Debates of March 9th, 2010

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member shares my concerns about the directions in the budget for the review of major energy projects. We are looking forward to the potential for major developments, not only along the Mackenzie but in the Arctic.

It is critical that we have a government in place that will ensure that all the environmental health and social impacts of that scale of development are considered well in advance and that we follow the precautionary principle.

I heard the answer today by the Minister of the Environment to my query about the cutting back of the federal role in environmental assessments. I have heard this argument now for 30 years. I know exactly where it comes from and it is completely unfounded.

I look forward to greater elaboration being provided by the government in its rationale for emasculating its environmental role. We know the agenda of the government is to get rid of the federal government role in environment but it simply cannot do this.

The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the federal government has a clear responsibility for the protection of the environment, a clear responsibility to protect first nations and their lands and peoples, a clear responsibility over fisheries and a clear responsibility over trans-boundary pollution.

With great regret, we received the budget which looks like the federal government is heading in exactly the opposite direction that it should be heading with the major issues that we are facing into the future of Canada.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Edmonton—Strathcona for sharing her time with me.

It is a sad irony that I rise today to speak to the budget just after International Women's Day because the budget offers nothing to women and children. In fact, it offers nothing in the area of job creation or in protecting seniors' pensions.

If the government cared about regions like Nickel Belt, we would have seen a completely different budget last week.

Here are some facts about my constituency: Statistics Canada indicates that Greater Sudbury is the worst recession-affected region in Ontario, relative to our population. While national unemployment figures are improving, our region’s are getting worse. As of December 2009, the unemployment rate in our area was 9.8%, compared to 8.5% nationally. A little over a year ago our unemployment rate was 4.9%.

Our communities are also feeling the impact of an 8-month strike by United Steel Workers of America Local 6500, at Vale Inco, the Brazilian-owned mining company in our community.

And yet, people face these challenges with steely determination and a true sense of community. I am so proud to represent the people of Nickel Belt.

They deserve so much and certainly deserve much more than what this budget offers them, and that is why I cannot support this budget as it is written.

The finance minister was quite proud of his corporate tax cuts, tax cuts that have taken hundreds of billions of dollars out of the revenues that pay for job creation, pension reform, health care, child care, education, infrastructure and fighting climate change. The government likes to spin a great fairy tale that these and other deep cuts have stimulated the economy.

The numbers tell the real story: corporate tax breaks have not stimulated investment, they have not stimulated innovation, nor have they increased productivity in Canada.

Despite a 36% drop in corporate taxes, both provincial and federal, in the last decade and record profits for much of this time, business spending on machinery and equipment has declined as a share of the GDP, and total business investment spending has declined as a percentage of corporate cashflow. The source of this data is none other than Statistics Canada and Finance Canada.

Further, Canada's business sector productivity in 2007 was 75% of that of the U.S., down from 90% in the early 1980s. This is despite cuts in the federal corporate income tax rates from nearly 40% to the current 18%.

In 1999, the year before former finance minister Paul Martin's tax cuts, Canada was fifth on the World Economic Forum's competitive list. Today we are in ninth place. That is well behind most Nordic countries that collect as much as 50% of their GDP in taxes each year.

The facts are clear about the ineffectiveness of tax cuts.

And yet, this government prefers to continue to spread falsehoods about corporate tax cuts, while planning to increase employment insurance premiums at the end of the year, when workers are just beginning to dig themselves out from a mountain of debt.

Where is the help for the real victims of the recession?

My office regularly receives calls from constituents who are having to depend on food banks to supplement their nutritional needs, some whose employment insurance benefits are running out and some who are on the verge of losing their cars and homes.

That is the real world in which we are living. Sure, we have turned a corner, but we need to take care of our people and we need to deliver help now.

Among OECD countries, Canada has already ranked last for its lack of investment in child care. The government failed to commit to funding the New Democrat's children's health and nutrition initiative, which would have provided a daily nutritious meal to all Canadian children.

The Heart and Stroke Foundation states that it is imperative to take immediate action to curb childhood obesity by promoting healthy eating if Canada is to reduce the $22.2 billion loss in health care costs and lost productivity from illnesses like heart disease.

Results in the groundbreaking study by the Alzheimer's Society called “Rising Tide: The Impact of Dementia on Canadian Society”, pointed to an urgent need for immediate action by all governments. It states:

The Rising Tide study tells us that if we do nothing, the number of Canadians with dementia in 2038 will be twice that of 2008. Over this 30-year period, the cumulative cost of dementia is projected to be $872 billion. It tells us that if we do nothing, dementia will have a crippling effect on Canadian families, our health care system and economy.

Maintaining the status quo is not an option. We must take action today.

Where is the plan in the budget to address this impending crisis?

I would like to tell the government that we have invested in foreign ownership in our region of Sudbury and Nickel Belt. The government wants to again reduce the rules concerning foreign investment in Canada. Has it not learned anything from what has happened in Sudbury with Inco being purchased by Vale Inco from Brazil? This company has had our employees on strike for eight months and it does not want to negotiate. The union tried to negotiate last week but the company said that it would not agree to anything. The union asked for binding arbitration but the company said no. The company wants to implement its third world mentality on the workers of Sudbury.

The other company, Xstrata, has closed some mines in the outlying areas and is concentrating on one mine only. What it is doing is high-grading. High-grading means that it is taking the very best at very little cost and leaving the rest behind. What will happen in the future is that we will have some mines in the outlying areas that we will not be able to afford and they will come to the government for handouts to help them mine those smaller mines.

New Democrats are doing their best to make this Parliament work. They want to create family-supporting jobs, help the seniors who built this country, provide adequate child care, address the looming healthcare crisis and protect this planet for the next generation by building a clean-energy future.

What we need is for this government to also make this Parliament work. It could start by reversing these cuts immediately and adopting the NDP amendment to the amendment.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

Madam Speaker, I will ask my hon. friend a reasonably simple question.

Last year's budget did in fact contain funding for the National Research Council and the granting councils, including some funding through the Federal Economic Development Agency, that actually did provide funding for dementia research and various dementia initiatives. Last year, the member and his party voted against that budget.

This year there is more money for these organizations which will continue the work on dementia. It is a very serious issue that this government is working to get on top of. Again, however, it is my impression that members of the NDP intend to vote against that. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot stand in the House and say that we need to do this and then vote against it when we do it.

How does the member respond to those silly directions he is getting from his leader?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will respond to that silly question.

First, if we do not put in more money for the Alzheimer Society, we will be in a crisis. The little amount of money that the government has put into Alzheimer's research will just not do it. We need to stop the corporate tax cuts and use that money to invest in our women, children, seniors, health care and education.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was quite taken by the discussion my colleague presented to the House in regard to the need for infrastructure and investment and the irony of corporate tax cuts.

It would seem to me that no corporation, no matter where, can function, be profitable or establish itself without the support of the community. Roads, infrastructure, affordable housing, health care and education are things that make people strong and those people make the corporations strong.

I wonder if he would comment on the counterintuitiveness of de-funding the very things that allow corporations to function in favour of treating them to unlimited goodies.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, unless we roll back the corporate tax cuts, we will have the money to deal with the issues that the hon. member has mentioned. As I stated a while ago, if we were to roll back the tax cuts we could invest money in women, children, seniors and in our infrastructure.

The corporate tax cuts are not working in the first place, and I will give an example. In Welland, John Deere, which had several hundred employees and profited by these generous tax cuts, just closed shop and moved to Mexico anyway. It is not working.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will go along with the same train of thought regarding the tax shift that the government is conducting from corporations to Canadians.

I want to mention the whole idea of not making the polluters pay for the environmental damage that they do. For example, the government is encouraging the oil companies to speed up exploitation of the tar sands and to export the unprocessed bitumen to the United States. The government is taking on a corporate cost and imposing it on the rest of us and future generations of Canadians. The U.S. gets our oil and we absorb the cost. This is one more tax shift. I would like to ask the member whether this is fair.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, unless we change our policies on the environment and make the companies that pollute clean up, the only people who are going to pay for this cleanup are ordinary Canadian men and women. They are the ones who can least afford it.

Those who can afford it are the companies that are profiting throughout Canada. They are making billions and are leaving our country when they are done, and we are left to pay for what they leave behind.

Again, we should reconsider the tax cuts the government wants to implement and use the money for seniors, women and children.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am going to split my time with the hon. member for Prince Edward—Hastings.

It is a pleasure and honour to rise today to talk about a budget that is good for Canada and good for my riding of Leeds—Grenville. I want to begin my remarks by congratulating the Minister of Finance for developing a budget that assists Canada and Canadians as we recover from the economic downturn, and one that looks ahead to set the stage for future growth and prosperity in our great country.

As I travelled around my riding over the past few months, I met with many people who wanted to discuss the upcoming budget and the state of the Canadian economy. I held three separate prebudget consultation meetings and also encouraged people to contact me by email or letter if they had comments on the budget process.

Some people had specific issues they wished to discuss. By and large the remarks I heard from everyone can be described easily; people were concerned about the fragile state of the recovery, jobs, future growth and the deficit.

The deficit question was puzzling for everyone. While everyone wanted the taps turned off or restricted, they did not want them restricted for their own priorities. In a roomful of people with different priorities, it definitely created an interesting discussion.

There are a lot of details in the budget document but I want to discuss one or two of those in general, and then discuss some of the items that I really see helping Leeds—Grenville.

The first item I want to spend a few minutes on is the three-point deficit reduction plan. At the end of the day, all of my discussions in Leeds—Grenville ended with this one concern: How are we going to make sure that we do not have a deficit hanging around for many years to come?

Once again I applaud the finance minister for the plan that he has developed. The budget sets out a three-point plan to balance the federal government budget once the economy has recovered. The first step in the plan is the exit strategy that was built into Canada's economic action plan. When this plan was introduced it was designed to stimulate the economy for two years.

As I discussed budget items in my riding over the past few months, I heard time and time again how pleased people were that our economic action plan contained spending for infrastructure of all types. Municipal leaders and others recognize that since infrastructure needed replacing, rebuilding and growth, this was an excellent way to kickstart the economy at this time.

At the same time the projects that have been and are being undertaken in my riding will bring lasting benefits for many decades to come. While there is always a need for more infrastructure work, everyone knows that at some time the tap has to be turned off. I heard the following point made throughout my riding: continue with the program as planned, but do not carry it beyond its expiry date.

That does not mean the taps are going to close completely and it does not slam the door if there is an emergency, but the government's plan sets reduction targets that all can see and understand.

Under our government military spending has increased nearly $3 billion to $18 billion. This was necessary. In fact it was absolutely essential after 10 years of neglect and starvation by the previous government. We have shown the men and women in our armed forces that we stand with them and we want them to have the best equipment and the best training for the work we ask them to undertake on our behalf.

One example we can cite from recent events is the heavy lift capability we have provided to our armed forces. After the recent earthquake in Haiti, we were able to get forces and equipment on site in record amounts and in record time, thanks to our government's investments and actions to obtain modern transport equipment.

If the Canadian forces are to make a difference in people's lives around the world, they require the best equipment and the best training. We have spent a great deal on the armed forces in the past few years. While spending will continue, this will be one area where we will exercise restraint while we bring the deficit under control. It is important to note that we will not cut the military budget. In fact spending will continue to grow over the next few years to reach $22 billion.

Because of the measures that have been outlined in the budget, the deficit is projected to decline by almost half over the next two years, by two-thirds by 2012-13, and is projected to be $1.8 billion by 2014-15.

There are many components of the budget, including helping with apprenticeships through the apprenticeship completion grant.

Moreover, since 2006 we have also taken steps to support the financial security of seniors, something that is very important in my riding. We brought in pension income splitting. We increased the age limit for RRSP to RRIF conversions from age 69 to 71. We increased the age credit amount twice. We doubled the pension income credit to $2,000. We provided seniors with a tax-free way to save in tax-free savings accounts. Withdrawals from these will not affect eligibility for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement.

We will continue to address pension and retirement income concerns, which are very important in my riding of Leeds—Grenville.

We have also started to work on this issue with the provinces, which regulate 90% of the pensions in Canada. This year we will consult with Canadians on larger reforms to the Canadian pension and retirement system and build on the work that we have undertaken with the provinces at a May summit on this issue.

When it was introduced, Canada's economic action plan provided significant new resources to support Canada's transformation to a green energy economy. My riding of Leeds—Grenville has very much become a hotbed of green technology, supported in large part by the investments of this government. Those include $1 billion over five years under the clean energy fund and $1 billion over five years through the green infrastructure fund. Those two things have created jobs in my riding of Leeds—Grenville.

Before I close, I would like to speak a bit about some of the direct assistance that has been coming to my riding of Leeds—Grenville, which has been well received. The first item on the list would be the recognition of the work that is conducted by our community futures development corporations. These organizations, which are driven by local boards of directors, are the federal government's eyes and ears and are the pocketbooks of local economic development, and they do reflect community priorities.

I have said it many times in many places that this is the model of federal economic development that really works in my riding of Leeds—Grenville. The local board reviews applications for funding and assistance and, based on its working knowledge of the community, makes decisions. The three boards that serve us in Leeds—Grenville do outstanding work and I can never thank them enough for all of their efforts to help create jobs in my riding. Our new budget continues to support them and is great news for Leeds—Grenville.

Like other areas of Ontario, manufacturing in Leeds—Grenville has been affected by the recent downturn in the economy. Some manufacturers have unfortunately closed, but others that I have worked with have been able to use the work-sharing program that is funded through Service Canada. This unique program allows employers to retain their trained and valuable staff when there is a work slowdown, because Service Canada will pay part of the employees' wages. This program, once again, has helped save jobs and has been used successfully in Leeds—Grenville.

On a final note, personal income tax reductions are very much part of our economic action plan and affect everyone. These tax reductions are being achieved through adjustments to federal tax brackets, enhancing the working income tax benefits for lower income earners, higher child benefits, and lower taxes for low and middle income seniors.

In summary, this is a good news budget for Canada, it is a good news budget for Leeds—Grenville, it reflects what I heard in my prebudget consultations and it reflects well the values of the people who spoke to me through that process.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was pleased that the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville talked about green technology and green jobs because in the 2008 election, the Conservatives almost destroyed a gentleman's reputation with misinformation because he was advocating green technology and green jobs. Now they have jumped on green technology and I am pleased to hear that.

I am also pleased that he has direct assistance in his riding. My riding of Scarborough Centre has a population of 127,000 people and has received nothing in direct assistance. Earlier on the gentleman from Essex talked about the tens of millions of dollars in his riding.

The Greek community in metropolitan Toronto is asking for $1 million for its first sports and cultural recreation centre and all the ministers said no, no, no. I asked them if they had anything against Greek Canadians.

The last question I will ask him is this. He talks about the debt and deficit. There is a chart here that shows the accumulated debt keeps going up. How does he justify that to Canadians?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question on green technology because in Leeds—Grenville there is a lot of land right now that we can use for solar power. Just outside of my riding on Wolf Island, there is a new wind energy centre. We also have a model forest and a wood products centre. There is also a new ethanol plant that was just opened in Leeds—Grenville, which has received considerable assistance from the federal government as that industry gets up and running. This has created jobs that are very timely. The construction and operation of this new ethanol plant is not only helping our farmers in Leeds—Grenville, but is good for the economy and good for the environment.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was intrigued by the hon. member's comments. He called a more than $50 billion deficit a good news budget.

I could ask a question about the principle of borrowing money from future generations to provide a corporate tax cut that is not needed by corporations that are already doing all right. I could also ask a question about the handing off of environmental assessments for oil and gas projects to oil and gas companies as a fundamentally flawed principle of the government.

Specifically, I want to ask the question that follows. The hon. member mentioned the idea of helping municipalities. Does the hon. member believe that the formula of one-third from the federal government, one-third from the provincial government, and one-third from local government for projects is a good formula, if it precipitates a have-not policy for communities that cannot raise their one-third share? Those are the very communities most in need of help from the government. Does the hon. member believe in that formula which the government still promotes?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is in fact a good formula. The reason it is a good formula is that we have local taxpayers and their councils, who know best how to make decisions on projects that should go ahead, putting their money on the table rather than people who are not close to the situation making those decisions here in Ottawa.

Those decisions to spend that money are made because the local taxpayers are putting up one-third of the money. The projects clearly reflect community priorities and are supported by the provinces across the country and by this federal government.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like the hon. member, if he has a chance, to expand on the importance of the community development corporations in his riding. As members, we all have these types of organizations in our ridings that help us with these issues. I would like the hon. member to comment on how they have helped.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have long been a champion of this type of community economic development. These development corporations have served my riding of Leeds—Grenville very well. They help to fund small projects, and sometimes larger projects. They help create jobs on the ground.

Once again, speaking about reflecting community priorities, who better to make the decisions and push forward local projects than the people on the ground? The three community development corporations that serve my riding, the Thousand Islands Community Development Corporation, the Grenville Community Futures Development Corporation, and Valley Heartland Community Futures Development Corporation, all do excellent work. I cannot commend them enough for the fine work they do in my riding.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am tremendously pleased to stand today and speak about our government's new federal budget which is focused on job creation and growth to support Canada's economic recovery. The budget also rightly includes a disciplined long-term plan to return to balanced budgets.

Before I discuss the budget let us go back a little bit. Although Canada was drawn into a global recession, the deepest global recession since the thirties, through good planning we have entered this recession really in much better shape than the rest of the industrialized world. Canada has stood up to the global recession better than virtually all other major industrialized countries.

Since taking office in 2006, this government has reduced taxes and aggressively paid down debt so that today, even after the effects of the recession, Canada boasts the lowest debt to GDP ratio in the G7 and Canada's decline in real GDP was virtually the smallest of all G7 countries.

Canadian labour markets have fared much better than in the U.S. where job losses are proportionately three times larger than in Canada. Canadian domestic growth has rebounded more strongly than in all of the G7 countries since the beginning of 2009 and really has led Canada out of this recession in mid-2009 and gaining strength. Credit strength in Canada has remained solid with continued strong household credit growth and business credit growth is showing signs of stabilization, and an increasing level of confidence.

Canadian banks and other financial institutions were better capitalized and less leveraged than their international peers. As a result, we are widely acknowledged as having the soundest banking system in the world and recognized by no less an authority than the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Canada's housing market has not seen the excesses that have caused instability and housing bubbles in other jurisdictions. Strategies in Canada's economic action plan were designed to protect Canadians during this recession. Measures like the popular home renovation tax credit, which has helped average Canadian families upgrade the value of their homes and save taxes which means consequently more money in their pocket at the end of the day. It also means creating jobs and that in turn boosts the economy. In my riding of Prince Edward—Hastings there are many constituents who have taken advantage of this tax credit.

Another measure was funding for infrastructure in communities across Canada. This funding has kept many people employed, boosted the economy, laid a rock solid foundation for long-term economic growth and will leave us with tangible long-term assets.

Clearly our plan is working. We are seeing the signs of economic recovery; however, economic recovery does remain fragile as most people realize and the government's new budget recognizes this fragility and creates ways and means of allowing for steady growth and prosperity while returning to budget balance once the economy has recovered.

My riding of Prince Edward—Hastings is a very large and diverse riding. It is about a four and a half hour drive from one end to the other. It contains people who work in all sectors from agriculture, to tourism, to manufacturing, forestry and really everything in between.

I have travelled extensively throughout this riding through its length and breadth consulting with and listening to constituents, business owners, farmers, wine growers, clerks, cashiers, pensioners and the students. I have heard their concerns, their dreams, their hopes, and their ideas for a better Canada.

I was also proud and pleased to be a member of the finance committee, a committee which held ongoing consultations with Canadians across this land, Canadians from all walks of life, from provincial and municipal leaders to business leaders, major economic stakeholders, to the individual pensioner with an intelligent and innovative idea.

Our government has also held public town hall meetings and roundtables throughout the country. No government in history has ever reached out to so many to create a budget. Our government listened to Canadians' priorities and that is why this year's budget is a jobs and growth budget, the number one clear priority for Canadians.

It builds on Canada's economic action plan to solidify our recovery. In year two of the plan we are investing $19 billion to stimulate our economy and to complete the rapid rollout of stimulus projects in order to create jobs right now.

Budget 2010 also confirms the Conservative government's strong support for the provinces. Like other provinces, my home province of Ontario will continue to receive increased federal support through budget 2010. Total transfers will hit $18.8 billion in 2010-11, an increase of $801 million from last year and $6.9 billion more than under the previous Liberal government.

Under that previous Liberal government, that starved provinces and municipalities of much needed support, it really started the downloading trend. The Conservative government has increased key transfers: $927 million through equalization; $9.9 billion to through the Canada health transfer, an increase of $243 million over last year, pro-rated at 6% per year; and $4.3 billion in social transfers, an increase of $1.2 billion since 2005-06 or 36.6%.

Year two of Canada's economic action plan will also provide over $1.3 billion in personal income tax relief in 2010-11 to help workers and families in Ontario manage through difficult economic conditions. This means allowing people to earn more income before paying federal income taxes and before being subject to higher tax rates; the enhanced working income tax benefit, which reduces the welfare wall by making work pay better for many low income Canadians; higher child benefits for parents and lower taxes for low and middle income seniors.

In conclusion, I am pleased to say that the budget addresses the challenges that face us and prepares the way for building our economy in the long-term.

It looks out for business owners who create the jobs that Canadians need. It looks out for seniors who are the vulnerable heart of our community. It looks out for farmers who put the food on our tables. It looks out for Canadian workers whose toil and effort drive the economy. It looks out for young people who will inherit and build upon the legacy that we leave them. It looks out for all people in all provinces and territories. It really looks out for all of us.

Recently, at the winter Olympics, our athletes proved that grit, hard work and tenacity paid off time and time again. I believe this is Canada's year. We are open for business. We are dedicated. We are working hard and we are building a Canada that will continue to care, share and prosper.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, with respect to our athletes, I agree with the hon. gentleman, and thanks to the Liberal government's own the podium program they did reach those goals.

The member talked about debt. Often when we ask questions about the budget, the Conservatives say, “Read the budget”. I have read the budget and I have the government's graph which says the debt today is $463 billion and by 2014-15 it is going to be $622 billion; that is $160 billion or so more. Either the government's graph is lying to me or I am lying to the member.

I have one simple question. He talked about the employers in his riding and several thousand employees. I hope they continue to grow and prosper like all Canadians.

However, on page 52 of the budget there is a steady decline in EI premiums between the period of 2000 and 2006-07, which was a Liberal administration. After that, for the next three years, it stayed steady.

According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, in its words, the government is going to be increasing the EI premiums well over $13 billion, which in the finance minister's own words is a job killer, costing us over 200,000 jobs.

What does the member then, I ask, tell his employers and his employees who are going to be hit with one of the largest tax increases in Canadian history?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can tell the hon. member one thing we are not going to do. As a small businessperson for 38 years, I was one of those people who paid into employer deductions as did my employees. There was a surplus created of $56 billion in a dedicated account, and what happened? The Liberal government, the party across the way, and the gentleman who is so proud of maintaining that, took those dedicated funds and put them into the general coffers and spent it. This government will not go down that route.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, once again, the government is shifting taxes from businesses to working Canadians in many ways, such as the harmonization sales tax, the HST, in Ontario and B.C.

In fact, budget 2010 shows the government intends to rely on personal income taxes for more than four times as large a share of the revenues in future as a contribution from corporate income taxes. Ordinary Canadians will pay four times more in personal income tax than corporations.

It is also important to note that since wealthy Canadians receive a large portion of their income in the form of stock options, equity or dividends from profits, corporate tax cuts actually increase their income. Furthermore, their income is taxed at a lower rate than the income of the average worker.

I would like to ask the member, how is this fair?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think it is safe to say that the member and I have a difference of opinion in political philosophy and a difference in ideology. It certainly is not a difference of opinion as far as personal values are concerned, but there is a difference of opinion between who pays in this country.

Everybody wants to have social programs. Everybody needs them. Everybody wants to care for people. I think it is the Canadian way. We have also heard the old story about killing the goose that lays the golden egg. If we do not look after our tax base where there is a level of income coming in, then we cannot have an affordable caring society. That really is the major difference between the hon. member and myself.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

Madam Speaker, the member has worked very hard for his riding, and I want to applaud him on the round tables that he has had and the information he has been able to feed back to me. My colleague mentioned programs that help seniors and students. Some of those programs were introduced in last year's budget and again in this year's budget. How did the NDP vote on those programs?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Madam Speaker, the budget was comprised of so many elements that reached out to different parts of the community, and regretfully the NDP voted against it.

One of them in particular of course was the knowledge infrastructure plan. A community college in my riding is literally the cornerstone for the development of youth in our community. A major infrastructure improvement is going on at that place. There is a new skills centre for the retraining of our unemployed people. There is investment in research and science and technology.

The way of the future is looking after our young people and preparing them for the jobs of tomorrow.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on behalf of the people of my riding of Châteauguay—Saint-Constant and denounce the terrible budget the Conservatives have delivered.

I must denounce this budget, which proves in black and white that the most vulnerable members of our society are not a priority for the Conservative government—far from it.

There is no tax credit improvement for informal caregivers, the majority of whom are women. There is nothing to improve the guaranteed income supplement, while poverty strikes more women than men, especially among seniors.

Many of my colleagues have already explained how this budget has once again missed an excellent opportunity to meet the various needs of the people of Quebec.

Personally, as the Bloc Québécois critic for seniors, I can very easily demonstrate how the measures for the well being and security of Quebec's seniors represent some of the most pitiful aspects of the new Conservative budget.

As in previous budgets, the Conservative government still appears determined to completely ignore the demands of seniors. It has confirmed once again its insensitivity and utter unwillingness to do anything for our most vulnerable seniors and informal caregivers.

One of the most important seniors' organizations in Quebec, the Fédération de l'Âge d'Or du Québec, better known as the FADOQ network, has bitterly noted that seniors have been completely left out of this federal budget.

Nothing for low-income seniors. Nothing for caregivers. Nothing for experienced workers. Nothing for home care. Nothing for 160,000 Canadians who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement but are not receiving it. These are the highlights of the last federal budget which, once again, ignores the needs of seniors. The FADOQ network [which has more than 270,000 members] has every reason to believe that the government...is putting seniors last and that the deficit reduction will be carried out at the expense of seniors.

The Conservative government has not addressed any of FADOQ's demands with respect to the guaranteed income supplement. This situation is completely unacceptable.

For its part, the Association québécoise des retraité(e)s des secteurs public et parapublic (AQRP) believes that the federal budget only offers a consolation prize to Quebec's seniors by creating a seniors' day because:

...they did not announce any improvements to the guaranteed income supplement (GIS) to ensure that the income of Quebec's seniors is at least at the poverty line.

This is a sad description of our seniors' situation, but a realistic one.

The Bloc Québécois holds the same views of the Conservatives' appalling budget, which illustrates this government's chronic lack of compassion.

This government is trying to deceive seniors and hoping to make them believe that it really cares about their needs.

Our seniors are old enough to know better. They have seen right through the charades of this insensitive Prime Minister.

What is in this budget to make the lives of seniors and caregivers any better? The folks at FADOQ said it best: next to nothing.

It is not hard to figure out. First, the new horizons for seniors program is getting a mere $10 million over two years.

Second, some particularly imaginative people will argue that seniors are going to benefit from the tax breaks announced by the government, but that measure was in the 2009 budget. This government seems to enjoy recycling old news.

Third and last, the budget adds insult to injury by creating a seniors day. Sure, it is a nice idea, and the Bloc Québécois supports it because we owe it to our seniors to take the time to express our gratitude publicly.

However, it will also provide a perfect opportunity to criticize the government's failure to respond to our seniors' expectations. Thousands of low-income seniors know that a special day for seniors does not put food on the table.

In fact, how are they supposed to celebrate their special day without enough money to do so? What these men and women want is the same thing the Bloc Québécois has been asking for since 2001 when it found out that over 68,000 senior Quebeckers who were eligible for the guaranteed income supplement were not receiving it.

Since then, the Bloc has been calling for a $110 monthly increase in benefits, automatic registration of persons 65 and older who are entitled to this supplement, continued guaranteed income supplement and old age security payments for a period of six months for a bereaved spouse, and full retroactivity of the guaranteed income supplement for seniors who have been short-changed.

Since this is International Women's Week, I want to point out that these measures would primarily affect women, who make up 56% of the senior population and a significant majority of seniors living in poverty.

Recently, during the Bloc Québécois' prebudget tour, seniors also spoke about the need to improve the spouse's allowance and the surviving spouse's allowance, two measures that once again concern mainly women. These allowances are crucial so that recipients can have a decent standard of living when their spouse dies.

But the Conservatives, true to form and preoccupied with boosting the banks' and western oil companies' bottom line, chose to ignore Quebeckers' unanimous support for increasing the guaranteed income supplement and spouse's allowances.

Even worse, this Conservative government is worrying seniors with its announcement that it will review Canada's retirement income system this spring in order to fight the deficit. This shows a truly appalling contempt for the elderly and especially for women, who are very much affected by all the measures that benefit seniors and informal caregivers.

All in all, this empty budget is a public relations exercise, with dozens of little measures to please everyone. There is every indication that the middle class, workers and maybe even seniors will pay for the deficit caused by the economic crisis that hit us so hard in 2009. Even though the poorest members of our society are still being hit hard by the effects of the crisis, the Conservative budget shamelessly ignores them.

By refusing to increase the guaranteed income supplement and introduce an assistance program for workers 55 and older, the government is turning its back on necessary measures. While the poor are being left to their fate, the government is refusing to make the rich pay. Meanwhile, the rich are giving themselves generous bonuses.

Unless the government makes substantial amendments to this budget, the Bloc Québécois will vote against it, because it is not fair to Quebec. I am certain that when the next general election is held, our friends opposite are going to pay dearly for ignoring our seniors. I will do everything in my power to ensure that the Conservatives can never again openly express their contempt for seniors, women and the poorest Quebeckers in our society.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for talking about the social deficit in Canada and particularly about seniors.

The member may be aware that although the government boasts it allowed pension splitting for seniors, only 25% of seniors have pensions that qualify for the splitting. If we take out those who do not have a partner to split with or those who are already at the lowest marginal tax rate, only 14% of seniors actually benefit from pension income splitting and those seniors have the highest incomes of seniors, which is a problem.

Also, other seniors who do not have pension plans may have invested in income trusts. The member will know, notwithstanding the government says that it is not raising personal taxes, that on January 1, 2011, it will be imposing a 31.5% tax on income trusts.

Would the member care to amplify on the last point she made, that it appears the government is helping those who are the least needy in our society and ignoring those who have very little security in their years of retirement? What would she recommend for them to live in dignity and respect?

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question.

The measures he addressed on income splitting are for seniors who earn substantial incomes, allowing them to split their incomes in order to pay less tax.

My comments were about seniors who do not have substantial incomes. Seniors with an income of less than $14,900 live below the poverty line. They have difficulty keeping a roof over their heads or paying for their food and drugs. This is an extremely vulnerable portion of the population. We cannot tell these people to return to the workforce or to find another solution. There are no other solutions. They are at the end of their days and they have to live in wretched conditions.

The government is very insensitive to this portion of the population, which I think is the most vulnerable.

I agree with the hon. member that the measures implemented by this government do not help in any way the least fortunate in our society, in other words, our seniors and informal caregivers.