Keith Martin

[Canada Elections Act, January 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, for the member's information, my householder was written a few weeks ago. If he wants a copy, I would be happy to send him one.

The reality is that this particular bill is part of a larger pattern of behaviour on the part of the government. It tells the public one thing but does something entirely different.

For example, the government cut EnerGuide saying that it was a useless program and then resurrected it as something else but watered it down to a pale shadow of its former self. The government claims to be in favour of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The government gives parents $1,200 for child care, but the reality is there is tax on that. The government is not telling the public. The government has also talked about the Pacific gateway strategy--

[Canada Elections Act, January 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act.

It is important at the outset to give accolades to Elections Canada and the men and women who serve in that institution. What is probably not well-known by many listeners today is that the people who work at Elections Canada are world-class individuals who do world-class work. The proof in the pudding is that they have been asked time and time again to lend their expertise to countries that are trying to get out of environments that were highly undemocratic and often fraught with individuals who grossly abused their power and often dictatorships. Canada, through Elections Canada, has given those countries the ability to move from a dictatorship to a democracy.

One individual who is more responsible for that happening than anyone else, someone who is one of the best and brightest, is the head of Elections Canada, Jean-Pierre Kingsley. He has led Elections Canada and, under his 16 year tenure, has moved it into an institution that is world-class.

Elections Canada has served in many areas. I remember during the time when South Africa was moving from its dark days of apartheid into a rainbow nation and a democracy, it was Canada that came to the forefront to help out the South Africans to do something that was utterly inspiring and quite remarkable in moving from a draconian system into one that is a democracy without bloodshed.

All of us remember those times so long ago when we saw lineups of people that would extend for kilometres, individuals who for the first time in their life were able to exercise that most remarkable of democratic rights, the right to vote. Canada played an extraordinary role in that, as did Elections Canada. In fact, Jean-Pierre Kingsley and his team had a lot to do with it, as they did in the Ukraine, Democratic Republic of Congo, Aceh and so many others.

Unfortunately, the government has, ironically, squeezed Mr. Kingsley out of his position. No longer will Jean-Pierre Kingsley be Canada's Chief Electoral Officer and, in that, we all lose.

If we are to have electoral reform, what is one thing that we could do to dramatically improve the ability of individuals to exercise that mighty right to put their check mark against somebody's name they want to represent them? It is electronic voting. In this era of new Windows operating systems, in these powerful computers that we have today and powerful operating systems, does it make sense that we cannot use the technologies that we have today to enable Canadians to vote electronically? There is no reason whatsoever, without putting the appropriate checks and balances in place, that we cannot have electronic voting.

One can just imagine what we could do if that were an option for Canadians to vote in a federal election. One can just imagine what that would do in terms of being able to garner and allow a greater number of people to exercise this right that so many have gone before and given their lives to enable us to do.

It would be a remarkable thing and, in particular, for a couple of populations: first, populations that are isolated, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, as members have mentioned before; and, second, youth. We know that many youth are not getting their information and news from traditional media. They are getting it through other means, often through computers and through the Internet. Why not tap into that and enable people to vote electronically which would enable people to exercise their democratic right and strengthen the democratic pillars of our country. It would be a remarkable thing.

Perhaps what is more important than how we elect individuals is the ability of those who we choose to come to this mighty House to exercise their ability to represent their constituents. I am talking about democratic reform. The Conservative Party's roots were in the Reform Party, and I was a member of that party. In part we came to this House to democratize it. What happen to those ideals of that party long ago?

What happened to enabling all members of Parliament to innovate, to drive and implement ideas, to work with members across party lines, to work with the bureaucracy, to work with the best and brightest in our country to implement the solutions that Canadians need?

Our constituents have less patience for the shenanigans that take place in this House. They have much more interest in their elected officials doing their jobs and implementing solutions in the best interests of the public. All of us here are trying to do that.

Mr. Speaker, you sir, have been here much longer than many of us and have seen that the system has declined over time. Particularly over the last year there has been a precipitous decline.

The Prime Minister was a member of the Reform Party. He knows from where I came. His view is different from that party's. His view is the opposite of reforming Parliament. He is an acolyte of the Straussian view of the world and believes that a small group of people are destined to rule. This is a dangerous thing. We see it now where decisions are not being made among the Conservative caucus but decisions are being dictated to the caucus by the Prime Minister's Office. A tiny group of people in the Prime Minister's Office is making decisions for everybody. It has to be disheartening for members who can serve their constituents, their communities, this House, and our country well with their individual expertise. They are innovative and they have solutions to offer that can be implemented in the public interest. Why is that no happening?

The government is being utterly remiss in not offering solutions that we can work on. My colleague from Vancouver Quadra is a world-class innovator. He knows how we can democratize and liberate Parliament. He knows how we can draw the best and brightest to the House in the interests of the public. The Prime Minister and his caucus could tap into the expertise and knowledge of individuals like my colleague from Vancouver-Quadra. There are others who can offer similar solutions.

Why can we not reform the committees of the House? Why can we not allow individuals on those committees to do a better job for their constituents? There is no reason that cannot happen.

One of the things the government could do with respect to the public service that would be innovative would be to abolish the mandatory age of retirement. The mandatory age of retirement was set when the lifespan of individuals was in the late fifties, not today's lifespan which is 79 years for a man and 81 years for a woman. That would be an innovative way to reform the public service act. That is not included in this bill but it ought to be.

On the issue of accountability which the government speaks about, one of the big lies is the government's Federal Accountability Act. It is one of the government's initiatives where it is pulling the wool over people's eyes. The Federal Accountability Act is causing gridlock in the public service. It will not enable the public service to do its job and liberate the innovation that resides in the outstanding men and women who serve in our public service. That is a shame. The public is not aware of this. The Federal Accountability Act works counter to the public interest.

It is important that--

[Canada Pension Plan, January 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, speaking for my colleagues, we are all very happy that the hon. member is back again to faithfully represent his constituents in the House.

Could the member comment on the fact that seniors' issues are being neglected by the government and the fact that the Liberal government in the 1990s did something that very few other western countries had done, and that was to put pension stability first and foremost, successfully putting our public pensions on a firm fiscal footing? That has not been done, to my knowledge, by any other western nation. Our former finance minister deserves a great deal of credibility for that.

Does the member not think that seniors' issues, in particular health care, is being utterly neglected by the government? In fact, it has abrogated its responsibility to deal with that, which is the number one issue affecting Canadians from coast to coast. Poll after poll show that health care is the number one issue affecting Canadians. Yet since the government has come into power it has not, to my knowledge, introduced one single innovative series of solutions. Nor has the government or the Minister of Health called together his provincial counterparts to work together to put our public health care system on firm financial and stable ground.

Does my hon. colleague not think the government should get with the program and start putting health care at the top of its list of priorities?

[Canada Pension Plan, January 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the aging population in our country is one of the biggest, most underappreciated challenges to public policy making today. As we look to the future we will have three to four workers for every retired person. Some 20 or 30 years ago it was seven to eight workers for every retired person.

I want to ask two questions. The first question deals with the issue of those seniors who live in quiet desperation because they simply do not have enough money to make ends meet and with medical and other challenges they have they will need a supplement. Would the member's colleagues support a low income supplement of up to $2,000 per year for those who make less than $20,000? Second, would his party like to work with many of us to abolish the mandatory retirement age of 65?

[Emergency Management Act, December 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I know the personnel at the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Privy Council Office and CIDA worked exceptionally hard. People pulled 18 hour days and had very little sleep. We want to compliment the bureaucrats who often do not get any thanks but who in this case deserve enormous praise for the hard work they did.

What my colleague is referring to are the actions by the Minister of Foreign Affairs which were late. The elected officials in the government, unfortunately, let the department down in not exerting and exercising the leadership it should have had in the situation. I hope it learned a lesson.

My colleague worked very hard to try to convince the government to act with speed on this. While officials in foreign affairs and CIDA were doing their very best, there was an absence of leadership at the top. We hope the government has learned its lesson from this and that it will be able to implement some of the solutions it has heard here.

I implore the government to implement these solutions that I mentioned in my speech. They could save a lot of lives and it would be a niche area of capability that our country and the government could champion. At the end of the day we will save a lot of lives. I know we can do that with leadership.

[Emergency Management Act, December 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to the bill. I want to articulate a challenge we have in the future in terms of emergency management within our country.

When we were in government, we implemented a number of suggestions that would go a long way, but we also have a number of challenges that still need to be addressed by the government.

One thing we did was pre-deployed a number of hospitals, which we used internationally. These hospitals are made up of about 200 beds each and they can be deployed on quick notice for emergencies and urgencies within our country.

The other thing we did was set up a spot in Ottawa that was open 24/7. Its job is to act as a central brain to coordinate the internal management of emergencies within our country. We have coordinated that centre in Ottawa to other areas of the country. Each province has its own management centre, which is tied to areas on the ground.

It is important for the public to know what happens in the case of an emergency.

Our first responders are our police officers and firefighters, who do an outstanding job. If there are emergencies in our communities, they respond first.

The second responders are our Canadian Forces. If an emergency is too large for either of those groups to deal with it properly, then we call in other assets from around the country. That is the internal coordinating mechanism we put forward. However, there are some challenges that need to be worked out and these are some of the things I hope the government will pursue. One is the issue of communications.

What we have seen in the case of hurricane Katrina and other instances, is when there is an emergency, particularly a big one, the civilians, who are victims, are the emergency workers as well. The first thing emergency workers will do is take care of their families, which speaks to the problem of communication.

When there is an emergency or an urgency, one of the first things to go south is the communication network. It falls apart. What we have tried to fast track is an internal communication network across our country that is independent of the existing communication networks. It is absolutely imperative that the government continues the work we did and fast track the need for a domestic, emergency communication network that can be deployed by our first and second responders in the case of an emergency.

I cannot overemphasize the need for this. We learned from Katrina and our Canadian Forces, in their incredible response to the situation in Louisiana. We found that the American response to Katrina was wanting. It was instructive not only for the Americans, but also for us to assess that situation and learn some lesson from it, and we did.

Having learned those lessons and identified those problems, it is important that we act upon them. I want to emphasize the absolute need for the government to invest in and implement, as soon as possible, an emergency coordinating communication network that will not fall apart in the case of an emergency.

I know in my province of British Columbia there is a great worry, naturally, about a tsunami or an earthquake. We know that some time within the next 100 years we will have a massive earthquake as the two plates on the west coast collide and grind against each other, which will cause a lot of problems. Therefore, we need to do a better job of coordinating those mechanisms.

The other thing the government ought to do is engage and upgrade the training for our firefighters, our police officers and our military in the area of HAZMAT, hazardous materials. Hazardous materials require a certain specific area of capabilities and equipment. It is very important for the government to make investments in the equipment and training that we started with respect to our firefighters, our police officers and our Canadian Forces.

One of the things the government could do that would be quite intelligent would be to utilize our reserves. When I was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of national defence, one thing I was working on was the possibility of utilizing our reserves as part of a second responder team. They would receive the training and equipment that would enable to come together in the communities and be the second responders in the case of an emergency that overwhelmed our police and firefighters.

It is also very important for the government, and our government had started this process, to look not only at the lessons learned from hurricane Katrina, but also at the lessons learned from the 9/11 report. The 9/11 report was very good at laying bare the challenges faced by the authorities in the United States in responding to the terrorist attack in New York. Analyzing and dissecting the 9/11 report would enable our authorities to take a good look at what would be required by government officials in implementing the urgent responses required.

On an international scale, I want to put in this plug right now for the minister responsible for CIDA. There is one problem that I have seen internationally, and it is that whenever there is a massive international emergency, we always start from square zero, so to speak. That is not necessary. CIDA ought to be working through the World Health Organization to establish an integrated mechanism of first responders. We would then have on a computer a listing of heavy lift equipment, emergency medical and military personnel, engineers and others, along with the assets, the perishable foods, tents for shelter, water, and water purification systems, everything that would be needed for a massive emergency. All of it should be established in a database.

Then, if there were an emergency on the west coast of British Columbia, for example, or an emergency in Asia Minor again, where there are always tragedies because of its location in an earthquake zone, rather than starting from square one and trying to identify all these assets, rather than trying to compile them from square zero, so to speak, we would be able to work and lead with the World Health Organization and our health action crisis group and Dr. Alwan.

We could establish an emergency response in which, with the click of a finger on a computer, we could identify those assets. That is the model we use in emergency medicine. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot take that micro-model and translate it into the international sphere. No one has done this before. Whether we are working in an emergency department where we have what is called the golden hour or in this, we know that same narrow window of time applies to international emergencies.

Canada could lead on something like this. If we worked with multilateral organizations and implemented the mechanism that I have suggested, we would be able to save a lot of lives. No one has done this before. It is a niche that our country can champion. It is a niche that we can adopt. It is one that we could use by tapping into the best and brightest minds in our country and others. Essentially, we could develop a coalition of the willing. It would be a true coalition of the willing, an emergency response group specifically developed to deal with emergency situations around the world.

A failure to do this would be unconscionable. We have seen time and time again that dealing with emergency situations in slow motion causes increased levels of mortality and morbidity. If a person is stuck in that kind of emergency situation, the fact is that the person's life can be saved or the illness or injury avoided. It is simply not right for someone to die in an emergency situation when we can do otherwise. I am suggesting to the government that we as a country, we as a Parliament, champion these solutions, which will go a long way to saving many lives.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, December 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I think there is a situation that people must understand. When I said that one could retire later on, I think there should be no mandatory age of retirement. However, if people want to retire at 65, that would be the age upon which they could access their CPP. They would receive their full CPP if they simply chose to retire at 65 and they would access all of what they were entitled to.

However, if people wanted to continue to work, the incentive for them to work would be that they would receive 50% of their CPP at 65 and it would increase as time passed year by year, receiving full CPP at the age of 70 if they were to continue to work, and there is no reason on earth why they cannot.

What we need to realize about this demographic time bomb is that if nothing is done we not only have a shrinking workforce, but we also have increasing demands on our social programs.

Many good people in this country have done some great work, including those at Simon Fraser University and in the House, such as my hon. colleague. All of us would be willing to help the government to deal with this issue that is most pressing.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, December 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is very well versed on this and, as a parliamentary secretary, I know he has worked extremely hard with our former minister of finance to implement many of the solutions.

If viewers were to look back in history and look at the innovative partnership that occurred there, they would see the types of innovations that were implemented on behalf of the Canadian public.

The member's suggestion is very good because those people who are self-employed do tend to fall between the cracks. Their income ebbs and flows as time passes. It is very important that we look at the fiscal pressures that are placed on people as they get older.

I suggest that the demographic time bomb that is before us is the most under-represented and underappreciated issue of our day. Unless we implement the solutions today to deal with those challenges, a lot of people will be unnecessarily hurt.

Quite frankly, all we need to do is take a look at the European experience and the pressures being applied to the pension structure in Europe and we will see how worrisome this is. We need to look at that in order to implement the solutions today that will ensure Canadians as they get older will have the money they need. Some solutions that we have worked on for some time could provide that.

However, if we fail to deal with this today it will be a gross act of negligence on the part of the government. I implore the government to do that and to work with the rest of us to implement these solutions for the benefit of our citizens.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, December 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will not make any comment about his preamble as it would be telling far too much.

As the former parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance, he is well-versed in these issues. We can do a few things. I agree with him about shifting the age upward for the RRIF but we can two more things.

First, we could allow people to take, say, $10,000 from their RRSP after the age of 55, tax free, if they make below a certain amount of money. The reason for that is that there are costs we incur as we get older, particularly medical costs. Why not allow people to access those funds from their RRSPs, tax free, to enable them to provide for themselves? That could be something innovative.

Second, if we were to completely abolish the mandatory age of retirement, in order to give an incentive to keep people engaged in the workforce but also lessen the pressure on our CPP, we could do the following. I introduced a bill that would work like this: at 65 we would receive 50% of our CPP, tax free; at 66, 60%; at 67, 70%; and at 68, 80%. What would this do? It would keep people engaged in the workforce, lower the demands on the CPP, improve our productivity and give people more money in their pockets at a time when they may need those moneys in their pockets because of personal circumstances. In doing so, it would be a win-win situation for all concerned.

Those are innovative solutions that we could adopt and they would be helpful to people as they get older.

It is interesting that when the mandatory age of retirement was put forward at 65, the average life expectancy was only 58. People thought they would never reach that age so they thought it was a small thing. Women are now living to the age of 82 and men to 79. It is now incumbent upon us to rethink the situation.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, December 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-28, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006.

When looking at a budget, the challenge of any government is to balance a budget that is going to ensure economic productivity and competitiveness and ensure people have money in their pockets. It should try to find a balance, that yin and yang between being able to have a productive dynamic economy and having the resources to provide the social programs we enjoy. As well, ensuring that individual Canadians have the maximum amount of money in their pockets and that governments do not waste money is the challenge of any budget.

The fundamental question of this budget is whether it meets that test. Does it enable our country to have a productive, dynamic economy and also provide the resources to allow us invest in the infrastructure we require in order to have a productive economy? Does it enable us to have the resources to provide for the social programs that all Canadians enjoy? I would argue that this budget fails on all of those counts. I will go through the reasons.

If we look at the global context, we can see in the future a greater amount of competitiveness in the world from giants such as India and China. They are on an economic juggernaut that will increase as time passes. It is up to us to change, modify, improvise and become more dynamic in order to stay ahead of those countries. If we fail to do so, we will suffer.

Right now Canada stands at eighth or ninth in the world in terms of economic productivity. That is okay, but we can do better. I am going to outline ways in which this budget fails as well as solutions for how our country can improve its productivity, for the reasons I mentioned.

This bill deals with a number of income tax measures. I am going to go through them in a second. I also want to say that the fundamental aspects of a balanced budget that will be useful are that the budget is indeed balanced, that there is responsible spending, there is debt reduction and there are tax reductions so that we will have a competitive international tax rate. I have mentioned the reasons why we ought to do that.

I also want to mention one of the profoundly disappointing aspects of this budget. Canadians would be very interested and very disappointed, I think, to know that this budget by the present government actually increases the taxes on the most vulnerable in society, the poor and the lower middle class.

How does it do that? The government increased the lowest tax rate that exists in our country. It also reduced the basic personal exemption. The government argues that the balance to that is the dropping of the GST, a consumption tax, but does a consumption tax really benefit the middle class and the poor? Dropping a consumption tax like the GST benefits primarily the rich, because in order to benefit from that, one has to spend. The more one spends, the more one benefits.

The people who are struggling to survive do not spend that much; ergo, they do not benefit as much. When government takes money out of the pockets of Canadians, it hurts Canadians selectively. Therefore, the wisest thing the government could have done in terms of productivity and of fairness, I would argue, would have been to drop the lowest income tax rates and increase the basic personal exemption. That puts real money in the hands of Canadians.

There is a reason why this budget is so peculiar and particular in certain areas, why it cherry picks certain benefits and does not deal with global tax reductions for individuals, particularly the poor and middle class. The reason is that this is a cynical budget. It is a budget that is designed to curry favour with the electorate. Naturally all political parties want to do that, but to do that by cynically parking one's brains at the door and not implementing solutions based on fact, reason and science is irresponsible.

Instead, the government and this budget are engaging in irresponsible behaviour because the solutions are based on cynically trying to curry favour with the public and putting forth woolly-headed solutions that sound good on the one hand but are not very effective. I gave the example of the GST cut. On the surface it sounds very exciting and good, but unless one spends a whole lot of money, which means one is rich, it is not really going to benefit the rest of Canadians. The fact is that Canadians with low or modest incomes are struggling hard these days. The increased tax burden on them is irresponsible.

One of the tax benefits the government has introduced in this bill is something called the Canadian employment tax credit. On the surface, that sounds wonderful. It is $1,000, but in reality, if we read carefully, we see that it is a tax credit for those who are working. Those who are unemployed and those who are really struggling, the most vulnerable, cannot access this. In fact, those who are working and making minimum wage or close to it do not pay very much in the way of taxes, so this kind of tax credit is not of as much benefit to the most vulnerable in our society at all. It does not help them at all.

What would be smarter? Earlier this year, I introduced something called the Canadian low income supplement, for which I have a private member's bill that will be introduced in the House in the next little while, a bill saying that a person who makes $20,000 or less will receive a cheque for $2,000, tax free. That number will decline to zero in a linear fashion, down to $40,000.

Why? Because this is real money in the hands of those who need it the most. A tax credit for those who do not make much money is utterly immaterial, because either they do not pay tax or the tax is so small that it does not really amount to much. When we so-called help those who are of modest means, we give them $50 a year.

Also, my bill does not apply only to people who work. It applies to people who do not work and who are on fixed incomes. For example, all of us here know seniors in our ridings who are living on fixed incomes. They have given their lives to our country and are living on a very tiny amount of money. The amount of money in my bill, the $2,000, is real money, tax free, in their hands. It will enable them to live and put food on the table. If people are younger, this will enable their children to have various benefits. If people are older and retired, it will enable them to pay for medications that are not covered, as well as a host of other challenges our seniors face day in and day out.

The Canadian low income tax supplement that I introduced earlier this year is something that the government ought to adopt. I hope Canadians who are listening will put pressure on the government, because this would mean real money in the hands of the most vulnerable in our society. It is fair, equitable and humane. It will help those in our society who are most impoverished.

Let us look at another couple of tax measures that are in this bill. One is the Canadian textbook credit of $500 annually, a credit for textbooks for students. On the surface it sounds good, but how does it actually materialize and get into the hands of a student? The tax credit is multiplied by the lowest income tax bracket. Therefore, this tax benefit is actually worth only $77.50. That is right. This $500 tax credit is worth only $77.50 in the hands of students. That, as we know, will not pay for even one single textbook for most courses in post-secondary education.

The next issue is the transit tax to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We know that the government's so-called clean air act has been an absolute bust full of hot air. What would be a series of solutions that would actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions? I will give members a few.

If we take a look at greenhouse gas emission reduction, we will see that it is tied to our burning of fossil fuels, so the question is, how do we reduce fossil fuel consumption? I have a few suggestions.

Perhaps the simplest way of doing that is tied to how we build our homes. We lose an incredible amount of energy in our homes. We know that the technology exists today to build our homes more efficiently and substantially reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. China is making buildings that produce 70% less greenhouse gas emissions than buildings of a similar size in North America.

What the government can do is go back to adopting the EnerGuide program that it so callously cut because it was so-called Liberal. It may be something that we introduced, but the reality is that the EnerGuide is a good program. It enables people to have the tools, resources and know-how to provide and implement those changes in their homes that will reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and, therefore, the production of greenhouse gas emissions.

I have another couple of suggestions. As we know, cars made before 1986 produce 37 times the number of greenhouse gas emissions produced by a car made after 1996. That is absolutely staggering. By removing from the road one car built prior to 1986, we are actually reducing by the equivalent of removing 37 cars made after 1996.

The government should provide a tax break or eliminate the GST for anybody who takes a 1986 car off the road and buys a car made after 1996. It would be simple and easy to do. In effect, this is an example of tax shifting. The Minister of Finance should take a look at it. Frankly, it ought to be in this bill. It would enable us to shift the tax and encourage people to adopt actions that are more energy sensitive and environmentally sensitive.

Another issue is the Canadian children's fitness tax credit. This is a $500 tax credit for a parent, but again, it is only worth $77.50 because it is multiplied by the lowest tax rate. A parent would actually receive $77.50, not $500. The purpose behind this tax credit was noble: helping parents get their kids to become more active. We know that childhood obesity is at epidemic proportions in our country. How do we deal with this issue?

It would be smart to do two things. First, as I have argued repeatedly in the House, and in fact we passed it in this House in 1998, would be a headstart program for children. It could be adopted in the following way. The Minister of Health should call together all the ministers of health and the ministers of education from across Canada and tell them they should be providing this program for all children up to and including grade 3. Parents would be allowed to go into the class once every two weeks for two hours, if they wanted to, and they would deal with issues such as physical education, literacy and nutrition. Parents would be working with their kids on these three important things.

Literacy and physical education would be used, along with proper discipline, proper care and nutrition. This would have a profound impact on the lives of these children. The pillars and benchmarks would be laid for a solid individual in the future. Prior to the age of 8, neurons in a child's brain are actually quite malleable. They change. What a child experiences at that time could have a positive or negative impact on their future. It would be a smart move if the Minister of Health worked with his counterparts across the country to implement a headstart program.

The other thing that could be done is the implementation of a mandatory physical education program in schools, up to and including grade 11. Mandatory physical education would be very helpful in getting kids physically active during the course of the day.

As I said, it is very important that a budget such as this deal with productivity. I am going to outline a few solutions we could implement that would dramatically improve our productivity and enable us to be really competitive with those giants at our heels right now, particularly India and China.

First, we could reduce the basic personal exemption. Second, we could reduce the lowest tax rate. Third, we have to make sure that we reduce the tax rates on businesses so they are competitive across our country. Ensuring that we have a competitive business tax regime is extremely important.

With respect to surpluses, we should implement the one-third, one-third, one-third rule. One-third would be debt reduction; one-third would be spending on critical areas, which I will mention in a second; and one-third would be tax reductions for businesses and individuals.

With respect to investment, it is very disappointing that the government did not continue the research and development investments that my party made over the last five years. Rx and D is an absolutely integral part of our ability to be competitive. Therefore, I have no idea why the Conservative government chose to dramatically decrease research and development investment. This is one of the pillars of a vibrant and productive economy. Some of that money ought to be going to universities and colleges. Some of it should be used to encourage the private sector to reinvest profits into businesses.

The government should work with the provinces to harmonize the PST and GST to ensure that provincial sales taxes are not applied to business inputs but into their businesses.

The PST in some provinces is exempt from business inputs and in others it is not. The federal government could work with the provinces to ensure there is no PST or GST on business inputs, which would enable companies to make the investments they require.

On education, let us enable our students to get the higher education they require. With costs escalating, I find it reprehensible that individuals in our society are barred from accessing higher education because of the amount of money in their pockets. A fundamental tenet of our country is that everyone has the equal opportunity for success, not equal outcomes but an equal opportunity to be the best that they can become.

The fact that tuition fees have escalated so high and, quite frankly, have become a barrier for some people to access the education they require, is something the government should put its full effort into with its provincial counterparts.

In infrastructure, the government should be adopting the cities agenda that we started. The cities agenda is extremely valuable in ensuring that investments and monies that we have at the federal level will be driven at the municipal level for the needs of local communities. We did that. The agreements were hammered out with the provinces and municipalities and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities was very happy with that. I implore the government to continue with the program.

As the House knows, there are greater barriers to trade east-west than there are north-south. My province of British Columbia has signed a landmark deal with the province of Alberta to dramatically reduce and almost remove the barriers to trade between British Columbia and Alberta. There is no reason that the federal government cannot take a leadership role with the provinces to do this.

How would it work? The Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Industry should work with their provincial counterparts to call a trade council together where we put forward the trade barriers, eliminate those that are unnecessary and useless and we move on. It is a major restriction.

I will give one example, which is labour. The fact that somebody who is trained in Ontario cannot work in British Columbia or that somebody trained in B.C. cannot work in Newfoundland is ridiculous. The fact that we are all trained in the same country and yet our skills are provincial specific is an absurd situation. It is a major restriction to labour mobility and a major drain on the ability of our country to be economically competitive. I encourage the government to work with its provincial counterparts to do that.

When we were in government we started the smart regulation initiative, which took a ruthless look at the regulations. We started hacking away at and removing all those regulations that were unnecessary. The groundwork is there. The minister should take a look at this, continue with the smart regulation initiative and reduce those barriers to trade.

My last point is on the issue of immigration. With our changing demographics we know that the ratio between the retired population to worker population is increasing. We can do two things. First, retire the mandatory age of retirement. If the 65 of today is the new 50, why on earth do we not allow people who are 65 and above to work? It is absurd given the demographic changes that we require. These are smart, productive, willing people who want to work. They would be a boon to our economy.

Second, with respect to immigrants, many of the immigrants in our country are working on the margins because they may be here illegally. However, to ensure we honour the law but also enable these people to become integrated into our society and not live at the margins, we should give these people an opportunity to come in from the cold, apply for a worker's permits, give them a two year permit and renew it a couple of times. If they are law-abiding, pay their taxes and are employed, we then give them the chance to become Canadian citizens.

I have provided the government with a series of solutions and opportunities that it can take which would enable our country to be more productive. I am sure the government will find widespread support from across Parliament to give effective solutions to the benefit of our great people.