minister and a government already showing ideological biases. We cannot fix the immigration backlog by allowing the minister to cherry-pick some over others. Doing so does not increase the numbers.

We cannot fix the immigration backlog without funds, either. Note that the Quebec government announced $68 million in new funding for immigration. Ontario announced more funding, as did British Columbia. Contrast this to the relatively tiny amount the government has suggested will somehow miraculously do the work that is needed.

If the immigration provisions are not separated out of the bill, then the Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Finance will ensure that these added immigration provisions are subject to the full detailed and high scrutiny for all Canadians so they can fully understand what the government is trying to do with these back door tactics.

Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders

12:55 p.m.

Kootenay—Columbia B.C.

Conservative

Jim Abbott ConservativeParliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member to the House. I hope she will bring a new voting pattern to her colleagues.

She has spoken very forcefully about the immigration section of the budget. I choose to be in total disagreement with her, but I am will not discuss the content of that issue. However, because she feels so strongly, will she be on her feet to vote against the budget, because that provision is a part of the budget, or will she continue to follow the sheepish aspects of her colleagues, who have chosen to sit on their hands through these confidence motions?

Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his welcome.

I am not sure if it is procedure to ask a question in response to a question. When he says he disagrees completely with my position, he then denies me the ability to address any of his concerns because he simply refuses to discuss content.

I would ask the hon. member to ask a question on the content. If he supplies one, I might be able to answer.

Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will address some of the content of the member's speech.

This government has paid down record amounts of debt and reduced taxes. Since the member seems to feel that paying down debt and reducing taxes is not a good thing, what does she propose in a budget? Perhaps increasing the GST to 7% might be something she would recommend the Liberals do. Maybe she would like to reduce the amount of money we spend on Canada's military, or child care, two key areas where the government has invested money, which has increased the overall budget.

What might she propose to do about things? Will she recommend that Liberals increase the GST in their next platform?

Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON

Mr. Speaker, I believe I specifically indicated some of the things Liberals would have preferred to see in this budget, including repeated suggestions that of the $10 billion allocated to pay down the debt, we encourage the government to use $7 billion to invest in infrastructure. We specifically suggested that amount because we very strongly feel that at least $3 billion should be kept as a contingency. The government does not even believe in a contingency.

If the member has any other specific questions about the content of my speech, I would welcome them.

Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite, and the Conservatives, got the facts wrong again. He asked if she would vote against the budget because of all these serious immigration issues in it. However, those issues were not in the budget. They did not come out until the little administration bill, which puts the budget into place.

Canadians across the country are outraged at that and have written their members of Parliament. On budget day, when major changes are announced for the country, nothing was mentioned about immigration. Yet when minor administrative amendments came out, which will put the budget into effect and which is probably almost totally unconstitutional, they were shocked.

Could the member comment on the totally anti-democratic actions taken by the government in the financial administration bill?

Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders

1 p.m.

Liberal

Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate a couple of key points I made in my speech. The inclusion of these immigration provisions in the budget, as the hon. member has said, is completely inappropriate. They were not in the original one. This is a blatant Americanization of the process, to include something that the government knew would be contentious into something that otherwise we were all prepared to allow to go forward. We will have to see what happens.

Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders

1 p.m.

Liberal

John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the budget implementation bill, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the member for Willowdale for her election. I am confident she will do a tremendous job, not only in serving her constituents but making our country a better country as well.

I have listened to the debate throughout the day. Instead of sometimes focusing on the points in the budget, people started talking about what the Liberals did, what the Liberals did not do. The NDP bashed the Liberals. The member for Peterborough bashed the Liberals. The Conservative Party bashed the Liberals. Everyone was bashing the Liberals. However, it is not our budget; it is the Conservative budget.

Members have used a lot of quotes so then let me use some.

Earlier the Minister of the Environment said that he was disappointed that nothing had been said about the environment. He starting quoting and talking about how important it was. At least the Liberals believe the environment is one of the most important issues, along with health care and our other social responsibilities.

I would like to use some quotes such as “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant”. Who said that? The current Prime Minister, and it is in Hansard, October 11, 2002.

Another quote is, “Carbon dioxide does not cause or contribute to smog, and the Kyoto treaty would do nothing to reduce or prevent smog”. Who said that? The current Prime Minister, as reported in the Toronto Star, on June 10, 2004.

Another quote is, “the Kyoto protocol does not deal with critical environmental issues”. Who said that? The current Prime Minister. That was in his address—

Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders

1 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you know, we are discussing Bill C-50 and the amendment to Bill C-50 put forward by the NDP. I know there is some latitude usually given on second reading, but we are talking about the budget implementation bill. I ask the member to get on topic and on point and debate Bill C-50.

Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders

1 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I am sure the hon. member for Scarborough Centre will try to keep his remarks relevant to the bill.

Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders

1 p.m.

Liberal

John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON

It is relevant, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of the Environment brought it up, so if the member cannot take the heat, he should get out of the kitchen.

The next quote is:

My party's position on the Kyoto Protocol is clear and has been for a long time. We will oppose ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and its targets. We will work with the provinces and others to discourage the implementation of those targets. And we will rescind the targets when we have the opportunity to do so.

Who said that? It was the current Prime Minister, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen, on November 22, 2002.

That is the end of my quotes on the environment.

On the environment, the Conservatives did do one thing. They passed out light bulbs. That was how they were going to address the environmental issue.

It is a budget, and we are talking about various aspects within the budget. The Minister of Finance proudly stood up and talked about having to reduce taxes, and I agree. What the Liberals did, as my colleague from Willowdale said, was approach it in a balanced way. We reduced taxes, we reduced the debt and we put money toward programs that Canadians asked us to invest in, like child care, health care, post-secondary education, our cities, et cetera.

In the previous budget, the Conservatives hummed and hawed about how to reduce taxes. A Canadian sent us his tax form. He asked why the Liberals had reduced his taxes to 15% and now he paid 15.25%. In this budget, they have reduced it back to 15%. By doing this, they say they have lowered taxes. I do not know what math the finance minister learned, but I know that one and one equals two and that one minus three equals two.

We know his record when he was the finance minister in Ontario. The member for Willowdale alluded to the debt with which he left Ontario, unbeknownst to the incoming government.

The finance minister also did one shameful act, which Canadians are still paying for today, and that was the income trust fiasco. When the Liberals looked at it, we knew we had to address it, but we never made any decisions because of an election. This cost Canadians. Why? Because of the NDP.

Today the NDP has the audacity to stand and ask where the money is for social housing, or for the environment or for post-secondary education. Under the former Liberal prime minister, there were $1.6 billion for affordable housing, $1.5 billion for education, $1 billion for the environment and half a billion dollars for foreign aid. I stood up in this honourable House and I supported those recommendations. We applauded them.

What did members of the NDP do? They betrayed not the Liberal Party; they betrayed their constituents, who today are asking what happened to that money.

My colleague earlier alluded to support for child care. This is not child care. This is handing somebody $100 a month, which is taxable.

The member for Peterborough talked earlier about the money which was stolen. It is unfortunate he uses that type of language. Judge Gomery brought everything out and the culprits who indeed took money from Canadians were put before the courts and were charged, convicted and imprisoned.

At least we respected Judge Gomery's results. However, that party used Judge Gomery. Before committee, Judge Gomery expressed his disappointment that all the recommendations he put forward were thrown out by the Conservatives. Part of their victory had to do with Judge Gomery's commission.

The party talks about supporting our military. I have said before, I am a son of a veteran as well. We have stood in the defence committee with the chair, for whom I have great respect. We have done everything we can to support our military. Yesterday we had a vote on a motion from the member for Kitchener—Waterloo about lowering the flag on the Peace Tower. What a shameful display from the Conservative Party.

When the member for Mississauga—Streetsville has to go to the polls the next time and visit his constituents, he will have to answer why he betrayed them. He ran on a policy saying he was going to do this and he was going to do that, and the next thing we knew he walked over to the government. We Canadians are still waiting to see the famous report he put together when he went over to Pakistan. We still want to see it. We want to know how much it cost Canadians.

Anyway, I do not want to move away from the budget speech. Here is what one gentleman said some time ago, and I was really impressed, I must say, so I will quote him. He said that there is no greater lie “than a promise not kept”. Do members know who said that?

Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders

1:05 p.m.

An hon. member

The current Prime Minister.

Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON

No, the current Progressive Conservatives of Newfoundland and Labrador, along with the Prime Minister, of course, because the Prime Minister went out and said to all Canadians that the Liberals wanted to tax Canadians' income trusts, that there was no way for seniors, for everybody; we swear, he said, and he signed it. What was the first thing he did? He went back on his word.

Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders

1:10 p.m.

An hon. member

Absolutely.

Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON

He went back on his word. It was similar to the Chuck Cadman matter. We look him in the face and he says trust us. It is on tape. It is not something we said. It is on tape, so we are not even making it up.

The list goes on, but let me tell members where the government has failed. When we ask Canadians today what is the most important issue for them, they say health care. The Conservative government has put zero into health care. As a matter of fact, let me tell members what the Minister of Health said about the last budget when he was asked the question. He said the Conservatives would continue the funding that the Liberals put in. That is what they are going to do.

As the Liberal team, we stand on our record. We took over a country that was unofficially bankrupt, we straightened out the books, and we had surpluses never before seen in the history of our country. It reminds me of what a presidential candidate said: that the Clintons took care of the mess, the Bushes destroyed it, and now it is going to take Clintons to correct it.

The terrible Tories--which they are not, they are Reformers--really did a number on this country, whereas we took a mess, as Premier McGuinty has done, and corrected it, and now the Conservatives are about to destroy it.

I have one little closing statement. It is embarrassing to have the finance minister, as a member from Ontario, bashing Ontario. Shame on him.

Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders

1:10 p.m.

Souris—Moose Mountain Saskatchewan

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, if the member is wondering why everyone is picking on the Liberal Party, and why Canadians are picking on the Liberal Party, it is because we have a backlog of 800,000 in the immigration system. The wait times are long. They are up to six years. The Liberals voted against our $1.3 billion in new settlement funding. They voted against the foreign credentials referral office. They voted against cutting the immigration head tax of $975. Those are some reasons why everyone is picking on the Liberal Party.

Let me ask if the member knows who said the following:

The world looks to Canada like we have this great immigration system...but you're not doing the system justice by taking applications that aren't going to get processed for years and years and years.

It doesn't make any sense to us to be continually taking these [applications]...the reality is we need to change the system....

We need an immigration system that is in this regard more flexible and responds to employers, the provinces and our cities.

Who said that? It was said by the member for York West, the former Liberal immigration minister. I wonder if the member would agree with what the former Liberal minister said about what needs to be done in our system.

Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, in regard to what the then immigration minister, the member for York West, was saying, she simply was being honest, saying that every individual has the right to apply no matter what the circumstances, even if it is declined once.

At least we Liberals like to believe we live in a democracy, unlike the Conservative Party, where the members have to get permission before they go out to speak, and unlike its candidates, who most recently were not even allowed to speak to the media. The member for Willowdale knows that very well. I remember her commenting on television that she could not even get any debate. The media was going around to ask them questions and they did not pipe up; they were silenced.

The former immigration minister was correct. All these moneys the member is talking about, this government invested in labour--

Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I am going to cut off the member there and go to the member for Yukon for a brief question and comment, and then I will try to get to the hon. member for Peterborough.

Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, is the member embarrassed that the parliamentary secretary is giving false information on immigration when he is the one person who should know? First the parliamentary secretary suggested that in Alberta and Saskatchewan skilled people had to wait six years and the government could not do anything about it, but as we know, there is a provincial program. Being the parliamentary secretary, he more than anyone should know that the provinces have programs through which they can accelerate those people.

Then he said that those for whom the federal government is responsible are waiting four to six years, but we know the government is going to slow it down and it will be even longer because it is fast tracking some people and that will take up more resources. As well, the Conservatives are adding a piddling amount, as the member for Willowdale just pointed out, of less than 1%, so all those other immigrants who are waiting four to six years are going to be waiting even longer. Is that not an embarrassment for the government?

Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON

All I can add to that, Mr. Speaker, is that just the other day the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, the deputy leader of the Liberal Party, clearly pointed out factually how the data the government is providing is completely inaccurate and false. He provided to the House the correct numbers and of course it was embarrassing to the government, which did not respond.

The Conservatives can say all they want to say in this hon. chamber, but the facts are the facts. The data is data and nobody can dispute it. Now I will wait to hear from the member for Peterborough. I look forward to it.

Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I left my office this morning and rode over to the House of Commons, but apparently it is actually Yuk Yuk's here today because I have heard a presentation that sounds more like stand-up comedy than a speech in the House.

I would like to address a couple of things. First of all, the member has a staunch defence of Dalton McGuinty. I suppose he would like to defend the $33 million slush fund. Perhaps he would like to defend the record tax increase by the McGuinty government in 2004 after its promise not to increase taxes. It then came back with the largest tax increase on record.

What I would really like to know from the member is this: does he really think CO2 is an ingredient in smog? It is actually unburnt fuel. I would really like to know, because if that is his knowledge of the environment we know why the Liberals got nothing done on the environment.

Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am not defending Dalton McGuinty. I am defending my proud province of Ontario. Unlike that member who cannot stand up and call a spade a spade, I am defending the cities in Ontario that need support and which the government has completely neglected. I am defending the children of Ontario that the member and his party are neglecting. I am defending the seniors in Ontario that the member and his party are neglecting. I am defending the veterans of Ontario. I am defending all of Canada, which the Conservatives are not.

Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders

1:15 p.m.

Macleod Alberta

Conservative

Ted Menzies ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, let us hope we can bring some order to this House and quiet down the debate to some reasonable and realistic comments.

I rise to speak to the amendment put forward by the NDP to effectively and substantially delay second reading of a very important piece of government legislation.

First, I must express my dismay with the NDP for defending the enormous immigration backlog in this country. The NDP members stand in this House and say that they stand up for immigrants, but they actually are putting forward an amendment that will delay a process which will actually improve and speed up the immigration process.

The backlog, of course, is keeping families apart and is denying Canada the much needed talent and skills that we require to improve our competitiveness and ensure our long term economic prosperity. By extension, that backlog is threatening Canada's quality of life and the strength and the integrity of the social safety net that the NDP claims to champion.

The NDP members, along with their Liberal and Bloc friends, say they support a vibrant 21st century economy. They offer no solutions to address the serious labour force challenges that our country is facing. They fail to recognize that Canada is in fierce competition with other countries to attract the skilled immigrants who have the talent and the training to meet these challenges.

My hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, spoke at length on the need to proceed with these valuable and much needed reforms. I am going to speak to some of the other important measures that these political games are delaying. They are delaying benefits to Canadian families and businesses. We will make it loud and clear to all Canadians that it is the NDP members, along with their Liberal and Bloc allies, who are to blame for these delays.

Bill C-50, as with all our previous budget bills, is primarily about making a positive impact on the lives of Canadians, who for too long were overtaxed and poorly served by their federal government. We committed to changing that and we remain committed to delivering positive results for Canadians.

I know the NDP is never happy about Canadians keeping more of their hard-earned money, but I can assure members that Canadians certainly are excited about the tax-free savings account or, as we call it, TFSA. With the tax-free savings account, budget 2008 provides Canadians with the most important savings vehicle since the introduction of the RRSP. This flexible, registered, general purpose account will allow Canadians to watch their savings grow tax free. The reaction has been almost overwhelmingly positive in support of this TFSA.

I ask members to listen to the words of Finn Poschmann, director of Research at the C.D. Howe Institute. He said:

This tax policy gem is very good news for Canadians, and [the finance minister] and his government deserve credit for a novel program.

Budget 2008 also provides for an increase in the northern residents deductions of 10%, effective for the 2008 tax year, a move with broad positive support, even from the NDP.

Let us listen to the words of NDP member for Western Arctic, who said that it is a positive first step. I note for that particular NDP member the disappointment that his constituents, in the form of a recent Yellowknifer editorial, have already indicated in regard to his first vote against the budget:

Considering the NDP won't form a government at any time soon, it would have been best had [the NDP member from Western Arctic] swallowed the pill and voted with the [Conservative] government.

Let us imagine how much more disappointed they will be in him once they hear that their member is now trying to delay this positive step.

I hear on a daily basis from the NDP that the government is not paying enough attention to the challenges faced by our students. Budget 2008 is a generous budget for students and goes a long way to address the neglect they suffered under the previous Liberal government.

Through Bill C-50, the government is committing $123 million over four years, starting in 2009-10, to streamline and modernize the Canada student loans program and expand online services for students, enabling them to manage their student loan accounts online.

It would provide further support for Canadian students with a $350 million investment in 2009-10, rising to $430 million in 2012-13, in a new consolidated Canada student grant program that would reach 245,000 college and undergraduate students per year when it takes effect in 2009. That is almost 100,000 more students than the previous program that we are replacing.

One can imagine students' disappointment once they hear of today's delays.

We recognize that small and medium businesses are the backbone of our economy and our government is committed to fostering an environment that enables them to thrive.

Budget 2008 would benefit small and medium-sized businesses by improving the scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program and easing the tax compliance burden by reducing the record-keeping requirements for automobile expense deductions and taxable benefits.

We believe that Canadians share our desire to see more of our seniors maintain their independence for as long as possible. This government also recognizes that our seniors will have a valuable contribution to make to our economy, which is why we are investing $60 million per year to ensure that low income seniors who work can realize greater benefits from their earnings through an increase in the guaranteed income supplement exemption. This is one of the most innovative and promising initiatives put forward in budget 2008 and addresses, head on, a serious challenge faced by Canadian society.

Through Bill C-50, we will invest $110 million in the Mental Health Commission of Canada to support five innovative demonstration projects across the country to develop best practices to help Canadians facing mental health and homelessness challenges.

The protection of its citizens is one of the most important responsibilities of a government. We are committed to following through with the resources to show Canadians we take that responsibility very seriously.

To back up our commitment, Bill C-50 provides $400 million through a third party trust for provinces and territories to support their efforts in recruiting 2,500 new front line police officers.

This government believes we can never fully enjoy the benefits of our hard work and unique joys of being fortunate enough to live in a country like Canada if we do not protect our environment as well. Clean air, clean water and clean land are not only what Canadians deserve, they are the bedrock ingredients of our long term prosperity and success as a country. That is why our government has made, and will continue to make, substantial investments in protecting our environment.

Bill C-50 allocates $500 million in 2007-08, through a third party trust, on a provincial-territorial per capita basis, for public transit infrastructure and sets aside $250 million for a full scale, commercial demonstration carbon capture and storage in the coal-fired electrical sector.

As we can see, Bill C-50, the first budget implementation act for 2008, is filled with positive news for Canadians, news that I would have thought the NDP could support and should support. It contains targeted and timely funding to address many of the challenges that our country is facing while, at the same time, introducing the tax-free savings account, one of the most innovative and welcomed savings vehicles to come along since the RRSP.

I encourage the NDP and all opposition parties to put aside petty partisan wrangling and support Bill C-50. If they cannot see their way to doing that, they should at least get out of the way and stop delaying such important legislation.

Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing the debate back to a reasonable level.

First I have a comment and then a technical question on the Bank of Canada.

The member pointed out one of the flaws in the budget related to the territories when he explained that the funding for public transport and police was on a per capita basis. As he knows, we do not have very many per capitas so that turns out to be roughly $180,000 for the territories which are somewhat bigger than every country in Europe. We get in the order of one police person and expenses, which is not significant and not sufficient.

Because the member is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, my question is more of a technical question relating to the changes in Bill C-50 in relation to the Bank of Canada.

The bill provides more flexibility for the Bank of Canada in its investments or more modernization so it can use new tools. I would like the hon. member to explain to the public, which would always be worried if our finances could be invested more liberally, what protections these new changes would bring to the Bank of Canada to ensure these investments would still be safe.