Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to the budget implementation legislation before us. There are two or three points that I would like to pick up on, which I have already had the opportunity to express at least in part, through questions to the former two speakers.
Let me start by talking about time allocation. I will be very brief on that particular point, but I want to read a quote that I have referenced in the past. This is a quote from the Prime Minister, back in the days when he was in opposition. This was before he was the Prime Minister. This is what he had to say about the type of legislation that we are debating today:
We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse? Dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent views of their constituents on each of the different components in the bill.
He went on to comment on how the budget bill, then a Liberal budget bill, was virtually an affront to democracy and the functionality of Parliament. That was what the Prime Minister said back in the days when he was in opposition.
Liberals recognize that there are other aspects brought into budget implementation bills, which the Liberal Party did when it was in government. We recognize that at times there is even a need for things like time allocation. The Liberal Party did that too. However, what is worthy of noting is that never in the history of our federation have we seen such an assault on the democratic principles of accountability and transparency in this House as the majority Conservative government has been exercising in the last few years.
We are talking about massive budget implementation bills, into the thousands of pages combined, in three or four budgets. That is totally unacceptable. We are talking about a record number of time allocation motions, approximately 90, give or take two or three. Time allocation means that government is preventing members of Parliament from standing to speak on important pieces of legislation. What could be more important than the budget when government is spending billions of Canadian tax dollars? Time and time again, the government uses time allocation, not only for this, but it seems for all pieces of legislation. It is a tool that it has been abusing at great cost.
I want to talk about income splitting because it is an important issue. It is more than symbolic. It is an issue that is going to cost, some say $2 billion. I might even suggest that is underestimating it. We are talking about at least $2 billion in taxes. Who is paying the bill for that? Primarily, it is going to be the middle class of Canada who are going to have to come up with that $2 billion.That $2 billion is then going to be given out for income splitting, which a vast majority of Canadians will not see one penny of. There is less than 15% of Canada's population who will receive a benefit from that $2 billion tax for income splitting.
I believe that it encourages inequality and that the government has it wrong. I am glad that the leader of the Liberal Party has taken the right position on this particular issue.
It is interesting that the more the Liberals push on this issue, the more the government says, “Well, we have this child care issue, and that is going to have a lot more impact for all Canadians.” The Conservatives are bundling that into the income splitting because they know that the income split is wrong. A number of Conservatives know that. If we listen to what they have to say, many of them have deep respect for the late Jim Flaherty, the former finance minister. He put together the budget we are debating and was opposed to the income split, and he had a good solid reason. The Liberal Party agrees with the late Conservative finance minister with respect to the income splitting program.
The Prime Minister needs to reverse that policy. He does not have to bundle it into the budget to try to mislead Canadians. Canadians are not stupid. They understand what the government has put forward in terms of the income split.
Another issue that I raised in the form of a question was on the EI premium exemption.
The government often challenges opposition members to come up with ideas. There was an idea that the leader of the Liberal Party brought to the floor of the House, and we challenged the government to recognize the value of the idea. What sort of response did we get? We got the envious New Democrats suggesting that it was not a good thing to do, even though Jack Layton supported the principle of what the Liberal Party was talking about; it was a part of his own election platform. However, I will expand upon that at another time.
What surprises me is that it is the government, this very Prime Minister, who do not recognize the value of what has been offered through the leader of the Liberal Party. We are talking about generating tens of thousands of jobs, in all regions of our country, and this has been confirmed by independent stakeholders, individuals who have a lot to contribute to the debate. There is no question that it would do that.
I would compare that with the government. The government says, “No, we don't want to accept that because we have our own plan.” Its “own plan” is the small business job credit, using EI, talking about deductions on EI. How many jobs would that create? There is a big huge question mark on that issue. Would it be a few thousand jobs? What we do know is that there are critics saying that it such a bizarre plan that it could ultimately lead, in certain situations, to employers laying off employees, that it would be in their financial interest to consider the option of laying off employees. It is not just the Liberal Party that has made that assertion.
We have the Conservatives and the Prime Minister saying that they have a plan. Their plan would be nowhere near as effective as ours, nor does it have anywhere near as much support as the Liberal plan, yet they stand by it and proceed.
I only have one minute left, so perhaps I will talk about the Canada Post issue. I believe that the government has made a mess on the Canada Post issue and that there is a hidden agenda with respect to both the CBC and Canada Post. However, I will focus on Canada Post.
Canada Post announced a while ago that it is ending door-to-door delivery. The current government supports that. The government is the one that is allowing it to occur. That debate never occurred inside this chamber, and I believe that was a huge mistake. I get phone calls. I get people stopping by my office. I get petitions. I get postcards. Canadians are very upset that the government has done nothing on that particular issue.
There is a hidden agenda with Canada Post by this government. It prevails in its lack of desire to deal with what Canadians value, and that is the service provided by Canada Post.
My time has expired. Hopefully I will get a question and maybe I could comment on health care as well.