Mike Wallace

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 2006, June 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member from Mississauga said it might be fair but it is not in the best interests of Canada. I think fairness is in the best interests of Canadians. I also want to let him know that this bill does not affect the area he was talking about.

However, there is one interesting thing. I am not going to debate the decision that was taken, as that is not what this bill is about. I received a report from a financial adviser in my area. He is not my financial adviser, but he sent me something. The member is right when he says that a number of income trusts have been in play. I think this adviser's report said that about 16 income trusts have been in play. I cannot remember the numbers, but the vast majority of them that have been sold, he said, perhaps 10 or 12 of them, were as much as 30% above their market value as of October 31. The investors in these income trusts are doing quite well in terms of the value of those sold items. There are two that were sold and are under their October 31 value.

That is the marketplace. That was the whole idea of the change we are trying to make in regard to fairness in the tax system for all corporations, whether it is an income trust structure or a corporate structure. That is what our bill was about. It has now passed this House and we are patiently waiting for the Senate to approve it so we can move ahead on these issues.

I know that on this particular topic the leader of the Liberal Party has said that he expects his Liberal Senate counterparts to pass the bill this bill that was passed by the House. I am not sure why the Senate has not yet approved the bill or where it is in the Senate process. I look forward to the support of the member and his leader to make sure the Liberals in the Senate move forward on the bill.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 2006, June 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who sits on the finance committee representing the Bloc party and who does an absolutely fabulous job. I do not always agree with the member but he represents his constituency well by actively participating in all the meetings.

On the actual amendments he asked about, he is right. A number of amendments were presented at committee, and rightly so. Committee members told the finance staff that we wanted a different method. We were sending a message that even though these were technical amendments, that they were important to all Canadians and that it was important as committee members that we understood that. The finance staff did their homework and put this together.

I can stand here and say that, based on the input from the committee members and the staff at the finance department, I think this is the end of the amendments on this. I do not believe there are any more. However, I do want to caution that as time changes and new financial tools are developed, and in this case around the world, that there may be changes in the future that will need to be addressed based on the creativity of the finance markets to find other ways to avoid tax.

This bill is really about trying to fill some gaps and loopholes, and I do not like using that word, but opportunities that people have found through the tax system that allow them to avoid tax. These amendments go directly to that. We on the government benches are not planning any further amendments to the bill at this time but I cannot say that will never happen as the times change and new opportunities present themselves to investors. In my view, with these new opportunities, the tax department would need to find ways to ensure we are not taken advantage of.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 2006, June 15th, 2007]

I can continue to speak if you like, Mr. Speaker.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 2006, June 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this morning to talk about this income tax amendment bill, Bill C-33, taxation of non-resident trusts, NRTs, as the department likes to call them, and their beneficiaries and of Canadian taxpayers who hold interests in foreign investment entities, or FIEs.

The issue is that Canadians hold a significant portion of their investments abroad. In 2005 Canadians owned $282 billion worth of foreign stocks, bonds and money market instruments. In part, globalization and other factors, such as the need for portfolio diversification, explain this phenomenon.

Some foreign investments made by Canadian residents are, however, thought to be motivated by tax considerations. The use of foreign investment entities and non-resident trusts rather than Canadian-based investment vehicles can result in lower taxes for Canadian residents; an issue that we are dealing with at the finance committee.

The distribution of income from trusts, regardless whether the trust is located in Canada, is subject to Canadian taxes when the beneficiary is a Canadian resident. Furthermore, trusts that are resident in Canada must also pay Canadian taxes on undistributed income. Non-resident trusts, however, are generally not subject to Canadian taxes on their undistributed income.

If a non-resident trust is located in a jurisdiction that applies little or no taxes on undistributed income, the trust could potentially accumulate income and capital on a tax-free basis. As a result, Canadian investors in such non-resident trusts could benefit from deferred taxes as long as their funds are kept in trust.

Distributions made out of the initial capital of a trust, regardless whether the trust is located in Canada, are not subject to taxes in Canada. When a trust is located in a jurisdiction that does not apply taxes to undistributed income, taxes could be avoided altogether by transforming accumulated income into the capital of the trust, which would then be transferred to Canadian investors on a tax-free basis.

As we can see, this bill really deals with a number of issues in terms of Canadians paying their fair share of taxes.

In a manner similar to trusts, investment funds located in Canada are subject to Canadian taxes on income and capital gains accumulated in the fund on a yearly basis. Furthermore, investors in investment funds are subject to taxes on income and capital gains allotted to them.

FIEs, however, are not subject to Canadian taxes. If a foreign investment entity faces little or no taxes in the country of residence, investors in the fund could benefit from deferred taxes on undistributed income and capital gains.

Furthermore, upon the disposition of their interest in the fund, investors in FIEs may be able to transform income into capital gains, which have a 50% inclusion rate in Canada.

It is a tax avoiding system. This bill does its share in terms of trying to end some of those small loopholes that have been brought to our attention, mainly by those who are in the tax preparation business.

The current legislation, which has existed since 1972, the Income Tax Act, has contained provisions that are meant to limit the use of FIEs and NRTs for tax avoidance purposes. Section 94 of the act deals with NRTs, while section 94.1 deals with FIEs.

Section 94 of the Income Tax Act sets out conditions under which a NRT would be subject to Canadian taxes. Generally, two conditions must be met: there must be a Canadian beneficiary and there must be a Canadian contributor.

The beneficiary condition is satisfied if any of the following have a right, directly or indirectly, to any income or capital associated with the NRT: a person resident in Canada, a corporation or trust with which a person resident in Canada is not dealing at arm's length, and/or a controlled foreign affiliate of a person resident in Canada.

The contributor condition is satisfied if the NRT acquired property, directly or indirectly, from a person who meets each of the following requirements: the person is a beneficiary, as I have described before, a person related to that beneficiary or the uncle, aunt, nephew or niece of that beneficiary; the person is resident in Canada at any time during an 18-month period before the end of the NRT relevant taxation year; and finally, in the case of an individual, he or she has resided in Canada for an aggregate period of more than 60 months before the end of the NRT relevant taxation year.

Once these two conditions are met, the manner in which Canadian taxes are applied depends on whether the NRT is a discretionary trust, that is, a trust where the trustee has discretion regarding how much of the trust income or capital is paid to beneficiaries.

In the case of a discretionary trust, the NRT is deemed a resident of Canada for the purpose of part 1 of the Income Tax Act. Its taxable income is generally the total of its taxable income earned in Canada and what its foreign accrual property income, that is, passive income earned by a foreign subsidy, would be if it were a corporation.

In the case of a non-discretionary trust, if the Canadian beneficiary holds at least 10% of the market value of interests in the trust, the trust is deemed to be a corporation that is a controlled foreign affiliate of that beneficiary. The beneficiary is then required to include, in income, his or her pro rata share of the trust's foreign accrual property income. If the Canadian beneficiary holds less than 10% of the market value of all interests in the trust, the beneficiary may be subject to Canadian taxes under the rules governing FIEs.

As we can see, this is rather technical in its nature and has been around for a little while, which I will talk about near the end of my speech. I wanted to make sure everybody understood that this is a technical bill with some needed minor changes to make the system work more appropriately.

According to the Department of Finance, these rules are not fully effective and relatively little income is taxed in Canada. We need to make some changes and that is what this bill does. Several tax haven jurisdictions, which we have been studying in the finance committee, have trust laws that make it relatively easy to disguise the fact that a NRT has a Canadian resident beneficiary. Without a known Canadian beneficiary, current laws to limit the use of NRTs for tax avoidance purposes are difficult to enforce.

I will now discuss foreign investment entities or FIEs. Section 94.1 of the Income Tax Act is intended to prevent taxpayers from using FIEs to defer or eliminate taxes. This section applies if a Canadian taxpayer holds an interest in a foreign entity that derives its value, directly or indirectly, from portfolio investments in specified properties, such as shares or real estate.

Furthermore, for section 94.1 to apply, it must be shown that one of the main reasons for the investment in FIE is to reduce or defer tax liability that would otherwise be incurred if the income accrues directly to the taxpayer. If the conditions specified in section 94.1 are met, a notional annual allocation of income is imputed to the taxpayer and is subject to taxation. The amount of income imputed to the taxpayer is determined by multiplying the cost of the taxpayer's interest in the fund by a prescribed interest rate as calculated in the income tax regulations.

As mentioned in budget 1999, and I will make the point later on that this actually began in 1999 under a previous Liberal government, this provision has rarely been applied because, and this is why we are making changes, Canadian authorities often lack the relevant data and challenges exist with establishing that the acquisition of the interest in the FIE is motivated by tax avoidance purposes.

We had this criteria that one had to be in a tax avoidance which was very difficult under the current act to make that happen. The bill makes some minor changes to the Income Tax Act to assist our bureaucracy, which looks after the tax issues, and make it a little easier for them to calculate and find out whether people are actually avoiding taxes in this method.

Furthermore, when the provision is applied the amount computed to the taxpayer's income is sometimes criticized that it is arbitrary and not necessarily correlated to actual income generated by the FIEs. Therefore, it was hard to determine what that actual income level was.

What are the legislative proposals contained in Bill C-33? Part 1 of Bill C-33 would create a new taxation regime for investors in non-resident trusts, NRTs, and foreign investment entities, FIEs, in order to respond to perceived gaps in the current provisions of the Income Tax Act.

Bill C-33 would make it harder for Canadian resident investors in non-resident trusts and foreign investment entities to avoid or eliminate Canadian taxes on their income from their investments.

The proposed rules are more complex, of course, as the tax system seems to get that way. They are lengthier and more far-reaching than the current rules. The senior levels of the finance department and the tax department said at the committee that these rules were needed for them to be actually effective.

The proposed regime was first introduced in budget 1999. Let us say it is 2007 now and we have the bill in front of us. There has been a number of announcements from 1999 and June 2000, September 2000, August 2001, October 2002, December 2002, October 2003, February 2004 and July 2005. Therefore, the department and the previous government had made a number of announcements but we really did not get it into law. Not everything needed to be in law but a number of the provisions must be to be effective and that is what we are doing today under this bill.

To be frank, we had some limited discussion at committee on this as all the opposition parties were very supportive of moving this forward, which is why Bill C-33 is in front of us today.

For non-resident trusts, in general, Bill C-33 would, for tax purposes, treat non-resident trusts as if they were trusts resident in Canada. Therefore, a contribution, whether a loan or transfer of funds for property, was made to the NRT by an entity resident in Canada or there is an entity that is resident in Canada and is a beneficiary under the NRT. We are trying to make some changes there. If the NRT fails to pay Canadian taxes, each Canadian resident contributor or each resident beneficiary would be jointly liable for the Canadian tax.

What we are saying is that if one meets those two criteria, someone will be paying the tax, either the beneficiary or the one who is contributing to make that happen or they can split that tax burden and pay it that way.

The amount of tax liable for the beneficiary of the trust would, however, be limited to the beneficiary recovery limit and the relief would be available to the contributor whose contribution to the NRT is insignificant. Therefore, there is some flexibility when we discover that one needs to be paying Canadian taxes on these non-residential trusts but who makes the actual payment can be split but it will depend on what that individual's liability is.

On foreign investment entities, the purpose of foreign investment entity rules under Bill C-33 would apply to all Canadian taxpayers except for new immigrants to Canada. I did ask at committee what the words “new residents” to Canada meant and I was told by the officials that this law needed be fair to our new Canadians. People who have come to Canada in the last little while may have trusts and other investments that would apply to these rules and that they would bring with them. The rules that would apply are that they would be tax free and not subject to these new rules under Bill C-33 for a period of five years of their residency. I think that was fair and I am glad t we were able to put that in the bill. That was an issue that I did not have an answer for and they were able to find it. I appreciate that clarification.

Also, partnerships with members resident in Canada would be required to allocate FIE income to those members. Taxpayers would be taxed based on their equity participation, for example, a participating interest or a particular interest in a trust or other specified type of entity, in a FIE, on their investment in an entity if the investment return from the entity tracks the investment return on certain properties or on their interest in certain foreign insurance policies. We are basically looking at what level of participation individuals have in these FIEs and that would determine their liability.

However, taxpayers would not be taxed on their participation if an “exempt interest”. An exempt interest of a taxpayer in a non-resident entity would generally include, but not be limited to, an interest in: a non-resident entity that is a controlled foreign affiliate of the taxpayer or a partnership; certain property held by financial institutions; and a widely held FIE listed on a prescribed foreign stock exchange if it is reasonable to conclude that the taxpayer had no tax avoidance motives. We must remind ourselves that that is what we are trying to overcome. It is tax avoidance and if a taxpayer can show that was not the purpose of an investment. these rules would not apply.

A FIE that is governed, formed and organized under the laws of the country with which Canada has entered into a tax treaty, and there are some other issues with that. We have tax treaties with a number of countries around the world. We also have tax treaties with the U.S. It would be up to the taxpayer to show that it is the case and that it was not a tax avoidance motive again, and that is the issue.

In most circumstances, and in particular when the taxpayer has insufficient information to use other options, the taxable income of the taxpayer in respect of a participating interest in a FIE would be determined annually by multiplying the cost value of the taxpayer's interest by a prescribed interest rate. If the taxpayer has sufficient information to company, he or she would be able to elect to compute taxable income in respect of a participating interest in a FIE based on the annual movement in the fair market value of that interest. Provided that conditions are met, taxpayers would also be able to elect to treat a non-resident entity as a controlled foreign affiliate, in which case they would be required to include their annual share of the non-resident entity's income on their taxable income for that year.

I know that was exciting for everybody in the House today and those watching at home. This is a very technical bill and it is fairly large. It has lots of wording changes and so on but, in a nutshell, it includes changes to non-residents trusts and foreign investment entities, as well to be consistent with the Income Tax Act. All we are looking for and all we have been dealing with, not just with this part but with other studies that the finance committee is doing, is fairness in the tax system in terms of making sure that those who are required to pay Canadian taxes are paying their fair share of taxes.

I am very supportive of the other opposition parties on this particular tax issue. The changes to NRTs and FIEs would tighten the tax rules around tax havens and respond directly to concerns raised by the Auditor General. We did not come out with this on our own. The Auditor General in her reports indicated that this was an area that needed to be looked at and we did. The previous Liberal government made attempts to get it here but we are actually getting it done. We are at third reading, which is excellent. What needed to become law will become law. We will be tightening the offshore tax havens as viewed positively by taxpayers and the Auditor General. Some stakeholders will likely be not pleased because they have money in these tools but it is important that every taxpayer pays his or her fair share.

These proposals have been released for over a year. We did make some new changes. Obviously, as time passes we find new issues, and the response has been relatively positive. Those who are intimately familiar with this are normally tax lawyers and tax accountants who deal with individuals who have this and they have indicated to us in terms of what needed to be tightened up and what did not and how to clarify the system. The bill is quite technical, but it is an important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, do I have some time left?

[DNA Identification Act, June 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the debate on Bill C-279 many significant facts have been stated. There are nearly 100,000 missing persons in Canada every year. Over 6,000 missing person cases are currently unresolved, with an addition of over 450 new cases per year.

There are over 15,000 samples of unidentified DNA recovered from crime scenes across this country currently stored in the RCMP's national DNA data bank here in Ottawa.

As well, there are hundreds of sets of unidentified DNA from Jane and John Does found in morgues across Canada.

Given the need for a DNA data bank and the widespread support from Canadians, law enforcement professionals, the provincial and territorial governments, a DNA database for missing persons housed within the national DNA data bank is on the horizon. Bill C-279 helps make that possible.

The public safety committee recently studied Bill C-279 and referred it back to this House. The committee recognized our need for a national missing persons index, an MPI data bank, as soon as possible, and supported my bill in principle, but recognized that more work needs to be done.

That work is being done and experts will be back in the fall to testify before the committee.

I am happy to tell this House that the Minister of Public Safety himself has expressed interest in looking into this concept as a possible future government bill.

Members from all parties have acknowledged their support and the support in principle from their respective parties.

Canada is the DNA leader. It is known for pushing the technology, how it handles DNA, and how it will handle a DNA data bank. We should support Canada's commitment as a leader in DNA and set a great example for other countries to follow.

I would like to thank Lindsey's mother, Judy Peterson, for inspiring this bill and the Minister of Natural Resources who has worked tirelessly on this issue before I took it over.

Bill C-279 may not exist after today, but the concept will and I will continue to work hard with our government to make this happen. At this time I would seek the withdrawal of my bill, Bill C-279, An Act to amend the DNA Identification Act.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I simply disagree with the member's debate on this issue.

In order for him to understand, I will read from page 112 of the budget. It states, “Budget 2007 Implements the Recommendations of the Expert Panel on Equalization”.

By the way, I believe that panel was appointed by the Liberal government at the time. It goes on to read:

Budget 2007 delivers a new Equalization program that is fair to Canadians living in all provinces. It will be formula-driven and principled. It will be simplified to enhance transparency and accountability. It will be stable and predictable. It will meet the commitments related to exclusion of non-renewable resources and respecting the offshore Accords.

We are standing by our word and honouring our commitments and this budget does that. I cannot speak for other people but in my opinion it is black and white in the budget. We will aspire to do what is right for this country and this budget does that.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I may be the last speaker on Aspire, our budget for 2007, which will make for a stronger, safer and better Canada.

Our government has tabled a balanced budget that moves to restore fiscal balance to Canada, cuts taxes for working families, reduces the national debt and invests in key priorities such as improving health care and environmental protection.

Budget 2007 helps in the restoring of fiscal balance by providing $39 billion in additional funding over seven years, which will allow the provinces and the territories to do a better job in providing the services and infrastructure that matter to Canadians. That includes everything from roads, bridges and public transit to better equipped universities and colleges. It includes improving on health care. It includes clean rivers, oceans and air. It includes job training that helps Canadians compete with the best in the world.

We will see further tax relief for families with the working families tax plan, which includes a $2,000 per child tax credit. Budget 2007 also helps parents save for their children's education by strengthening the registered education savings plan program, and it supports seniors by raising the age limit for registered pension plans and registered retirement savings plans to 71 years of age from 69.

There are further debt reductions that will result in savings for Canadians. After paying down $13.2 billion on Canada's national debt in September 2006, we will further reduce the debt by $9.2 billion. Thanks to the government's tax back guarantee, the interest savings on this year's debt repayment will be returned to Canadians in the form of further tax cuts.

Our government will be investing in Canadians by providing $550 million per year for the working income tax benefit and $140 million over two years to establish a registered disability savings plan, something I worked very strongly on the finance committee to implement.

We are focused on preserving the environment with a balanced action plan, including rebates on fuel efficient vehicles and efficient alternative fuel vehicles, an incentive to get older, polluting cars off the road, and a green levy on fuel inefficient vehicles, and by providing $1.5 billion to establish a Canada ecotrust for clean air and climate change.

The budget provides a national water strategy, something for which I have been advocating since the last election. I am happy to see that the Hamilton Harbour has been specifically targeted as an area that we need to clean up.

Our government will continue to work at improving health care by investing $400 million for the Canada Health Infoway to support the development of electronic health records and up to $612 million to support jurisdictions that have made commitments to implement patient wait time guarantees, and by providing the provinces with $300 million for a vaccine to help prevent cervical cancer.

Budget 2007 is historic. It restores fiscal balance, implements major elements of Canada's long term economic plan, Advantage Canada, and will create opportunities for Burlingtonians and all Canadians to fulfill their dreams of a good job, a world class education for their children, a home of their own and a retirement they can count on.

What does the budget mean for Ontario? Managing Canada's $1.5 trillion economy means making choices and striking the right balance. In budget 2007 we have achieved this by balancing the budget, cutting taxes for working families, investing in priorities like health care, the environment and infrastructure, and restoring the fiscal balance by providing provinces the resources they need to deliver the front line services that matter to Canadians.

For my province of Ontario, restoring the fiscal balance brings federal support for Ontario to $12.8 billion in 2007-08. This includes $8.1 billion under the Canada health transfer, $3.8 billion for the Canada social transfer, which includes money for post-secondary education and child care, and $664 million for infrastructure. Also, $205.4 million is available to the Ontario government through the patient wait time guarantee trust. Another $117.2 million is available to the Ontario government to implement the immunization plan that I just mentioned.

As well, $574 million will be paid to the Ontario government for outstanding commitments under the Canada-Ontario agreement. There also will be $298.5 million in gas tax funding going directly to municipalities in Ontario. There is $400 million for an access road for a new Windsor-Detroit border crossing. We will see $963 million to fund transit projects in the greater Toronto area. There will be $38 million in corporate income tax relief from changes in capital cost allowances for buildings. There will be $383 million in additional corporate tax relief from the temporary two year writeoff for manufacturing equipment over the next two years.

We will see approximately $35.2 million in tax savings for farmers, fishers and small business owners through an increase in the lifetime capital gains tax exemption to $750,000. As well, Ontario will receive $586 million from the Canada ecotrust for clean air and climate change. For Burlingtonians and Ontario, the new $2,000 child tax credit will save parents in Ontario $597 million. An increase in the basic spousal amount will provide an estimated $109.6 million in tax relief in regard to those who are the supporting spouse or a single taxpayer supporting a child or a relative. Also, the working income tax benefit will benefit workers of Ontario with $212 million in tax relief.

Ontario farmers, some of my favourite people in the world, will receive approximately $240 million under the new initiative in budget 2007. Increasing the RRSP and registered pension plan maturation age will save Ontario taxpayers $56 million. As part of the national water strategy, there is $27.5 million to clean up the Great Lakes. There is $50 million for the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, and I am not exactly sure what it does, and there is $6 million to help move the CANMET Materials Technology Laboratory to Hamilton.

All of that was just about Ontario. I wanted to highlight what the numbers actually mean and what members are actually going to be voting against if they do not support this budget.

As a member of the finance committee, I had the opportunity to go across this country and also to talk to people here in Ottawa at meetings. I can tell members that not one group that I can recall came to tell us to spend less money. Everybody wanted more money, more tax money for whatever their cause was, and that is part of the balance of government. We cannot solve everybody's problems. We do have to set goals and objectives. We did that as the finance committee. We presented a report that had recommendations in it and some of those recommendations are in the budget.

Others are priorities of this government that we had set out during the election to accomplish for Canadians. We are doing it through this budget. We can stand up here all we want and talk about things that are not in the budget, but I can tell members about people who told me that for every dollar we spend we get three back, so let us add up the billions and billions of dollars we are spending. Under that scenario, which we know is not accurate, we would just continue to spend every single penny we had and it would come back threefold. That is just not the way the economy works. That is not the way the real world works. We have to make choices.

This budget makes choices. We have put in the budget a number of things that deal with restoring the fiscal balance of this country. Not everybody agrees. We have heard that from our own side. Not everybody agrees with our approach, but we cannot have side deals with different provinces all over this country and call it a national program. We have put together a national program. We are working on those issues. It takes up a big chunk of this budget. I have told this to my constituents who say there is no money for this or that. We need to set the record straight. We needed to get this country back on the right road from a fiscal balance perspective.

The party opposite does not believe there was a fiscal imbalance. If there was not, then why are people screaming and yelling at our door that they want more money and they want a different program than what is provided?

We have done that. We have taken the initiative as a government. We have taken some very bold steps with this budget. It tries to provide balance for everybody. It is a balanced budget and a good budget for this country. I am very proud to be part of the finance committee and of the government. I am proud of the budget aspirations because they will make a stronger, safer and better Canada.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the presentation by my colleague from Ontario about what the budget does for Ontario.

I have a few things that I would like to point out for the province of Ontario. We are restoring the fiscal balance with federal support of $12.8 billion in 2007-08. This includes: $8.1 billion under the Canada health transfer; $3.8 billion under the Canada social transfer, including additional funding for post-secondary education; $664 million for infrastructure; $205 million available to the Ontario government for the patient wait times guarantee; $117 million available to the Ontario government to implement the human papilloma virus immunization program; the $574 million that will be paid to the Ontario government for outstanding commitments under the Canada-Ontario agreement; $298 million for gas tax funding for municipalities in Ontario; $400 million for a new road access for the Windsor-Detroit border crossing; and $963 million to fund transit projects in greater Toronto. That is only about half of what I have here.

I ask my colleague, is this budget good for Ontarians in 2007?

[David Suzuki Foundation, June 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in a speech on Monday, David Suzuki alleged that the David Suzuki Foundation was being “hounded by the current government” through Revenue Canada audits, due to his criticism.

However, Stephen Hazell, the executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada, said that the trend predates the current Prime Minister's government. He said, “This is something I would not blame the Conservative government for”.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused to when she talks about wait times guarantee and asks where we have been on that. The Wait Time Alliance provided us with a report card in the spring. It gave us a B, up from a C, with respect to joint replacements. It also gave us a B, up from a C, with respect to sight restoration.

She also has said that there is nothing in the budget with respect to wait times, which is absolutely not true. Budget 2007 tackles wait times with over $1 billion in funding, $612 million in patient wait times guarantee trust, $30 million in wait times pilot projects, $400 million in the Canada Health Info Highway, which is an independent, non-profit corporation that helps advance the use of health information technology across the country.

We are spending money on health care. We are working on the wait times guarantee. Obviously it is not an easy thing to do. I think the member across the way would say that it is not easy. If it were easy, maybe the Liberals would have done something over the 13 years they were in power. Our health care system deteriorated under their tutelage.

We are working on these issues. We have tackled these issues. We have budgeted for these issues. We are making a difference.

Is the member saying that the Wait Time Alliance does not know what it is talking about?