Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 019 (Official Version)

I have the honour, pursuant to section 66 of the Official Languages Act, to lay upon the table the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, covering the period from April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006.

[Translation]

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(f), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

* * *

[English]

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-270, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations.

She said: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to introduce Bill C-270, the short title of which is the workers first bill, which will at last put workers first in the event of a bankruptcy. In a country that sees over 10,000 commercial bankruptcies a year, it is essential that any back wages, benefits or pension contributions owing to employees rank first when the assets of a bankrupt company are distributed, not last, as is all too often the case.

It is also necessary to make consequential amendments to the EI act so that benefits to workers from the distribution of the assets of the bankruptcy are not clawed back as income from benefits under EI.

Finally, through this bill, the process will be expedited by which employees can seek redress from the directors of a bankrupt company should there not be enough remaining assets to distribute to make up back wages, benefits or pension contributions.

This bill is vital for protecting working families in Canada. I want to thank both the United Steelworkers and my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, without whose friendship, support and tireless work I would not have been able to bring the bill before the House today.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

* * *

(1005)

[Translation]

Petitions

Child Care

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition signed by Nova Scotian families who are concerned about the government's intention to cancel the daycare agreement.

[English]

This petition comes from the Atlantic Centre of Excellence for Women's Health. The petitioners are very concerned about the government's plan to kill child care. It is signed by distinguished leaders in the child care community, such as Christine Dunn and many others, who have asked me to bring this forward. It is my pleasure to do so.

* * *

[Translation]

Immigration

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Johanne Deschamps (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and of the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, I have the honour to table a petition concerning lives in limbo signed by 4,000 people. The petitioners are asking the government to establish a process that will facilitate granting permanent residency to any individual who has been in Canada for more than three years and who comes from one of the countries under a moratorium, such as Afghanistan, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Iraq, Liberia, Rwanda and Zimbabwe.

This state of uncertainty is a major cause of human anguish and suffering, so we believe it must be acted on quickly.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition on behalf of the Canadian Council for Refugees and other partners, calling on the Canadian government to establish a process to facilitate the granting of permanent residence to persons who have been in Canada for more than three years and who are from countries on which Canada has imposed a moratorium on removals.

* * *

Questions on the Order Paper

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rod Bruinooge (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders

[The Budget]

* * *

[English]

The Budget

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

The House resumed from May 8 consideration of the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, and of the amendment.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for North Vancouver.

On May 2, the Minister of Finance presented the budget to the House of Commons. I will state from the outset that I cannot support this budget because it lacks the vision, the imagination, the creativity and, more importantly, the leadership that Canadians are looking for. This budget is not in the best interests of Canadians, but more importantly, in my opinion as a representative for Mississauga--Brampton South, this budget is not in the best interests of my constituents.

Since June 2004, I have had the honour and privilege of speaking to many constituents in my riding of Mississauga--Brampton South. I have maintained an ongoing dialogue with them through various means: householders, via the Web, discussions, town hall meetings, and meeting with my constituents at events. Also, as a resident of Mississauga--Brampton South, I know their concerns. I know their priorities. I can confidently say that this budget does not represent their priorities or mine.

I will articulate what our priorities are.

The constituents of Mississauga--Brampton South want to see commitments made to improve the infrastructure that is causing gridlock. This budget fails to meet that need.

My constituents also want to see the government commit to building the foundations of a national early learning and child care system, which was started under the previous Liberal government. Again, this budget fails to meet that need.

Lastly, my constituents want to see significant investments made in post-secondary education. Once again, this budget fails to meet that need as well.

Mississauga--Brampton South is a dynamic and robust region and is growing at a very rapid pace. The local economies are thriving. The population growth in these two urban centres is outpacing the average population growth in the rest of Canada.

Unfortunately, the construction of more roads, more lanes and upgrades to highways has not been able to keep pace with the population growth. This is causing an enormous amount of traffic congestion and slowdowns. For example, what used to be a quick eight minute drive from highway 403 to highway 407 along Hurontario has turned into a 30 minute crawl. Trust me: when trying to get to my constituency office it is a very painful drive and that is on a good day.

However, this is more than just a matter of gridlock. At its core, this is a quality of life issue. Mothers and fathers, husbands and wives and daughters and sons are spending more time on the road and less time with their loved ones. Fortunately, there are a few local initiatives under way to help reduce gridlock and modernize the public transit systems. Unfortunately, the government has failed to deliver any such commitment in the budget for these very important initiatives.

The AcceleRide system in Brampton and the bus rapid transit system in Mississauga are two very innovative initiatives to improve public transit systems in order to promote local use of an efficient and quality public transit system. A first class and convenient public transit system will motivate more residents to ride the bus to work instead of clogging up the roads with their cars, but in order for commuters to want to use such a system, it must be beneficial for them. The modernizing of these systems would include lane widening, transit signal priority, and the purchase of new vehicles at an estimated cost of $280 million for AcceleRide and $270 million for the BRT.

The Government of Ontario presented its budget last month and has committed to providing $95 million for AcceleRide and $90 million for the BRT. This represents one-third of the funding. This is not the first time I have raised this issue in the House of Commons, so the government is fully aware of the issue. It has failed to deliver for the residents of Mississauga--Brampton South. Not only has the government failed my constituents, the residents of my particular riding of Mississauga--Brampton South, but it has failed all constituents in the greater Toronto area.

The next budget issue I would like to talk about is child care. This budget has also failed to deliver on the child care needs of my constituents. Learning is a lifelong venture. It is important that children under the age of six receive the proper care and education they need. It has been clearly demonstrated that early learning provides a foundation that kids need to succeed as they develop into adults.

(1010)

The majority of households in my riding cannot afford to have only one parent working. It is therefore necessary that the government respect those parents who have decided to enter the workforce. It is about respect, plain and simple. In many cases, where there is only one parent, an extra $100 a month will not substitute a month's salary.

It does not make sense why the government would abolish such an important national system for the sake of a few extra votes. Creating a national child care system is, I believe, our generation's medicare. If Lester B. Pearson had given Canadians $25 a week and called it health care, would that truly have been a health care system? Our health care system might not be perfect, and I acknowledge that, but it is an institution that Canadians rely on and are grateful for.

In March, the finance minister of Ontario announced that no new child care spaces would be created in Ontario as a direct result of the new government's commitment to scrap child care. The province has maintained that it will need to spend the last $63.5 million of the instalment of federal child care funding to maintain the 14,000 spaces over the next four years. This equates to zero new spaces for my constituents.

Presently, in Peel region, only one in nine children under the age of six have access to licensed child care. Over 600 families are on waiting lists for child care spaces in Mississauga alone. Residents of Mississauga--Brampton South were looking forward to the creation of new child care spaces and now there will be none. This is not progress. this is not the wishes of Canadian parents. This is unacceptable.

I want to talk about post-secondary education: Last year I served the previous prime minister as his parliamentary secretary. I was given the opportunity to travel the country to visit several universities and colleges to engage with students. I also visited high schools and elementary schools in the riding talking to students and parents about the essential needs and importance of a good quality education. As many students turn from secondary to post-secondary education, they require the government to help pay for tuition and to provide them with some debt relief.

The government has an important role to play but the budget does nothing to address post-secondary education. As we move forward as a country, an educated workforce is essential for Canadian companies to compete in an innovative and international global economy. How are our students to compete with students from China or India when the government does absolutely nothing to even consider education to be a priority? How will we create a strong, knowledge based economy?

The Liberal Party had a platform in the last election to give up to $6,000 per student over four years to help pay for their university fees. The government's plan is to give students $80 for textbooks. That is not a vision; that is a sales pitch.

After looking through the budget, I see the same theme repeating itself over and over again. I see a lack of vision, a lack of creativity, a lack of imagination and, more important, I see a lack of true leadership.

I have talked about the budget very clearly and I have outlined three key areas. I will once again reiterate those areas: first, a lack of investment in post-secondary education; second, a lack of investment in early learning child care; and third, a lack of investment for transit. However, that is not all. The government has increased personal income taxes at the cost of reducing the GST, again misleading the Canadian public. It has failed to address climate change and, more important, how can we as Canadians look at ourselves in the mirror when we fail to address the needs of Canadian aboriginals?

For all those reasons and the reasons that directly affect my constituency, I want to make it crystal clear again that I cannot support the budget.

(1015)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Barry Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify one point for the record. There is no national child care program and there never was any national child care program. In 1993 the Liberals ran on a platform that they would create a national child care program and they did not. In 1997 the Liberals ran on a platform that said they would create a national child care program and they did not. In 2000 they ran on a platform that said they would create a national child care program and they did not. In 2004 they ran on a platform that said they would create a national child program and they did not. Those are the facts.

People can debate whether there ought to be one or not, and I am sure my colleagues in the NDP will argue that there ought to be one, but I think they would agree with me that there is not one.

In the last Parliament I sat on the human resources, skills development, social development committee. When the then minister was appointed to that file I thought there probably would be legislation but no legislation was brought forward on a national child care program. After 12 years of promising it, the Liberals never delivered it.

The bottom line is that the last government committed funds to national child care. The minister negotiated a series of one on one deals with the provinces. Some were signed and some were not.

Why does the member perpetuate the misconception that there is or ever has been a national child care program? There never was and, under your government, there was never going to be. Why do you keep putting this idea forward as true when it clearly is not?

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

I would remind the hon. member that we are supposed to refer to each other here in the third person, unless you were asking me those questions about the child care program. I will assume that you were speaking through the Chair.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Navdeep Bains:

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate one fact. We increased personal income taxes to offset this decrease of 1% in the GST. I have spoken to many retailers and they have made it crystal clear that they will not pass on the savings to consumers.

With respect to child care, that is a fair comment. The last time I checked and after speaking with my colleagues I was reminded that the child care agreements were signed with the provinces. We had a framework. Not only did we sign with them but we provided them with funding.

I would like to remind the hon. member that it is crystal clear that Canadians have two options. They can have an early learning national child care system that was signed with all the provinces and territories, and funding was in place, or we can give Canadian parents $100 a month to raise their children and tell them to fend for themselves. That is not a Canadian value nor a Canadian tradition. That is not the Liberal Party's way.

(1020)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gérard Asselin (Manicouagan, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, this budget is one of transition. The government's true budget will likely be that of February 2007. Quebeckers and Canadians are ready to give this government a chance, since they voted for change. Let us give this government a chance to prove itself.

The hon. member spoke earlier about highway infrastructure problems. Quebec roads are in a serious state of disrepair. Projects have been proposed, including one in the riding of Manicouagan on the North Shore, to build a bridge between Baie-Sainte-Catherine and Tadoussac, and to improve highway 389, which is needed to open up the region between Kegaska and Blanc-Sablon, on the Lower North Shore. The only winter access route as of 2006 is by snowmobile. However, during all of the previous Liberal government's terms, these people proposed improvement and construction projects for that highway, which is part of the national highway system. Highways 389 and 138 link Quebec and Labrador.

However, the former transport minister did nothing. He said that no road would be built because there were no people. However, people do live there at this time and they deserve the same services and quality of life as everyone else.

We heard that it takes half an hour to get from highway 401 and 407. Consider the problem of the Lower North Shore, where they have no road. And the Liberals did nothing. We are waiting to see what the Conservatives will do.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Navdeep Bains:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that when it comes to investments in our cities and our infrastructure, our track record is impeccable. The gas tax transfer to municipalities was an historic deal where we linked federal funding to municipalities directly to ensure they could meet their strategic investments. We had funding for transit initiatives. We had a GST rebate for municipalities. We had a strategic infrastructure funding program as well. I think the member is a bit confused or disillusioned with this concept.

The previous Liberal government over the past 13 years made sound investments into transit and infrastructure. If we were in power we would continue to do the same thing as well.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Don Bell (North Vancouver, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, as I begin my first speech in this session of Parliament, I would like to thank the voters in my riding of North Vancouver for giving me the honour of serving as their federal representative in Ottawa for a second term. It is an honour to serve in this place and the increased mandate given to me by the voters of my riding has only strengthened my desire to serve them to the best of my abilities and to ensure that their voice is heard in this Parliament.

I will be focussing my remarks today on the budget through the lens of my riding of North Vancouver, of my home province of British Columbia and, more specifically, to my role as opposition critic for Pacific Gateway.

During its brief existence, the previous government, the first to run on a made in B.C. agenda, made more significant progress on B.C. issues than any other in history. In addition to B.C. being the first province to sign on the new deal for cities and communities, we made progress on the foghorn issue, the pine beetle problem and moving the Canadian Tourism Commission to Vancouver.

The development of the Pacific Gateway strategy and support for the new Fairview container port in Prince Rupert were all aimed at helping Canada through its western gateway of British Columbia maximize future trade opportunities from the Pacific Rim, particularly the growing economies of India and China.

My point is very clear. The previous Liberal government “got” B.C. issues and voters in my province elected more Liberals in the last election than we have had since 1968. Clearly, we made significant progress.

The current government's budget was the first opportunity we as elected MPs and the Canadian public have had to view the government's detailed plans for its mandate to compare its election rhetoric to actual intentions and plans and to see numbers specifically, as an MP from B.C., to measure the government's commitment to our province's issues and concerns.

As critic for the Pacific Gateway, I was naturally eager to learn that the new government would honour its election promise to deliver at least the Liberal government's commitment of $590 million over five years for the Pacific Gateway strategy. I was also eager to see some sign that the Conservative government understood the importance and urgency of moving ahead with the previous government's committed support to help West Coast Ports meet its potential by providing a diverse program of support measures, of port and port related infrastructure.

In short, the new government and, more specifically, the Prime Minister, has blatantly broken his promise to British Columbians, western Canadians and, in fact, all Canadians who benefit from economic trade with the Asia Pacific region, and has severely deluded and delayed funding for the Pacific Gateway. The budget committed a mere $239 million over four years, less than half of what the Liberal government had earmarked for gateway initiatives over the same four year period.

Before going any further, let me give some background on the Pacific Gateway strategy as it was developed by the previous government in the last Parliament. Bill C-68, an act to support development of Canada's Pacific Gateway, would have launched immediate action and long term processes to enhance Canada's competitive position, boost B.C.'s economy, generate benefits across the west and forge deeper links with the emerging Asia Pacific region.

The Liberal Pacific Gateway strategy would have put an immediate $190 million on the table, dollars that would have begun flowing immediately this year to the following areas: $20 million over two years allocated to the Canada Service Border Agency for secure efficient border services to increase border management capacity at key entry points for the Pacific Gateway; and $10 million over five years for deeper links with the Asia Pacific region, specifically through standards harmonization. This initiative would have been led by the Standards Council of Canada and fostered mutually acceptable international standards, certification processes and procedures and accreditation guidelines to increase product interoperability, encourage innovation, reduce trade barriers, increase product safety and encourage environmentally sustainable activities.

The Liberal strategy would have put $125 million in four immediate transportation and infrastructure investments, specifically up to $90 million for the construction of the Pitt River bridge and Mary Hill interchange to replace a pair of swing bridges which are already unable to handle commercial and commuter traffic during peak periods. This investment would have improved the efficient flow of trade by reducing travel times and increasing reliability across the Pitt River.

Also, the Liberal strategy would have put up to $30 million into a number of new road-rail, grade separations within the rail corridor extending from Mission to Matsqui to Deltaport and would have enhanced the efficiency of rail operations, improved the flow of community traffic, eliminated delays for emergency response vehicles and reduced idling of vehicles at level crossings.

(1025)

There would have been up to $3 million for road-rail grade separations in North Portal, Saskatchewan, a key location for the movement of goods destined for U.S. markets that originate from western Canada and the port of Vancouver and where CP's main rail line to Chicago crosses the Canada-U.S. border.

There would have been up to $2 million for intelligent transportation systems deployment, specifically the creation of a traffic management system for the British Columbia lower mainland to monitor and share traffic conditions on the major highway networks and the transit system. This would have improved the international and interprovincial flow of goods.

In addition, the Liberal gateway strategy would have invested $35 million over five years to establish the Pacific gateway council. Based in Vancouver, the council, consisting of a body of experts and stakeholders, would have immediately begun to make recommendations on how to invest the final portion of the $590 million over the five year plan.

Bill C-68 was a comprehensive and effective strategy to take concrete action to prepare British Columbia for the increased trade and traffic from China, India and the Pacific Rim, not in four years, not in eight years, but now, with a comprehensive strategy in place, dollars on the table and necessary infrastructure on the ground. Might I add the previous government considered the $590 million over five year Pacific gateway investments in Bill C-68 to be a down payment, a first step. We were committed to the gateway strategy and Bill C-68 was just the beginning.

Let us return to the budget and compare the current government's plans for the gateway, beginning first with the Prime Minister's comments during the election campaign in Prince Rupert, B.C. on December 28, in which he stated, “We will deliver at least the five year federal funding commitment of $591 million for the Pacific gateway initiative”. I will quote directly from the budget plan:

--this budget announces the Government's intention to invest a total of $591 million over the next eight years in Canada's Pacific gateway.

So much for keeping promises. The Prime Minister said one thing to British Columbians on the campaign trail and did another once elected. Is that what they call hypocrisy, or should I say “Harper-ocrisy”?

Not only was the gateway money delayed, it was also seriously diluted, with only $239 million flowing over four years, less than half of what the Liberal government had earmarked for gateway initiatives over the same period. In fact, where the Liberal plan would have put $73 million on the table for 2006-07 as part of our immediate $190 million package, the Conservative government has allocated only $19 million for the same period. So much for standing up for B.C. and the west.

May I remind the government of the comments made by the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam who, during debate in the House on Bill C-68 last October, said the following:

The Conservative Party of Canada will be supporting this Liberal half-step. We are doing so because while much more could be done for B.C., should be done for B.C., and will be done for B.C. under a new Conservative government, half a loaf of bread is better than nothing to a starving man.

Under the Conservative gateway plan contained in this budget, the starving man will now have to settle for bread crumbs.

Also, during the election the member for Vancouver Kingsway, the then Liberal minister for the Pacific gateway, issued a dire warning regarding the Conservatives:

We've seen no evidence that they have the ability to comprehend the full, comprehensive nature of the gateway system and the affiliated policies and projects. The money itself is clearly at risk if a government were to come in whose priorities were different than ours.

The member could not have been more correct in his prediction about the Conservative government's apparent lack of understanding of western portal trade issues and their lack of commitment to the Pacific gateway. When I questioned the minister last week in the House about his government's plans to dilute and delay gateway funding, he told the House that the Conservative plan is much stronger than the Liberal gateway strategy.

I do not know what is being put in the water coolers in the government lobby, but I have to question the logic there. It is a simple question of math and the figures provided in the government's own budgets do not lie.

The new minister for the Pacific gateway, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, made reference last week to other infrastructure money, which I guess is some smoke and mirrors to make up for diluting, delaying and effectively watering down the needed funding to see the Pacific gateway strategy move ahead in a timely manner.

If the Prime Minister and his government believe in supporting the gateway initiative, why will they not commit the funds they feel will be needed to do the job in a clear and transparent way by identifying them now in the gateway funding timetable, not claim they can be covered by taking funds away from other spoken-for infrastructure budgets? If the Prime Minister thinks more money will be needed for the gateway, even if it is over a protracted eight year plan rather than a five year plan, why not put this money where their rhetoric and previous criticism is, be transparent and not resort to a shell game with the funding?

(1030)

In conclusion, let me again express my profound disappointment with this budget as it relates to support for Pacific gateway funding. The Conservatives can dodge and spin, but my constituents and the voters of British Columbia will not forget the promises made during the election and the manner in which once in Ottawa the Conservative government has moved to dilute and delay funding for initiatives of crucial importance to British Columbia, to the west and to my riding of North Vancouver.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Pacific gateway is probably one of the areas in which Canadians at large are not familiar with the impact on the west. The member being from B.C. certainly is aware. I wonder if he could explain to the House and Canadians what it really means to invest in the Pacific gateway in terms of job creation, economic and regional development and the Canadian economy as a whole in terms of the importance and priority for any government.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Don Bell:

Mr. Speaker, what we are really talking about is accessing the economic opportunities and prosperity that can come from the Pacific Rim. For example, I will quote from a document which states:

Changing trade patterns associated with emerging markets are predicted to result in significant growth in traffic through Canada's Pacific Gateway. By 2020, container cargo through British Columbia ports is projected to increase by 300 per cent, up from 1.8 million containers to between five million and seven million containers. The value of this trade is projected to reach $75 billion by 2020, up from the current $35 billion. This increase would contribute $10.5 billion annually to the Canadian economy, including $3.5 billion beyond British Columbia. The trade increases are also projected to result in 178 per cent growth in direct jobs by 2020, from 18,000 to 50,000.

We are seeing China emerge by 2016 as the second largest economy in the world and projected not long after that to perhaps rival the United States as the first. We have to take advantage of those opportunities for Canada. The Pacific gateway is the way to do it.

(1035)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the Pacific gateway file has been surrounded by the whole issue of the member for Vancouver Kingsway who crossed the floor. He was the individual who left the Liberal Party and went to the Conservative Party. He purports at different times to be a champion of the gateway project itself.

It is important in terms of transparency and ethics to have the practice of floor crossing stopped. The member for Vancouver Kingsway should actually have to sit as an independent. He could vote with the government all he wants. He could be part of an independent system and decide what he wanted to do on individual issues. He could work with the government in some type of affiliation. However, to go from being a Liberal to being a Conservative in a matter of weeks is hypocrisy. It is fraud on the election system. It is reprehensible because people have been basically subverted in terms of their democratic right to choose.

It is important to ask the member for North Vancouver if he will support stopping the floor crossing that has happened in the House of Commons. The Manitoba government has done it. The reasonable expectation is that a member would either go back to the electorate and be brought back as a member of a different party or the member would sit as an independent and would vote with the government if the member chose to do so . At least the conflict of interest that there is on this file would be absent.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Don Bell:

Mr. Speaker, an issue which I think is more disturbing than floor crossing immediately after an election and before a policy difference has even arisen that would cause a member to consider floor crossing is the issue that I mentioned in my presentation and that is the changing of philosophy without any reference.

The member for Vancouver Kingsway spoke so strongly during the election campaign and previously in his role as the Liberal minister responsible for the gateway. He indicated how strongly he felt about the principles of the gateway and the importance to B.C. of the funding, and the importance to all of Canada in fact. It seems to have been lost on him in his new role as part of the Conservative government.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Centre.

This being my first issue based speech in the 39th Parliament, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the voters of Fleetwood—Port Kells for their unrelenting confidence and trust in me. It is an honour and a privilege to continue representing them in Parliament. On behalf of my constituents today, I rise to participate in the debate on the budget.

I would like to congratulate the finance minister for so eloquently presenting a vision of Canada that reflects the needs of every Canadian, facilitates accountability and helps us further progress into an even greater nation.

We have heard the opposition parties paradoxically rebuff this budget. Some members have argued that the government has cut too much tax, others that we have raised taxes. For some we are spending too much and for others we are not spending enough.

The members opposite cannot decide how to criticize the budget because they believe in it. They are doing nothing more than playing partisan politics. The truth is that this budget will move Canada further.

Today I would like to focus on the areas of the budget that are important to my constituents in the city of Surrey and British Columbia. The budget focuses on the priorities of Fleetwood—Port Kells, Surrey and British Columbia.

To ensure safer streets and safe communities, this budget is providing $161 million for 1,000 more RCMP officers and federal prosecutors. This is crucial to the crime laden Lower Mainland. Gun and drug crimes, marijuana grow ops and theft are crippling our communities. In fact, Surrey has garnered the bad reputation of being the auto theft capital of North America. We have already heard the justice minister outline the government's plan to strengthen the criminal justice system and the influx of money for more police officers will aid in this effort.

Since I was first elected I have reiterated my concern over drug and gun crimes throughout the Lower Mainland. Drug dealers are manufacturing marijuana and crystal meth in increasing quantities. These drugs make their way into the hands of children and teens. This is a classic example of the need for mandatory minimum prison sentences. Criminals engaging in organized crime with such disregard for the safety of children should not have the opportunity to reoffend or continue to plague our streets. The budget will allocate desperately needed resources to help the RCMP fight a new war on drugs.

Surrey, like all communities, deserves nothing less than a zero tolerance policy toward crime with such a dangerous combination of drugs, banned weapons and violence. I am glad that the budget demonstrates the government's awareness of this fact.

Another issue of paramount importance in my riding is infrastructure. In this budget we see that British Columbia is finally receiving the respect it deserves. We are ensuring that British Columbia receives its fair share of transportation and infrastructure dollars, especially for critical programs such as the Pacific gateway.

Surrey is one of the fastest growing communities in all of Canada. The residents should not spend endless hours stuck in traffic. My constituents have told me what they want and what we must do. We need to twin the Port Mann Bridge. We need to build the South Fraser Perimeter Road. We must fix the 152nd Street exit.

By accomplishing these goals, Canadians will benefit, British Columbia will benefit and my constituents especially will benefit. To this extent, I am proud to reassure my constituents that this budget provides $591 million over the next eight years in the Pacific gateway initiative for improving our infrastructure.

We are also providing $2.4 billion over five years for a new highways and border infrastructure fund for improvements to the core national highway system. British Columbians, especially on the issue of infrastructure, were let down by the previous government on so many occasions with empty and broken promises.

(1040)

The era of broken promises is finally over. The budget proves that we are moving in the right direction when it comes to accountability and fiscal responsibility. It puts more money into the hands of individuals and families. It strengthens our communities, our provinces and our nation.

The budget, more than any in recent history, focuses especially on the importance and the needs of new Canadians. In my riding of Fleetwood—Port Kells, one-third of the population are immigrants, and the entire Lower Mainland and the greater Vancouver area are witnessing an increasing flow of new Canadians every year. In our multiculturalism reality of Canada, immigrants can come to this nation and contribute while simultaneously being proud Canadians.

I would like to point out how portions of the budget are geared toward the needs of newcomers to Canada.

Like all Canadians, newcomers do not want their progress in Canada hindered by rising taxes. Under the previous government, Canadians watched their tax dollars wasted away, mismanaged and permeated corruption. The budget addresses the overtaxation of Canadians by delivering $20 billion in tax relief over two years. That is more tax relief than the last four budgets combined.

For the first time in more than a decade, the government has finally removed its hand from the pockets of hard-working Canadians. Instead, our budget is returning more money than ever back to Canadians. Newcomers, who have come to Canada with hopes and dreams, no longer have to worry about their tax dollars funding corruption and waste. As a result of these measures, British Columbians, as a whole, will pay $1.2 billion less in taxes in 2007 alone.

Immigrants come to Canada because of the opportunity for a better life for themselves and their families. In recognizing the needs of immigrants, our government has immediately reduced the right of permanent resident fee by 50%, from $975 to $490. For those who have already prepaid the $975, we will provide a partial refund so no new Canadians feels left out of this important initiative.

We are increasing immigration settlement funding by $307 million over the next two years and we will establish a Canadian agency for the assessment and recognition of foreign credentials. We will ensure that well-educated and highly skilled new Canadians will finally receive recognition for their qualifications and experience.

These measures, coupled with a recent announcement of a full judicial inquiry into the Air-India bombing, have finally addressed some of the enduring questions my constituents have had for more than a decade.

Clearly, our government will do more to help these new Canadians get started. With the budget, Canada's new government is delivering on our campaign promises to every Canadian, including the new Canadians who were forgotten by the Liberals.

Canadians voted for change and voted for many of the programs and initiatives in the budget. I urge the members opposite to remember this fact when they vote on the budget.

(1045)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on her speech, but I do detect two problems with it.

First, I, too, represent a riding with many new Canadians, and I totally agree with the idea that one should focus on them. The problem is the budget fails in the moral imperative to reunite families expeditiously. There is nothing more important to a new Canadian than to be reunited as quickly as possible with his or her parents or grandparents who might be 63 years old, and the time it takes keeps going up. It is a moral imperative that this time be reasonable.

Our government had put $700 million into putting in the resources to reduce those waiting times. The Conservative government has simply removed the $700 million. It is absolutely inevitable, therefore, that those waiting times will continue to rise. It has failed in a fundamental moral imperative toward new Canadians, and new Canadians will not forget that.

Second, there is nothing there for competition with India and China. Brain power is essential. Why would the government cut R and D support from our $2.5 billion to its paltry $200 million? The government seems to think the world owes Canada a living. I regret to inform the hon. member that this is not the case.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Nina Grewal:

Mr. Speaker, we are a country that was built by immigrants. Our ancestors left their homes and their families and struggled to find a better life in Canada. Our government will do more to help these new Canadians settle down and get started.

Effective immediately, the right of permanent residence fee is reduced by 50%, from $975 to $490. We are increasing settlement funding by almost $307 million. We are taking action to establish a Canadian agency for the assessment of foreign credentials.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's defence of the budget, but we well know from the Mike Harris years in Ontario and the years of Liberal neglect that a tax cut never hired a single nurse or fixed a single road in our country.

What we will remember from the budget is that the Conservative government walked away on the international Kyoto treaty. For 13 years, greenhouse gases rose under the Liberal government and we heard poppycock about voluntary emissions standards with industry polluters, which is like voluntary drinking and driving standards. Now the government has given us a made in a Calgary boardroom solution. There is no plan or vision. There are no commitments to meet any kind of targets whatsoever.

Would the hon. member explain this vision for the rest of Canadians, who are scratching their heads wondering exactly what is going to happen in terms of the government's commitments to greenhouse gases? We have seen no money, no commitment, and no plan.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Nina Grewal:

Mr. Speaker, the budget is balanced and our spending is focused. Taxes will go down for all Canadians.

Ottawa has been overtaxing Canadians for a long time. We are delivering real change for Canadians. We are delivering $20 billion in tax relief over the next two years. This is more tax relief than the last four federal budgets combined. For every $1 spent, Canada's new government will deliver $2 in tax relief.

This is a tax cut for which Canadians voted. This is a tax cut that Canadians want. This is a tax cut that Canada's new government is delivering.

(1050)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gérard Asselin (Manicouagan, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of irritants in the budget. It must be recognized that the economy of a number of regions in Quebec is based on tourism.

In my opinion, the Conservative Party missed the opportunity to eliminate the excise tax on gasoline. Gasoline prices for July are forecast to be $1.50 a litre. That will reduce tourist traffic in many Quebec regions.

This is the appropriate time for the Conservative Party to eliminate this tax, which the Liberals had applied. It will be remembered that Joe Clark's government fell because he wanted to impose a tax on gasoline. Mr. Trudeau incorporated it into an escalating tax. However, when the Conservatives took office, they never thought to reduce the cost of a litre of gasoline by a few cents or at least to eliminate the excise tax on gasoline. This would have helped tourist traffic, and many regions in Quebec and Canada would have benefited.

Could the member put this problem to her caucus and ask the Conservatives to abolish the excise tax on gasoline and give a boost to the tourism industry in the regions?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Nina Grewal:

Mr. Speaker, in our budget we are focusing on priorities that are important to hard-working Canadians. Over the next four years, we will invest a total of about $16.5 billion in new infrastructure initiatives. The budget will provide $591 million over the next eight years to the Pacific gateway project.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Centre, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is a particular pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to the budget. It has been a long time since we have had the opportunity in the House to speak to a budget that addresses the concerns of all Canadians, a budget that does what this party made a commitment to do during our election campaign.

It is a budget that reduces income taxes, reduces the GST, reduces small business taxes and reduces corporate taxes. Ninety per cent of the reductions go to individuals and families in Canada, almost $20 billion over the next two years. That is more tax relief than the last four federal budgets combined.

For every dollar in new spending, Canada's new government delivers $2 in tax relief. Taxes will be reduced in every area where the federal government collects revenue such as the GST, income taxes and business taxes, including targeted measures to help Canadians with the cost of transit passes, tools, textbooks and kids' sports. I will speak more on that in a moment.

For the people where I live, as a result of these tax measures, Albertans will pay $1 billion less in taxes in 2007. Families earning between $15,000 and $30,000 per year will be better off by almost $300 in 2007. Those earning between $45,000 and $60,000 will save almost $650, and 655,000 low income Canadians will be removed from the federal tax rolls altogether.

With the Canada employment credit and the increase in the basic personal exemption, people will be able to earn almost $10,000 in 2007 without having to pay any federal income tax at all.

As promised, the budget reduces the GST from 7% to 6%, effective July 1. This is a tax cut for which Canadians voted. This is a tax cut Canadians want. This is a tax cut that Canada's new government will deliver. A reduction to the GST will benefit all Canadians, including low income Canadians. It also will make Canadian products more attractive to consumers and it will strengthen the economy.

Effective July 1, the budget creates the brand new $1,000 Canada employment credit. This new tax gives Canadians a break on what it costs to work, recognizing expenses for such things as home computers, uniforms and supplies.

On personal income taxes, effective July 1, the lowest personal income tax rate will be permanently reduced from 16% to 15.5%. The amount that all Canadians can earn without paying federal tax will be increased each and every year for 2005, 2006 and 2007.

Those who operate small businesses in Calgary have told me how welcome the new tax cuts are, allowing them to hire more people at higher wages, to better compete and to retain employees in our booming economy. Effective January 1, 2007, the threshold for small business income eligible for reduced federal tax rate will be increased from $300,000 to $400,000.

The excise tax on jewellery will be replaced effective immediately, allowing Canadian businesses to compete on a level playing field.

Our larger employers will also benefit. Effective January 1, 2008, the general corporate tax rate will be reduced to 20.5% as part of our commitment to reduce this tax to 19% by 2010. Effective January 1, 2008, the corporate tax will be eliminated also. The federal capital tax is also eliminated on January 1 of this year, two years earlier than was originally scheduled.

As has been noted, the budget includes significant assistance for families and communities. For apprentices, the budget creates a new apprentice job creation tax credit of $2,000. For students, we are creating a textbook tax credit that will benefit approximately 1.9 million Canadian students at a cost of $260 million over the next two years.

There is just so much in the budget of which all Canadians should be aware. I hope they will perhaps go to the government website to look at these initiatives and the wonderful benefits for them. It is a budget that we promised during the election campaign. We made commitments and we are delivering.

(1055)

For young families the budget provides a physical fitness tax credit of $500 to cover registration fees for children's sports and seniors have not been forgotten either. To provide increased support to Canadian seniors, the budget doubles the amount of eligible pension income that can be claimed as a pension income credit from $1,000 to $2,000 starting in the 2006 tax year, the first increase in more than 30 years.

I have so much more, but I see the time is fleeting. Our government's approach to spending is based on three principles: first, government programs should focus on results and value for money; second, government programs must be consistent with federal responsibilities; and third, government programs that no longer serve the purpose for which they were created should be eliminated.

In conclusion, I would like to note that the budget has the support of Canadians, particularly in my own province of Alberta. A poll done this last weekend showed that 67% of us support the budget. When we look at these details and more, across the board tax credits, focused spending on the priorities of Canadians and a commitment to debt reduction, it is no wonder why.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to preface my question by reading the headline in the editorial that appeared in the Globe and Mail the day after the budget, “How to complicate the nation's tax system”. The editorial stated:

So it's a pity the Conservatives have further burdened the tax form with the new math of political necessity. This week's federal budget is a hodgepodge of new credits, something for everyone but the family dog.

There is a great discrepancy, a great disconnect between what is in the budget, the approach that the budget takes, and the rhetoric of the hon. member and his colleagues on the other side of the House.

The hon. member and his colleague speak of freedom of choice. In fact, if we want to guarantee the greatest freedom of choice for Canadian taxpayers, we would cut their income taxes and they could decide if they wanted to save the money. They could decide if they wanted to spend the money. They could decide if they wanted to buy books for their children or for themselves. They could decide if they wanted to register their children for soccer or piano lessons.

Does the hon. member not agree that what the government has done, by creating 28 or 29 different tax reductions, infinitesimally small in many cases, is adopted what some commentators have called a social engineering approach to budget making?

(1100)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Lee Richardson:

Mr. Speaker, I am amused that the members opposite are complaining about tax reductions. There are 29 specific tax reductions in the budget. I know the budget is different. I know it is hard for the party opposite to accept that a party could actually run for office, make definite commitments to Canadians and, lo and behold, bring in a budget to keep those commitments to Canadians. These are not promises. These are commitments that we made to the people of Canada which we are keeping in the budget. I hope the Liberal side of the House will support it.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, there is a cost of cutting taxes and in regard to the budget, there were some cuts. One was to totally abandon the Kelowna accord, which basically said no to aboriginal Canadians in terms of giving them a quality of life and respect.

It said no to climate change which has basically resulted in the cancellation of virtually every climate change initiative that the Government of Canada had implemented.

It said no to low income seniors. The child allowance, the $1,200, is taxable, but at the same time, as the government is giving the $1,200 allowance, it is cancelling the young child supplement of $249. Indeed, as a consequence of that, there is another clawback as well as the increase in the tax rate on the first level of taxation.

Low income Canadians will actually have to return to the government in terms of taxes or reduced benefits otherwise payable to the extent that a family making only $20,000 would get less than $200 of the $1,200, whereas a single earner family earning over $200,000, would in fact get $1,100 back.

The figures are there in the Caledon Institute report. Low income earners will be worse off than high income earners. Why is it that the member thinks it is important that we take care of high income earners before those in most need in Canada?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Lee Richardson:

Mr. Speaker, we have heard this rhetoric before. I must remind the hon. member that it is quite clear that all Canadians will benefit from lower taxes in this budget. Every Canadian right across the board, whatever income level, will have lower taxes starting this year and continuing on increasingly in 2007 and 2008. That is simply the difference between this government and the previous government.

The hon. member mentioned promises like the Kelowna accord and what they were going to do on Kyoto and for the environment. They were all promises but nothing was delivered in 13 years. This government, in this budget, has done more in 13 weeks than the previous government did in 13 years.

We are delivering on commitments that we made. They were not just false promises that were away down the road. We call it the hockey stick approach to promises down the road for more money. This budget delivers to Canadians. It delivers on commitments that the Conservative Party made during the election campaign and we are very proud of it.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Carole Freeman (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

It is my pleasure to take part today in the debate on the budget currently before the House. Many things have been said since the Minister of Finance read his budget on May 2. There have been many comments by analysts, and reaction has been strong. It is, however, important to take a more detailed look at the full impact of this budget in order to discover its real meaning and scope for the public.

Basically, it must be admitted that this budget is a transitional budget, nothing more, nothing less. The result of the most recent general election reflects the public's desire not to give the Conservatives a blank cheque. Indeed, the government's minority position in the House indicates clearly that nearly two-thirds of the population did not support the right-leaning policies of the Conservative Party.

Fortunately, in Quebec, the people had an alternative to which they have turned in the last five elections to make their voices heard and to defend their interests. That is particularly the case in my riding, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, which I have the signal honour of representing in this House. For since the 1993 election and in every subsequent vote, the Bloc Québécois has proven to be the political vehicle of choice for a constant majority of the population of Châteauguay—Saint-Constant. This is a clear demonstration of the deep confidence that my fellow citizens have in the Bloc Québécois and in its leader to faithfully represent their interests in Ottawa.

The first budget of the Conservative minority government marks a transition between the extremely centralizing Liberal regime, sapped by scandal and corruption, and the pursuit of a neo-conservative ideology, developed and tested south of the border. I cannot insist too much on the transitional nature of this budget for, beyond the good news for middle-class taxpayers, we must keep a cool head and remember that the Conservatives have embarked upon a broad and far-reaching campaign to seduce the electorate, and are prepared to do anything to win a majority of seats in the House.

For us in the Bloc Québécois, it is precisely this that makes our attention and our vigilance more essential than ever. To the image-mongering and extravagantly populist discourse of the Conservative Party we will oppose rigorous analysis, a trademark of the Bloc Québécois. As our leader never tires of saying, we will examine each of the issues that comes before us on a case-by-case basis. There is no question of signing the government a blank cheque; rather we will support it where support is deserved. If a measure that is proposed is beneficial to Quebec, we will support it. And conversely, we will never hesitate to vote against the government if we perceive real detriment to the interests of Quebec.

Let there be no illusions. In no way has the Bloc Québécois changed its mission. With this change of government, we are still sovereignists and we believe more strongly than ever that the modern Quebec will find its true fulfilment with its full and complete sovereignty, as a nation in fact and in law.

To come back to the budget, for us, the key aspect of the Minister of Finance's exercise last week is recognition of the infamous fiscal imbalance. The Bloc Québécois was the first party to draw attention to this reality and to defend Quebec's interests by hounding the previous government to recognize the imbalance. In the process, we brought the other opposition parties onside, including the current government. This political process and this example of influence and persuasion demonstrate the Bloc's relevance and its key role in the development of Quebec.

Honestly and objectively, anyone who has made a careful study of the federal political scene in recent years will clearly see the Bloc's influence in a series of measures in the latest budget. This accomplishment is as significant as our long and painful battle for recognition of the fiscal imbalance. The proof lies in the major gains achieved for the population thanks to the Bloc's insistence and deep convictions. For years, my colleagues waged battles in this House for more funding for the social programs Quebeckers hold so dear.

Despite the federal government's brutal cuts to transfer payments, Quebec still managed to avoid the complete erosion of our social safety net. We should be proud of this, because it is a telling example of Quebeckers' solidarity and our tenacity in the face of the major challenges that have arisen in the past and are sure to arise in the future.

(1105)

Among the files of the hour specifically affecting my riding of Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, undoubtedly the sensitive subject of social housing heads the list of our concerns.

The government can pat itself on the back for the injection of some $800 million for the funding of affordable housing. Nevertheless, as we all know, if it had not been for the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party would never have become aware of how uncertain access to housing is.

From 1993 to 2001, the Liberal government withdrew completely from the funding of new social housing. During all those years, the Bloc never gave up the struggle and called for investment to be restored to the ambitious but achievable objective of close to $2 billion a year.

In the riding of Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, no less than 22% of the population lives in rental housing. Also, we have at least some 4,500 single-parent families in the riding. That makes the matter of funding social housing all the more important, if we take into account the often difficult economic situation that some of these families have to cope with.

So, although the $800 million allocated to social housing is a big step, the Bloc Québécois will not give up and will continue to demand that the undistributed profits of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation be reinvested, instead of being capitalized as the previous government got in the habit of doing.

If the trend continues, the surpluses accumulated by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in 2008 will reach some $7 billion. This is a huge sum, which is not justified in the current context.

Similarly, credit is due to the Bloc Québécois for its insistence and the rigour of its budget analyses, which resulted in the injection of billions of dollars in funding for post-secondary education. For years now, particularly during the recent election campaigns, that is, in 2000, 2004 and 2006, the Bloc Québécois asked the federal government to use its financial leeway to gradually increase transfers for college and university education.

This announcement is all the more important since about three-quarters of the population of Châteauguay—Saint-Constant have completed post-secondary studies. Since the past is often an indication of the future, it is a safe bet that our children will thus be able to afford to pursue quality studies.

It is therefore important to note another important gain made by the Bloc, concerning tax exemptions for scholarships and bursaries. We have to realize that the federal government has taxed the scholarships and bursaries received by students for a long time. As paradoxical and absurd as that may seem, for years the federal government has collected income tax on scholarships and bursaries paid to students by the Government of Quebec, a funding area from which it nonetheless withdrew, the better to pay off its recurring deficits.

Not only did the government in Ottawa build up a phenomenal fiscal capacity for itself today by ending the transfer payments that defined the federal scheme, but then it also turned its gaze on things that never belonged to it.

The major items highlighted earlier show the important progress made by the Bloc since the Conservatives came to power. While this is an impressive track record, we have to keep in mind that the race has not yet been won.

I have said it before and I say it again, this budget is a transitional budget, the stated aim of which is to get the Conservatives a majority in the next general election. Then, with a little more elbow room, the right will finally be able to implement its real ideas to the letter. That unknown future is precisely where my greatest fear lies.

At the top of my list of concerns is the complete absence of any measures to improve employment insurance. It must be noted that the employment insurance fund is overflowing with the billions of dollars in surpluses that were amassed during the years of Liberal rule. And yet as recently as the day before the budget speech the Prime Minister was supporting the Bloc’s position on paying out those surpluses for the benefit of the unemployed and the people who have paid into it.

I would also draw your attention to the fact that the Minister of Finance has failed to take into consideration the often hard economic reality of older people. He has had nothing to say about this issue, crucial as it is for thousands of our fellow citizens. Thousands of older people have been cheated over the years by the federal government, which is still refusing to make payments to the people in question fully and completely retroactive.

Nor has any provision been made to assist older workers, whose job prospects are rather dim.

The Conservatives have let older people down and they will be jeopardizing environmental protection for generations to come. At a time when political action is based on sustainable development, the Conservative government is trying to reshuffle the deck by introducing the profit variable.

(1110)

Profits, of course, for the shareholders of the big oil companies that have seen record profits for years and whose influence, spreading out from Calgary, is grounds for concern.

Time flies. I could go on about the irritants in this budget, but I will yield the floor to other speakers.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal (Newton—North Delta, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate the member on giving a great speech, from which it was quite evident that she has quite a few families in her riding who are earning under $36,000. How is the member going to defend the values and rights of those families when the government has brought in a tax increase in only one category, that is, the lowest income families? They will be taxed more than anyone else.

(1115)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Carole Freeman:

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for his question.

It is true that it is very important to stand up for low-income families. If there are so many low-income families in the riding of Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, perhaps the reason is the fiscal imbalance, which has been around forever. If moneys were truly transferred equitably, there would be a better quality of life.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's speech, but I am still somewhat confused, and I have been confused in terms of listening to the Bloc during my two terms in this place. My hon. colleague from Windsor West referred the other day to the Bloc as a dog with no legs: it barks, but it does not go anywhere.

During the last session in Parliament we worked very hard to negotiate changes to the Liberal budget. These changes included $1.6 billion for public housing, $1.5 billion for universities, $800 million for public transit and money for public infrastructure. We were denounced by that party for failing the people of Canada.

An. hon. member: They called us traitors.

Mr. Charlie Angus: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they called us traitors, yet a very rightist government brings in this very rightist budget and their party rolls over immediately. Then those members stand up and say they are concerned about rightist policies coming forward, when this budget has destroyed Kyoto, when this budget will destroy any plans for child care, and when it is giving complete tax breaks to corporations.

I have a question for the hon. member. Her party had an opportunity to make changes to EI. It could have done that. It could have negotiated its support, but it did nothing. Those members simply stood up and said they support this budget. Perhaps they are supporting it because the Conservatives are at 34% in Quebec right now. Why did the hon. member's party not even try to negotiate anything to change this or to bring about more progressive policies instead of just getting into bed with a rightist government?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Carole Freeman:

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for his question and comments.

The Bloc Québécois decided to support the budget because it felt it was a transition budget, as I mentioned in my presentation.

That means that we are not giving the Conservative party a blank cheque and that we are not supporting absolutely everything it proposes. Several recommendations regarding this budget are points raised by the Bloc Québécois. We will see whether or not the Conservative Party, as it has stated, will resolve the fiscal imbalance—a very important issue—within a year.

The Bloc Québécois is not giving the Conservative Party a blank cheque. Quite the opposite, as I stated in my speech. If some of the provisions did not meet with our expectations, we would not hesitate to oppose them. If necessary, the Bloc Québécois may go so far as to topple the government.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant on her speech.

I would like this colleague to explain her vision for future Quebec generations, who will have to manage the new challenges of globalization of markets, technology and know-how.

What future path does the Bloc Québécois propose for my government and my children?

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Carole Freeman:

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his comments.

The only way for us to meet all of those expectations is to achieve Quebec's sovereignty. Quebec must have full control in all areas, economic, cultural and the rest. That is really the only way to do it. That is our vision of things. That is the only way for us, the people of Quebec, to move forward.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to congratulate the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant on the speech she just gave about the Bloc's position on the budget.

I would like to emphasize something to my Conservative colleagues. For the past several days, we've been hearing a number of them rejoice in the Bloc Québécois' support for the budget. However, I want to make it clear that it was the Bloc Québécois that brought the issue of the fiscal imbalance to Ottawa, here, to the House of Commons. Moreover, without the Bloc Québécois, it is unlikely that any deadline would have been set for resolving the fiscal imbalance.

The Bloc Québécois has always been honest with the citizens of Quebec. The fiscal imbalance was one of our key issues before and during the election campaign. Now that we have a specific commitment and a deadline, the Bloc Québécois can see for the first time that finally, a government in power in Ottawa, in the House of Commons, recognizes the fiscal imbalance.

The government's firm commitment to address the issue and eliminate the fiscal imbalance is a major step forward for Quebec. That is why the Bloc Québécois will support this budget when it is put to a vote in the House of Commons.

This is a transitional budget, which deserves our support and over which this minority government should not be brought down. The government will have its real test when its next budget is tabled, which is to say the budget for the 2007-08 fiscal year.

Even though there are many irritants in this budget, the main consideration is the government’s openness and commitment to settling the question of the fiscal imbalance, which has been penalizing Quebeckers for too long.

The Bloc Québécois sees that, in addition to the fiscal imbalance, the budget reflects a number of the demands or measures advocated and discussed by the Bloc Québécois here in the House of Commons. We can point to the assistance for post-secondary education, affordable housing and farmers. As well, we are pleased with the review of the Canadian farm income stabilization program, the additional funding for infrastructure and public transit, tax-free student awards, the tax improvements for micro-breweries, the tax credits for public transit users—something that the Bloc Québécois has requested on several occasions here in the House—the elimination of the excise tax on jewellery, and the tax credits for tools.

On the other hand, there are a number of annoying features in the budget that we should look at. There is employment insurance, which was completely ignored by the Conservative government. This budget provides absolutely nothing to help the people wrestling with the consequences of the cuts to employment insurance, which were made over the course of 12 years by the Liberal government that preceded this minority government. Nor does it address the seasonal workers who are only too familiar with the gap between the end of their benefits and the beginning of their next season of work. This problem has not been fixed, and the budget is silent about it.

In my region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, many workers are penalized by the current employment insurance system. Despite the huge accumulated surpluses, this government has done nothing. It is continuing down the same path as the Liberal Party, which is to say it is further increasing these accumulated surpluses, these astronomical amounts paid by the unemployed.

I come from a riding, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, that is located in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region. Some parts of this budget leave a very bitter taste in my mouth, especially the Conservative government’s lack of a firm commitment to a program to help workers, a new POWA, which is to say a program to sustain the incomes of older workers when they lose their jobs in massive lay-offs.

(1120)

If this government had taken immediate action instead of conducting a feasibility study, workers in my riding laid off following the Port-Alfred plant closing in La Baie could have benefited from a worker's assistance program. The Abitibi Consolidated plant closed and workers with several years of service under their belts were suddenly unemployed.

There are currently some retraining and reintegration programs, but they do not really work and there are problems. These programs do not apply to the majority of the workers. Most of the workers over 55 are not eligible for the retraining programs or the work force reintegration measures. I will explain why.

In a region, a village or a small town where there is very little economic diversity, workers cannot be hired by more than one employer since there are not enough businesses. Furthermore, some employers do not hire these workers because they have only five or six years left before they retire. Instead, these employers invest in younger employees who will stay for many years.

There are other irritants I want to talk about. Take for example the $1,200 per child allowance. We had submitted a much fairer proposal, but the Conservative government did not use it. The assistance being given to parents is still taxable and that is unfair to families in need. If this government had a bit of humility, this problem could have been resolved quite easily and we could have truly helped families in need.

The Conservative government has nothing in its budget for implementing the Kyoto protocol, which is essential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The same goes for arts and culture. The amount allocated is an additional $50 million for two years. I had the opportunity to do a pre-budget tour from Vancouver to Montreal, excluding Toronto, where I encountered arts and culture movements that were calling for more money. The Conservative government did not answer these calls in its budget.

I will talk about one last point regarding the Canadian securities commission.

Before and during the election, the Conservative government spoke of respect for jurisdictions. It said it would respect the areas of jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Now that it is in office and it is time to act, what does it propose? It proposes to meddle in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.

In my books that amounts to saying one thing and doing the opposite. It is inconsistent and unacceptable.

In conclusion, I will summarize briefly by saying that a number of aspects of the Conservative budget leave me perplexed; the $1,200 taxable allowance; the dropping of the Kyoto protocol in favour of a Canadian program yet to come; the fact that there is no mention of the humungous surpluses amassed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation; the fact that there was nothing on employment insurance; the establishment of a feasibility study on an income support program for older workers.

However, we will have to wait and see. The Conservative government has promised to resolve the fiscal imbalance by next spring, and that is significant progress. On this point, we can give it a good grade for bringing solutions to the fiscal imbalance.

The Conservatives must know that, had it not been for their official and definite commitment to resolve the fiscal imbalance within a specific time frame, we would have rejected the budget.

(1125)

In terms of action, a first ministers' conference will be organized to discuss the problem of the fiscal imbalance.

We therefore support this budget, even though it contains a number of irritants. I hope the differences will be debated here in the House or in committee so the Bloc positions may be made known and so the people in my riding, my region and in Quebec can see that the Bloc Québécois truly defends the interests of Quebeckers.

I would just like to say a few words to Quebeckers to let them know they can count on the Bloc to look after their interests.

(1130)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, it seems strange that the Bloc would support a budget that goes against everything it believes in. This budget offers nothing but cuts for the poor, aboriginals and low-income women with children. It offers nothing but cuts for the environment and nothing at all for the fiscal imbalance.

These days, the Minister of Finance is talking about fiscal balance, which implies that there is no problem. The budget actually took money away from the provinces, which is the opposite of what the Bloc wants. Moreover, there is no money to correct the fiscal imbalance—all of the experts are telling us that the government has spent all it has. Therefore, there will be nothing to correct the fiscal imbalance over the next few years.

The question is, why is the Bloc voting for it? There is only one possible answer. Even though the budget goes against everything they believe in, they are afraid they will lose their seats in Quebec if there is an election, as shown in yesterday's CROP poll.

[English]

Despite the fact that the budget goes squarely against everything in which the Bloc believes, like a defanged pussycat it follows meekly in support of a budget that goes against the fiscal imbalance and everything else that party stands for. The simple reason is that the Bloc knows if there is an election it will lose seats in Quebec.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Robert Bouchard:

Mr. Speaker, I explained why we support the Conservative budget. Clearly, it includes a measure to correct the problem of the fiscal imbalance, and the Conservative government has made a commitment to do this. That is why we support this budget.

Let us remember that the Liberals, who sat opposite us before this minority government, never recognized the fiscal imbalance. They were not even able to say the words “fiscal imbalance”. To them, it did not exist, not even in their minds. It was impossible. It was something the Bloc Québécois had imagined and introduced here in this House.

For the first time, we have a government that recognizes the fiscal imbalance. At the very least, it wants to try to correct this imbalance.

I can assure the people that we will closely monitor and watch this government. For us, the true test will be the next budget. Then we will see what changes have been made and what actions have been taken in the course of this fiscal year. When the next budget is tabled, we will really be able to see what this government is made of.

In my speech, I also referred to several irritants, including the securities commission the government wants to introduce. I mentioned that when it was in opposition, this government argued in favour of respecting the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec. Now, it wants to impose something different. It wants to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions by setting up a Canadian securities commission.

(1135)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

How would the Bloc Québécois propose to aid development and regional economic diversity in order to help workers over 55 re-enter the labour market?

An hon. member: There is $45 billion in the employment insurance fund.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives were on this side of the House, they, along with the Bloc Québécois, advocated a new POWA, an income support program for older workers.

In fact, surpluses from the employment insurance fund would provide the budget to create such a program. This program existed until 1997, until the Liberals cancelled it. Since the Conservatives supported the program when they were in opposition, I do not see why they would not subscribe to such a program now that they are in power.

Studies being conducted means that no action is being taken. Feasibility studies give nothing to workers, nothing at all. What we need is action. We need a real program for workers.

A factory closed in my riding and 640 people lost their jobs. Those workers could have benefited from a program such as a new POWA.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Greg Thompson (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC):

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

This is the first opportunity I have had to stand in the House with you in the chair, Mr. Speaker, and I congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. You have had a long history in this place, dating back to 1979, and you have the respect of the House. Your seniority in this place is well recognized. It is nice to see you in the position.

This budget is a good budget. I have to reference it by going back to the Liberals of the past. After almost 13 years of missed opportunities and empty promises from Liberal prime ministers, Canadians can finally claim to have a federal government that not only reflects their priorities but respects their voice. This is a balanced budget, a Conservative budget, and it is about restoring the faith of voters who had started to grow cynical about politics and politicians. It is a refreshing change.

The budget is also about keeping election promises, a practice that some Canadians sadly were beginning to think had gone the way of the Edsel and the eight track cassette, both of which you can remember, Mr. Speaker, although perhaps I am getting off to a bad start with you by saying that.

Our budget provides about $20 billion in personal income tax relief to Canadians, more than the last four Liberal budgets combined.

We are reducing the GST from 7% to 6% and eventually to 5%.

On top of that, there is tax relief for seniors, students, working Canadians, commuters, apprentices, and parents with active children. With that last, of course, I am referring to the tax credit that parents will get when they enroll their children in sports activities. A healthy nation is important.

The budget is balanced and still pays down the national debt. More important, for every dollar of new spending in the budget, we have $2 in tax relief.

We have $3.7 billion for real choice in child care. That translates into $1,200 a year going to parents for every child under the age of six. This is sort of about the Liberal plan versus the Conservative plan, but of course the Liberals never had a plan. They were in office for 13 years, promised it through successive elections and never delivered. On top of that, they never built one child care space. That is their sad record.

We are also investing in safer streets and communities. The Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety made some of those announcements last week. All of it will be coming to the floor of the House of Commons for debate.

There is new money for reducing health care wait times.

There is $16.5 billion for infrastructure.

There is $5.3 billion for defence over five years, including the recruiting of 23,000 regular and reserve forces members.

There is $2 billion more for farmers over two years.

As well, Mr. Speaker, and being a westerner you would know this, there is an additional $500 million for farm support, a one time investment of $1 billion for disaster relief, and accelerated use of the $755 million under the grains and oilseeds payment program, which was one of the first things we announced.

As Minister of Veterans Affairs, I am also pleased to announce that we have $352 million more for veterans in the main estimates. One of the arguments we sometimes hear in this place is that we cannot put everything into the budget announcement, but we have that $352 million for our veterans. Obviously, a lot of that is going to the implementation of the new charter, which every member in the House supported and continues to support.

(1140)

As we well know, we get elected in our hometowns and our home constituencies, so I think it is important that I mention how this impacts on the province of New Brunswick. New Brunswickers, under our plan, will pay $183 million less in taxes next year. Families in New Brunswick earning between $45,000 and $60,000 a year will be better off by about $650 a family under our plan.

The universal child care benefit will provide New Brunswick parents with $50.9 million next year. Under the Liberals' plan, the one they never did actually enact, for New Brunswick their agreement would have resulted in $110 million for New Brunswick over five years, so that means approximately $5 million and some change a year versus our $50.9 million next year alone.

There is $16.5 billion for infrastructure, as I mentioned, with $13.9 million this year alone in federal gas revenues for New Brunswick municipalities.

There is $23 million to modernize New Brunswick's post-secondary institutions.

We have $9.4 million available immediately to improve the province's transit systems.

There is $18.4 million for affordable housing.

All this money spread over a province of only 700,000 people is significant.

There is an extra $18.7 million in new equalization payments for New Brunswick. We are committed to solving the fiscal imbalance, which the former government could not do. The present government is committed to this. We are going to do it.

As well, there is $4 million to be put toward reducing health care wait times in New Brunswick.

Also, I want to remind the House and New Brunswickers of some of the announcements that we have had in New Brunswick over the last number of weeks.

The Prime Minister was in New Brunswick on March 24. I was with him as we travelled around the province. He announced the following: $200 million for highways; $6 million for a new stadium in Moncton to host the world junior track and field championships; and $2.8 million for the Saint John Harbour cleanup.

This last is one where we have had a bit of controversy in the province of New Brunswick, because this is obviously $2.8 million more than what the Liberals ever provided for harbour cleanup in Saint John, New Brunswick. Their argument is that it is not enough. We agree, so we have made a commitment that we are going to work with the city of Saint John and the province of New Brunswick to see a completion of this project over the next number of years.

We are not going to be as the Liberals were in terms of making announcements only to have people find out that they were not real, that they were bogus announcements. For example, the harbour cleanup situation in Saint John was simply an announcement, a sort of deathbed repentance. It is something the Liberals announced without having cabinet authority or having gone through Treasury Board.

They went into the city of Saint John and made an announcement less than a month before the election simply for the sake of announcing it, but with no firm commitment. It is a file that the present member for Saint John fell asleep on a number of years ago when he was a member of the government from 1993 to 1997. We are committed to that project and, over the course of a number of years, we will get it done.

With only one minute left, I will mention what I think is also an important one: $21 million was announced through the Atlantic innovation fund for nine research projects in the province of New Brunswick, for a total value, with all the partners, of about $52 million.

We were the ones who came up with the moneys to help out our struggling agriculture industry, with real money to get the job done, and also with $5.5 million to help with the second phase of the Fundy Trail, a world class tourist attraction.

(1145)

We have invested in infrastructure in many spots around the province of New Brunswick in the last number of weeks. We are totally committed to the province of New Brunswick and to this country of Canada.

We are doing the very best we possibly can. I think that is reflected in the budget.As I said earlier, I think it is refreshing that Canadians can actually see a government doing what it promised to do.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gérard Asselin (Manicouagan, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member's speech. He gave a long list of what is in the budget. He is a Conservative minister in the government in power and he extolled the virtues of his budget. However, I will speak of what is not in the budget.

Of course there are several irritants. The excise tax on gasoline could have helped develop the tourism industry. However, there is not a word about this subject, even though the tax was imposed by the Liberals. This tax is hidden in the price of gasoline. There is talk of an oil crisis with the price of gasoline increasing to $1.50 per litre. The Conservatives have done nothing to reduce the excise tax on gasoline.

Furthermore, in the Speech from the Throne and the budget there is nothing about employment insurance. Yet, when in opposition, the Conservative Party voted with the Bloc Québécois to make certain recommendations, and this in a unanimous report by the parliamentary committee.

Today, the Conservatives are in power and there is no mention of employment insurance in the Speech from the Throne or the budget. However, according to the Auditor General's figures, the employment insurance fund has accumulated a surplus of over $50 billion. This money comes from employees and employers. Not one cent is government money.

Will my colleague, who is a member of Cabinet, commit this morning to the unemployed, the seasonal workers, the Sans-chemise groups, the committees for access to employment insurance, to recommend to the Prime Minister the true reform of employment insurance and the establishment of an independent fund?

At present, it is theft by government and a hidden tax on the backs of the unemployed and seasonal workers. I believe that if the Conservatives are serious and capable of some logic, they will stop taking money from the fund at the expense of the unemployed and will give them a truly improved fund and an independent fund.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Greg Thompson:

Again, Mr. Speaker, I could step through many elements of the budget, but at the end of the day we are providing real tax relief to Canadians and we are committed to a strong and vibrant economy.

The member may want to focus on unemployment, but we want to focus on employment. We support the program, obviously, and as members know, in my career in the House I have been up on that subject many times. At the end of the day, we want to put in a tax system that supports our workers, supports industry, and supports growth in the economy, along with education and training for our young people so that we will have the best trained workforce in the world. Those are some of the commitments we have made and obviously some of them are in the budget.

I am pretty proud of how our budget has addressed some of those very issues he mentioned. Again, I think it is very good news for the province of Quebec. I do not have the exact numbers here, but I have seen them. I think he appreciates them because he supported our budget initiative, obviously because it is good for the province of Quebec.

I am very proud of what we have done for his province. I am proud of what we have done for the other areas of the country as well.

(1150)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Zed (Saint John, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member, and specifically to his reference to the $2.83 million allocated for harbour cleanup. I want to ask the hon. member if it is his recollection that the $2.83 million was in fact money for municipal-rural infrastructure and that team Saint John had actually put that money together for projects like the YMCA, waterfront development and the Rothesay regional economic development project.

Regarding the $44 million that is needed for construction this summer for harbour cleanup, there is no money in this budget for strategic infrastructure. Have we not taken money out of one fund and put it into another? In other words, have we not robbed one fund and put it into another fund for political expediency? This is not a partisan issue. In 2004 the mayor and council of Saint John came out for the first time with a proposal that all members of this House were involved with at meetings, including the then prime minister.

I would ask the hon. member about the $2.83 million and that money being taken away from other projects in Saint John. How does he square those two funds?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Greg Thompson:

Mr. Speaker, that is coming from the member who fell asleep on this fund in his years in this place.

Mr. Paul Zed: I did not fall asleep. That's not true.

Hon. Greg Thompson: The truth is that he represents Canada's oldest incorporated city. We acknowledged that the need for this project has been around a long time. We are the first government to actually put real money into that project.

It is true because last year there was a deathbed repentance to get this guy elected in Saint John on a bogus promise of $80 million and the money just simply did not appear. There is no document in this place, including the cabinet, that would support that position.

The only member on the Liberal side who spoke the truth on this was the minister of infrastructure who said that there was no money in the budget for that project.

That is the same member and the same government who promised to refurbish Point Lapro. There were 700 high paying jobs at one of the world's best nuclear reactors in the world and the Liberals abandoned that project on their watch. That is the record of that member's party.

The Liberals also went down on another bogus announcement in July 2005 for our aquaculture industry. They promised $20 million to aquaculture but did not deliver one cent. Again, an abandonment of their position. Their position was a bogus position. There was no money, zero dollars, nothing. That is his sorry record as a member representing Canada's oldest incorporated city.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Patrick Brown (Barrie, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, on May 2, Canada's new government presented its first budget and the budget delivers. It delivers on tax relief, on focused spending, on debt paydown, on supporting infrastructure, on investing in health care and on helping Canadians most in need. I am very proud to support the budget on behalf of the residents of Barrie.

Let us look at the tax relief in the budget. Taxes are too high. Canadians are overtaxed and the budget recognizes that. Since 1994 the GST burden on Canadians has doubled from $15.9 billion to $31.8 billion. Total income taxes collected have doubled and personal income taxes are up 82%.

According to the TD Bank, GDP per worker rose by 21.8% over the past 15 years and yet real after tax income per worker remained stagnant at just a 3.6% gain over the same period.

Enough is enough. Canadians deserve a break. Canadians deserve to be unleashed from the shackles of the Liberal tax age. It is time to give money back to Canadians. That is the bottom line of budget 2006. The budget delivers $20 billion in tax relief over two years. That is more than the last four budgets combined.

Let me tell the House how the new government will lower taxes. The government will reduce the GST from 7% to 6% effective July 1; happy Canada day. We will create a new $1,000 Canada employment credit effective July 1. This new tax credit gives Canadians a break on what it costs to work, recognizing expenses for such things as home computers, uniforms and supplies.

The government will reduce the lowest personal income tax rate from 16% to 15.5% effective July 1. We will increase the amount that all Canadians can earn without paying federal income taxes.

The government will create a new apprenticeship job creation tax credit of $2,000 per apprentice. Once again, effective July 1 we will provide a 15.5% credit for the cost of transit passes.

The government will completely eliminate federal income tax on all income from scholarships, bursaries and fellowships. The government will create a new tax credit for textbooks for post-secondary education. We will provide a physical fitness credit of up to $500 for the registration fees for children's sports.

The government will double the amount of eligible pension income for seniors that they can claim. I know this is the first such increase in more than 30 years.

The bottom line is that the budget delivers $20 billion in tax relief, a staggering 29 different tax reductions.

Let us talk about crime and security. Our government is committed to ensuring that Canadians are safe in their homes, their communities and on the streets, the defining characteristic of the Canadian way of life that must be preserved.

Times are changing and our cities are changing. The safe streets and neighbourhoods we expect as Canadians are threatened by gun, gang and drug crime. I have seen that happen even in Barrie where this past weekend there was a murder investigation that began in the south end of Barrie. Crime is not simply the domain of big cities but has spread into the traditionally peaceful small towns and neighbourhoods.

With this budget, our government focuses spending to protect Canadians on their streets, in their communities, at their national border and throughout the world. We are cracking down on crime. We will provide $161 million to put more RCMP officers on the streets. We will invest $37 million for the RCMP to expand their training academy.

We will set aside additional funds for Canada's correctional facilities. We will provide $20 million for communities to use and develop programs designed to prevent youth crime. We will provide $26 million to get victims a more effective voice in the judicial process. We will provide money required to arm our border agents.

Canadians deserve to feel safe within the confines of their own communities. The budget helps our Minister of Justice to achieve that important aim.

On health care the budget is a win as well. A strong health care system is the foundation of any healthy society and yet between 1994 and 1999 the previous government cut health care by $25 billion. Wait times during the Liberal tenure went from 9.3 weeks to 17.7 weeks. Canadians deserve better.

(1155)

I think of my local hospital in Barrie, the Royal Victoria Hospital, which struggles with limited resources and often does not have beds available. Doctors are working extended hours. Our community has become involved financially to support the hospital. Our CEO, Janice Skot; our board chair, Chris Gariepy; and fundraising chair, David Blenkarn, have done exceptional jobs for our community. The community, which has raised over $25 million, and the city council, which has contributed one-third to the hospital expansion and over one-third to doctor recruitment, have taken on an incredible burden. We have done this despite federal leadership. We need a federal government that shows leadership in health care.

In the 1990s the federal government was part of the problem, not part of the solution. I am proud that health care funding is increasing in this budget by 6% because this government is becoming part of the solution. Our new Canadian government will work with the provinces to create a patient wait times guarantee and we have already committed $5.5 billion to the provinces for the wait times reduction transfer.

One of the challenges we face in the health care system today, especially in Barrie, is the lack of doctors. One out of 30 Canadians does not have a doctor and in Barrie it is one out of four. Given our high growth and aging physician population, this is a dangerous stat especially in Canada when doctors are driving taxi cabs and delivering pizzas. I was excited to see this budget made mention of a Canadian agency for assessment and recognition of foreign credentials. This may seem like a small, unnoticed initiative but it will certainly go a long way in communities like mine that are struggling to find doctors and are frustrated by the ones within our own communities who are not allowed to practice in the land of hope and opportunity simply because their medical degree is from a different country. Even if they pass our equivalency exams, often we do not give them residency spots because of a lack of funding in our health care system.

We will improve the system so Canadians get what they pay for.

Small businesses are the backbone of the Canadian economy. Many Canadians are employed by them. They are responsible for almost half of all the new jobs created in Canada. All of us turn to small businesses for services, such as our local dry cleaner, our computer software company and our local grocer. I think of our small businesses in Barrie like Garner's Source for Sports on Dunlop Street, StorageOne on Bell Farm Road and Hot Banana, a new tech company. We need to support these small businesses because they are the heart of our communities. They create jobs and give back to our communities in a cultural and charitable fashion.

Canada needs a government that will do everything it can to support small businesses. We will increase the threshold for small business' income eligible for a reduced federal tax rate from $300,000 to $400,000 effective January 1. This is an important step. This government will also reduce the 12% rate to 11.5% effective 2008 and 11% in 2009. I am very pleased by this.

I remember before the election that the local branch of the CFIB and Lew Miller put together a group and talked about these issues. These are things they wanted to see Canada's new government focus on. It is really encouraging to see that the government has actually put plans in place that small businesses were thirsty for in this country.

I want to make note of initiatives in this budget for apprenticeships and tradespeople. Canada is facing a serious shortage of tradespeople, such as carpenters, plumbers, electricians, cooks and others. Our government is taking action to encourage apprenticeships and support apprentices in their training. Our Prime Minister came to Barrie last fall and made a commitment to Georgian College where we have a very focused training program for apprentices. He said that if he were prime minister he would support the industry and do everything he could to support initiatives like we have at Georgian College.

I am very encouraged that in this budget we are going to help companies hire apprentices with a new apprenticeship job creation tax credit of $2,000. We will create a new apprenticeship incentive grant of $1,000 per year for the first two years of a red seal apprenticeship program. We will invest $500 million over the next two years in these two measures, which will help approximately 100,000 apprentices.

We will also help apprentices and tradespeople with the heavy burden of buying the tools they need to do their jobs. Our government will invest $155 million over the next two years for a cost of tools deduction, which will help approximately 700,000 employed tradespeople in Canada.

I also want to make mention of what this budget will do for municipalities. As a former city councillor in Barrie, I am very impressed with the commitment this government is making to infrastructure. Investing in infrastructure, bridges, roads and transit is all too important.

(1200)

Delays in moving goods and the cost of a business is a very significant challenge for businesses when we do not have a proper infrastructure. Hence, supporting municipal infrastructure, supporting pan-Canadian infrastructure is a significant advantage for Canadians because we are investing in our economy or allowing for a greater speed of delivery for our goods.

This is a long term commitment of unprecedented new investment that the government is focusing on. Over the next four years we will invest a total of $16.5 billion in new infrastructure initiatives, including $3.5 billion this year and $3.9 billion next year.

The government will provide more than $5.5 billion in new federal funding for highways and border infrastructure, the municipal road infrastructure fund, the Canadian strategic infrastructure fund, the public transit capital trust, and the Pacific Gateway initiative.

This is great news for cities. Municipalities only receive 8¢ on the tax dollar to deal with the many day to day challenges of Canadian citizens. The mayor and city council in Barrie are doing a great job with a limited budget. I am certainly encouraged to see that the government is able to do a little bit to help them.

On January 23 Barrie residents voted for change. Our new Prime Minister promised to honour that trust. I suggest that the Prime Minister has delivered in the budget. It is certainly encouraging to see.

(1205)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I have one question in particular on the speech my colleague shared with the House. I think what Canadians are beginning to realize, and they will realize it even more when they come to do their income tax next year, is that what they put in the window on this budget falls far short of making any kind of difference in the average life of a Canadian.

Yesterday I mentioned in the House the tax credit of $500 for sport registration for children under 16 years of age. When Canadians come to do their taxes, it will come down to about $80. Will that have any type of impact? Will that elicit any change in behaviour, when mom and dad are sitting down at the kitchen table figuring out whether or not they can put their young ones into gymnastics, minor hockey or whatever the sport might be? Is there any true benefit in that?

It is nice. It is 80 bucks. I will claim that. I have three boys who are involved and that is great, but will it prompt any kind of change in behaviour? Will it address obesity, health and fitness issues?

My question for the member is, why did his party not follow through with their campaign promises? They are hurting themselves over there patting themselves on the back. Why did they not follow through with the campaign promise that the Conservatives would allocate 1% of the total health budget, which would have been about $400 million, to sport and fitness? Where is that in the budget? I cannot find it. Would the member show me where that is in the budget?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Patrick Brown:

Mr. Speaker, it is amusing to hear this question from a Liberal member, given that it was the Liberal government that cut health care transfers by $25 billion between 1994 and 1999.

If we look at the problems that we have with health care in Canada, the root of that occurred on the Liberal watch. If we look at waiting lists, at challenges we have in providing the best possible health care system for children and providing funding to enhance health, it happened on the Liberal government's watch.

The government does focus on families and health. Families are the building blocks of society. Communities are what bind us together. Parents have to fight harder to balance work and family commitments. Some Canadians need help more than others. For our government, supporting families means providing choice in child care for all Canadian families. It means providing a sports tax credit. It means helping out children with disabilities.

The member mentioned fitness in his question. For many Canadians, loading up a minivan for hockey practice or car pooling to the soccer field is routine. It brings families and communities together. It keeps kids involved. It keeps kids fit, but it is an added expense.

The member across the way may not view it as an added expense. It may not make a difference for families in his opinion. I can tell him that it does. I remember growing up, and my mother and father took me to the rink when I was six and certainly they sacrificed things in order to do that. A lot of Canadian parents make a sacrifice to involve their kids in recreation. Canadians take a tremendous degree of pride in being able to involve their children in recreation, whatever sport of their choice.

I am certainly very proud that the budget includes the tax credit for children's sports. It is important to support our families.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Yvon Lévesque (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind hon. members that the Bloc Québécois intends to support the budget, but not necessarily for all the reasons listed by my colleague opposite.

As we have said many times, we consider this to be a transitional budget. It contains the Conservative Party promise to resolve the fiscal imbalance. However, when he says this budget includes tax relief, we disagree. In fact, given the higher cost of living, there is no tax relief.

As far as lowering sales tax is concerned, this goes against the global trend. Furthermore, this party voted in favour of providing assistance to workers, older workers in particular, and transferring the employment insurance fund to an independent committee.

I would like my colleague to indicate where in this budget or in his party's provisions he sees this transfer and this assistance to older workers.

(1210)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Patrick Brown:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member across the way mentioned that he is supporting the budget. The bottom line is that the budget has 29 different tax cuts. It delivers $20 million in tax relief. When I talk about how we are delivering in the budget, we are delivering focused spending, debt repayment, investment in health care, and delivering for students like those in my riding at Georgian College. The budget delivers for Canadians. I encourage all members in the House, not just the Bloc who support this important budget, to help build an even stronger country.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, we have all heard the old saying,“Tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you what you are”. I do not dispute the wisdom of this statement, but I think a more updated version would be, “Tell me where you're spending your money and I'll tell you where you're going”.

The Conservative government's first budget does not tell the whole story, but it does drop a few hints. I agree with the leader of the Bloc Québécois who said that the real budget is next year.

I also agree with my favourite journalist who said last week on TV that with the performance of the economy and the size of the surplus left by the previous Liberal government, a good news budget could have been written by a chimpanzee.

It was good news for some Canadians, I agree, those comfortable folks in the affluent suburbs where we can find some moms lucky enough to stay home to focus on their children's needs. Yes, they will get a cheque which is supposed to recognize their truly hard work, but if they calculate the Conservative government's recognition of their contribution, they will realize the government thinks they are worth about 27¢ an hour.

The government is underestimating these women who could earn good salaries in the marketplace, but stay home because they can afford to do so and because they choose to do so. For these women, 27¢ an hour is an insult.

Actually, they are more concerned about the state of the environment in which they are raising their children. They are not happy about dumping overboard an international plan, the Kyoto accord, for what seems to be as yet a vague notion of a made in Canada plan, one that has still to be developed.

If this mom's family home is located near a transit line, the parent who goes to work outside the home can get there using public transit with a 15% tax credit on the purchase of a monthly pass. Homes near transit lines are more expensive, so lucky people who live in these homes just became luckier.

These two strategies are the bait. They reveal the narrow casting for future votes that the budget represents. However, people in Ontario have seen this movie before. It does seem like good news at first, until time passes and shows the cost to society of these cynical payouts.

On budget day a chill ran down my spine when I saw former Premier Mike Harris in the front row of the gallery, nodding and smiling as his acolyte, the Minister of Finance, unveiled the same neo-conservative prescriptions the Harris government used in Ontario.

Ontarians know that good news for a few lucky ones translates into bad news for many. They watched the decline of public education in the province as the Harris government starved the system, demonized and demoralized the teachers and negatively affected almost every student.

The affluent simply withdrew their children from the public system and enrolled them in private schools and were rewarded with a tax credit for school fees. In my town the number of private schools grew by 400% during these years.

However, the most vulnerable in society suffered. Social assistance rates were cut ruthlessly to the point where recipient parents were unable to feed their children properly. For the working poor, a second and even a third job became the norm.

For the children in these families, the school, which had been the last safe place, shrunk in its ability to respond to their needs. Social workers and psychologists were reduced. Music and art programs were reduced and sometimes cut altogether.

The heroes of this period were the teachers who worked harder, but still witnessed a rise in the dropout rate as young people, unserved, simply gave up. None of the human service professionals are surprised that 10 years later we are facing a rise in gangs and guns.

I describe Ontario's experience to warn Canadians in other provinces. The same people who brought this misery to Ontario are now in charge of our federal tax dollars. Our new federal Minister of Finance and our new President of the Treasury Board were part of the Harris government and still believe in its policies.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Mississauga South.

The evidence that these people do not believe in community investment is seen by their throwing overboard the beginnings of a national day care program, most of the strategies developed by environmentalists to reduce global warming, and the best arrangement we have had with the aboriginal people in 30 years, which is the Kelowna accord.

(1215)

Where are the Conservative putting this money they are saving? They are giving bits and pieces back to selected taxpayers, but the largest chunks of it will go to more people in uniform with guns. They are going to try to recruit 2,300 more people into the armed forces for missions like Afghanistan, add 1,000 more RCMP officers and, for the first time, put guns into the hands of our officials at the border. One of my colleagues joked as to when they were going to issue uniforms for us to wear in the House of Commons. In addition to more guns, they have introduced such justice measures that will put more people in jail and require more prisons and more prison guards, with guns no doubt.

I am a Canadian. I have English roots, but I have a long held profound respect for my brothers and sisters in Quebec. My respect is multifaceted and includes admiration for their nurturing of language and culture, music, drama, film, dance and literature. Even more profound is my respect for their advanced programs in education, their early childhood program, their community colleges and universities. I believe their education system does not simply prepare people for jobs, but tries to prepare them for a rich and meaningful life.

Progressive programs in youth justice have kept many people out of jail. From everything I have experienced in Ontario, Canada needs more Quebec solutions, not less. It needs more cooperation and community, not more American competition and individualism. Quebeckers should be worried about what they will lose under the Conservative government and the alien culture it represents. When the government present its next budget, its true colours will show.

I do not believe Quebeckers will be willing to trade their traditions of caring for each other for the ruthless individualism the government will espouse. I ask them not to be fooled into complacency by the small bait offered in this budget because there could be another unpleasant price to pay.

That is the relationship between large tax cuts and the resulting threat to the treasury. Certainly, the Ontario tax cuts by the Harris government left a large annual deficit, even though the record of economic activity at the time suggested boom times. I notice that this federal budget did not provide a prudence factor in the case of an economic downturn.

Considering the legacy of deficits from the last two Conservative governments experienced by Ontarians, that is $42 billion from Mulroney-Campbell and $6 billion to $8 billion from Harris-Eves, we should hold our applause until we see what the budget's combination of tax cuts and spending does to Canada's long term financial health.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I will correct one small fact in my hon. colleague's comments. There will be 23,000 more recruits to the Canadian Forces, not 2,300. She probably knows that.

That also serves to emphasize the point I want to make. There will bet 23,000 more Canadian Forces members and 1,000 more RCMP officers, who will have guns on our streets in our cities, people trained and dedicated to protect us. I am not making this up. That will actually happen. I for one and many Canadians think that more protection by people properly trained and dedicated is a good thing.

What is insulting is not whatever calculations the member has made to come up with 27¢ an hour. What is insulting is the Liberal party's ideology that says the government must live the lives of Canadians for Canadians. We think Canadians can live their lives for themselves given the right tools.

I have one specific question for the hon. member and it relates to Kyoto. Does the member approve of sending billions of Canadians' hard earned tax dollars to other countries so they can continue to pollute our planet? I know I will not get a simple yes or no, but I will try.

(1220)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Bonnie Brown:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his correction. I am sorry, it is 23,000 more recruits. I would like to point out just how much money that will cost the treasury, not just the salaries for these new soldiers, sailors, et cetera, but also the infrastructure that will have to be built to house and maintain them.

I believe he was accusing the Liberal government of social engineering. His party did that for the last 10 years. The Liberal government did occasionally use a tax credit or some such thing to elicit certain behaviours. However, it is a situation of the pot calling the kettle black. There is a lot of social engineering in this budget.

There is money to help when registering a child for sports, of which I very much approve, although the amount one actually will get is so little: $80. I know my daughter's fees for her children's dance lessons amount to thousands of dollars each year. The $80 becomes small change.

There are several issues in the budget which I find funny, considering the accusations that flowed from the Conservatives when they were in opposition to the Liberal government, only to find that the Conservatives have replicated the same style. That is very strange.

As far as trading what I believe is called carbon credits, it is not the ideal scenario. On the other hand, if we can help bring all countries together, through such a mechanism, I am not opposed to it. The main thing is there was a plan. There were a great number of dollars in the last Liberal fall economic update for a variety of environmental improvement strategies, all of which have been cut. I think most Canadians are sad about that.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the comments made by my colleague who just spoke.

One of my greatest concerns is that since 2004—since I have been here—we have been talking about improving the employment insurance system. We know that $45 billion was accumulated in the EI fund. We want to have an independent, improved employment insurance system. The Liberals were in power for 13 years and they did very little for people who receive employment insurance benefits. In their budget, the Conservatives have also forgotten about the unemployed and the POWA program for older workers.

Now that the hon. member is in opposition, does she think it is important to improve this system? Sometimes it can be easier to take that kind of position when you are in opposition. I want her opinion on the employment insurance fund and the improvements that should be made to it.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Bonnie Brown:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the questioner and his party for the tremendous work they have done on the EI file over the last number of years.

He will recall that the major cuts to the EI system happened as a direct result of the terrible annual deficit left by the previous Conservative government. Most programs that the federal government ran were cut at that time and it took years to get back to a point where we could make improvements. As the financial--

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Mississauga South.

(1225)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the measure of success is not a matter of where one is, but a measure of how far one has come from where one started.

During this debate we have had a number of suggestions that somehow the Liberal record is not worth boasting about, and I would like to clarify that for the House.

In 1993 we inherited from a Conservative government, which was in power from 1984 to 1993, an unholy mess. There was a $42 billion deficit. Our overall debt had ballooned to stifling proportions, equaling almost 70% of our gross domestic product. Deficit financing was a bad habit. Interest charges were high. There was no real economic growth. Job creation was essentially nil and our economic sovereignty was in jeopardy. We were even compared to a third world country. This is a sad legacy of a Conservative government.

Let us see what happened in the next 12 years, from 1993 up to the last election.

The government cleaned up the nation's finances, restored Canada's financial sovereignty and re-established the federal government's ability to invest properly in Canadians' leading social and economic priorities, while at the same time balancing the books, reducing its debt and coping with unforeseeable external shocks. We balanced the books in 1997. We brought down eight consecutive surplus budgets with five more balanced budgets projected in the future. We reduced the federal debt, in absolute terms, by more than $63 billion. As a proportion of the total--

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Mississauga South.

The hon. member for Hull—Aylmer.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marcel Proulx:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. We do not seem to have quorum. I would like the members in the House to be counted to ensure we still have quorum.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

I would like to inform the member for Hull—Aylmer that the Sergeant-at-Arms will check to see whether there is quorum.

And the count having been taken:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): We have quorum.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

The hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo:

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, we balanced Canada's books in 1997, brought down eight consecutive surplus budgets, with at least five more balanced budgets projected for the future five years.

We reduced federal debt, in absolute terms, from $63 billion and, as a proportion of the total economy, by 45%. The debt is now in a steady downward track, scheduled to decline to 25% of GDP by 2015 and then to no more than 20% of GDP by 2020.

Under the Liberal government, we obtained the AAA credit rating. Inflation declined, interest rates came down and remained low and stable. Federal taxes were reduced by more than $100 billion since 2000 and another six-year $50 billion tax cut was initiated in 2005. I should also mention, we indexed the income tax system to give Canadians tax breaks each and every year.

The Canadian economy has generated more than 3.5 million new jobs since 1993. Participation in the labour market is at near record level highs, while unemployment has plummeted to a 32-year low. Business and consumer confidence is up. Investment plans are robust, housing markets have been impressive and both domestic demand and export sales have continued to be very positive.

Canada has enjoyed 12 straight years of unprecedented economic growth. We can properly claim the best fiscal performance in the G-7 group of world-leading economies and the best fiscal record of any Canadian government since 1867.

Ten years ago, there were 12.8 million jobs in Canada. Today there are 16.4 million. The unemployment rate was 11.5% 10 years ago. Today it is 6.3%, the lowest in 32 years.

I could go on with statistics, but there is more. It is also important that a government invest. So what did the government do? We did that, too. We invested in the strongest ever support systems for children, families, seniors, the disabled and their caregivers.

We invested in the highest ever transfers to provinces and territories, as well as direct federal programming to advance health care, more than $42 billion for health care alone over the next 10 years, plus education, a clean environment, public infrastructure, safe and vibrant cities and communities, the agriculture and resource sectors, new Canadians, first nations and aboriginal peoples.

We also invested in science and innovation, talent and brains, so Canada could remain number one in the G-7 for publicly-funded R and D and so Canadians could succeed in the knowledge-based, technology-driven, skills-intensive and highly-competitive global economy in the 21st century.

We also invested in foreign aid, diplomacy, national defence, security and public safety.

Our track record in this regard is very enviable.

What about children and families and those in most need in our society? We introduced the Canada child tax benefit and the national child benefit supplement, which will help more than three million families annually, providing $3,000 a year per child, totalling about $8 billion a year in family benefits. We expanded the child care expense deduction to $7,000 per year for children under seven, $4,000 for children seven and older and $10,000 for children with disabilities, totalling some $500 million per year in benefits.

We have enhanced the broad range of tax and other supports for children with disabilities, including a major improvement in the child disability tax credit. We expanded parental leave from six months to a full year. I am pleased to say it was my bill. We created the registered education savings plan, the Canada education savings grant and learning bonds for every newborn child in our country. We launched the head start program to help ensure a good beginning in life and at school for our aboriginal children.

In the 2000 health accord, we established an early childhood development framework, which is now providing provinces and territories with about $500 million every year, through the Canada social transfer. We also invested in a multi-year $100 billion tax reduction plan, which began in 2000 and emphasized cutting the personal taxes of middle and low income families. It brought down the federal tax burden by some 27%.

Our further plan to cut taxes would increase the basic personal amount, which all Canadians can earn tax free, reduce federal taxes across the first three brackets and also institute a new working income benefit to help low income families get over and stay over the welfare wall, representing an overall tax savings to Canadians of close to another $30 billion over six years, with the vast majority of benefits focused on middle and modest income Canadians.

(1230)

I would be remiss if I did not mention probably one of the most important acts that I participated in along with most parliamentarians in 1993, and that was the Clarity Act. Over the last decade that act became the hallmark and an important legacy of the Government of Canada in that it addressed up front the problem with regard to having referendums on the issue of Quebec separation. Now we have legislation in place, thanks to the Liberal government over the last 12 years, that will ensure that this problem will not be the same kind of problem we experienced the last go-round.

We know where the Conservatives were before 1993. We know where the Liberals have been over the last 12 years. What do we see now? Very honestly, when I look at the budget as a package I do not see a vision for Canada. I do not see nation building. I do not see investment in post-secondary education. I see an abandonment of the climate change file, which is probably one of the most important files that we need to address.

On the Kelowna accord, who in our society is more deserving and more in need than our aboriginal and first nations people? I have visited at least a dozen reserves. I have been there so I know. We have talked very passionately. The member for LaSalle—Émard has been doing excellent work to advance those issues.

We need a vision for our country. I understand every government can make its choices, but I can say that in the next budget some $22.5 billion in programs that Canadians need in order to live in dignity and respect are going to have to be cut. I am afraid for seniors. I am afraid for children. I am afraid for Canadians at large. We have heard so many examples of how the budget has not told all of the story with regard to the implications of the tax increases. If members were to check with the Conference Board or look at the Caledon Institute report, they would see that this is clearly a budget that is dedicated to short term gain for long term pain for all Canadians.

(1235)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to my colleague that broken promises and empty rhetoric do not build nations. Actions build nations.

I would also point out that while the Liberals take credit for balancing the books, a distinguished panel of McGill academics rated previous prime ministers strictly on their economic performance regardless of whether one likes them or not. They rated former prime ministers Trudeau and Chrétien at the bottom of the pile and former prime minister Mulroney at the top because he brought in policies, which the previous federal government between 1993 and last year used to some effect. They were not the Liberals' policies, they were the policies of the former Conservatives.

It is not hard to balance a budget when there are unlimited powers of taxation. One of the ways the Liberals balanced the budget was by confiscating $60 billion from EI, and the military, RCMP and public service pension plans, one of those pension plans being mine.

To say that the Liberals invested in national defence is a joke. I acknowledge the Clarity Act, but I wonder if the member would acknowledge that in fact it is the current Prime Minister who actually wrote the words that were in the Clarity Act that were then adapted, to the Liberals' credit, by his government to have what we have today. It was not their idea.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo:

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but the member has his facts wrong. He obviously did not listen to the speech. Let me give an example of where he is wrong.

He said on the EI file that we somehow took some money. If the member would do his homework, he would understand that during the Mulroney years the EI program was actually operating at a deficit and it was being funded off balance sheet, if he understands what that means. As a consequence the Auditor General instructed the Government of Canada to put the EI fund into the government operating funds so that we could properly fund it. That was from the Auditor General. I am sorry, but the member is wrong on that.

There is another place where the Conservatives are wrong. They are going to spend $1.3 billion for transit pass tax credits, 90% of which are going to go to existing transit users. It is estimated that ridership will increase by 5% to 7% but there is not that capacity in the system which means there will have to be investments to beef up the transit systems. What is going to happen then is that transit fares are simply going to go up because all of these public transit systems are subsidized in the first place. Talk about waste and mismanagement, that is a perfect example.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jean-Yves Laforest (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the hon. member said that the previous government had restored the country's financial sovereignty.

I would like to ask him about the cost of restoring financial sovereignty. We know that unemployed workers paid a high price, as did older workers whose POWA program was cancelled, and that there has been a major increase in the fiscal deficit between the central government and the provinces, including Quebec.

I would therefore like to ask him how he can be proud of this record.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo:

Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that in 2006 the government of the day inherited from the Liberals the strongest economy, the most robust fiscal situation and the cleanest set of books that any newly elected incoming government has ever received. That is as simple as I can put it.

If one's fiscal house is in order, there is the ability to address the fiscal imbalance, to deal with jobs, to deal with children, to deal with families, to deal with child care and to deal with other things. In the Mulroney era, in the 10 years of that Conservative government, there was not one balanced budget. There were some very good years there but it seems to me that if the deficit is not reduced when the government has a surplus and some debt paid down in good years, they certainly are not going to do that when the economy is on a downturn.

(1240)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Peace River.

[English]

I am proud to rise in my place today to give my wholehearted support for this budget. It has been a long hard journey to get here. Thomas Edison once said that opportunity can be missed by some people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. This government has worked hard to have the opportunity to propose this budget and we will work even harder to make it a reality.

[Translation]

I have been in politics for a very long time. I have municipal, provincial, and now federal experience.

Since the Prime Minister entrusted me with this portfolio, I have had the opportunity to meet with Canadians from all across the country. After meeting with people from the Pacific to the Atlantic, there is one thing I am hearing constantly, something which has stayed in my mind. And that is what these people want their government to stand up for, namely the priorities. They want it to do great things, in a clear and targeted fashion. That is exactly what this budget does.

[English]

The budget highlights five priorities, the same five priorities we campaigned on last winter, and the same priorities to which Canadians will hold us accountable. Those priorities are to: clean up government through the accountability act; cut taxes beginning with the GST; tackle crime; give parents a choice in child care; and work with the provinces and territories to shorten waiting times for health care.

[Translation]

Those are the five priorities of the government’s overall agenda.

The Minister of Finance has also presented the measures that will allow us to improve the competitiveness of the Canadian economy on global markets and to support a better quality of life for what Canadians call home, that is, their communities.

A country with a burgeoning economy is equipped to act on priorities such as those I have just described to you. Our competitiveness and our quality of life are closely related to the way that we integrate a great many of these factors.

When the Prime Minister assigned me responsibility for transport, infrastructure and communities, he created a powerful portfolio with a variety of tools for overcoming interrelated challenges. In very concrete terms, the integration of these three components reflects our approach to certain major issues, and provides us with a better framework for introducing the type of policies we will need to move this country forward.

This budget is our guide in that direction. Over the next four years, the government will be providing unprecedented support for initiatives designed to improve our infrastructure and our transportation network.

The present budget provides for the renewal of federal agreements on infrastructure and the funding of new infrastructure initiatives. Those initiatives include a new permanent fund for highway and border infrastructure, which will make available $2.4 billion over the next five years.

This new fund will gradually replace the border infrastructure fund. We have also added $400 million to the $2 billion already promised in last winter’s election platform.

The new highway and border infrastructure fund will serve to finance not only the core national highway system, but also improvements to Canada-U.S. border crossings.

[English]

Let me point out some of the other key investments included in the budget. There is an additional $2 billion to renew the Canada strategic infrastructure fund. Recognizing the needs of smaller municipalities, the budget allocates $2.2 billion over the next five years to renew the municipal rural infrastructure fund. There is $591 million over the next eight years for investments in the Pacific gateway initiative, which is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics.

We know that public transit plays an important role in easing traffic congestion in urban areas, reducing carbon dioxide and other emissions and making communities more liveable. In the budget we accelerated investments in public transit. This includes $400 million in funding to be provided through agreements with the provinces and territories. Nine agreements have already been finalized and these jurisdictions now have these funds. However, the other four jurisdictions will not lose out as the budget confirms that those provinces and territories that did not sign agreements before the end of 2005-06 will receive their allocation in 2006-07.

The Government of Canada will also provide a one time payment of $900 million to the provinces and territories to be paid into a third party trust contingent on sufficient funds being available from the 2005-06 surplus in excess of $2 billion. The public transit capital trust will support capital investments in public transit infrastructure, including rapid transit, transit buses, intelligent transportation systems and other investments, including high occupancy vehicles and bicycle lanes.

The budget backs those investments in public transit with $370 million in tax credits for people who buy monthly passes. We are investing heavily in public transit and we are giving people a direct financial incentive to get out of their cars. No other government has ever done as much to encourage public transit.

I would also point out that the budget maintains the gas tax funding commitment under the new deals for cities and communities. Hon. members will recall that when this initiative is fully implemented in 2009-10, it will transfer the equivalent of up to 5¢ per litre of gasoline excise tax or $2 billion. In total, federal support for provincial, territorial and municipal infrastructure will reach $16.5 billion over the next four years. This is an extraordinary investment in public transportation.

In any budget it is sometimes easy to lose the sense of the numbers when we are talking in terms of billions and millions of dollars, but it is always important to keep in mind the people we serve.

(1245)

[Translation]

I served as president of the Société de transport de l'Outaouais.

[English]

I was in a position to see the importance of public transit in a growing community, as well as the urgency of ensuring that transit was stable and predictable in terms of financing.

[Translation]

For a good many Canadians, going to work or somewhere else and then coming back home is a concern, and represents a good share of their personal budget. While it is true that people want to save on their travel from one place to another, they also want to do this in complete security. In that regard, the budget provides funding for security—in fact, nearly $303 million in measures to improve the security of persons and goods.

[English]

This includes $133 million to support the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority operations and $95 million for new measures to enhance the security of passenger rail and urban transit.

It also provides $26 million over two years to design and test the security measures to ensure air cargo security throughout the supply chain, as well as the evaluation of screening technologies.

These are very impressive numbers, and all of this, of course, is in the budget, but we must never forget that the decisions we take have a direct effect on the quality of life of those who have elected us to the House.

In my case, I never forget how many people in the Pontiac, who live just a few kilometres from here, do not enjoy the same opportunities or services as most Canadians. Similarly, all ministers of the House work to better serve their fellow Canadians. This budget reflects that. It is a budget for all Canadians.

(1250)

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

We have five minutes for questions. With the indulgence of the House, I would like to get three questions in. If questioners will restrict themselves to one minute and those answering to 40 seconds, we will be able to do so.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question on wait times. As anyone who has been in the House for quite some time would know, the wait time issue has been my issue.

The Liberal government did a lot to move that issue along, but I know that this was one of the priorities for the Conservative government in the budget. I would really like the minister to explain to me exactly what the government is going to be able to do for wait times. I know that it has pledged $19 million for foreign credentials, but I do not think it is enough to do the job. I do not think it is going to be able to do what the government thinks it can do.

I am sure the minister hears what I do when we are out on the streets from the people who need to see a doctor, just a general practitioner, or the people who need to be referred to a specialist. This continues to be a problem. I do not think it is necessarily a partisan issue. I think this has to be a people issue. We are here, as he has said, for the Canadian people and it is very important that we as Canadians deliver that if we can.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lawrence Cannon:

I am struck, Mr. Speaker, by my hon. colleague's position, in which she basically indicates that it is a bipartisan issue. She is absolutely right. When it comes to the health of Canadians, we are basically all in agreement on that issue.

Fundamentally what we have put forward in our budget is the amounts of money, and of course an action plan will be developed shortly, but this involves all provinces. As everyone might know, our colleague, the minister responsible, has already engaged in discussions on this issue, and certainly within the very near future we will have some sort of agreement that will satisfy not only my hon. colleague but surely all Canadians.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport a question about two subjects.

The big oversight in the budget is the matter of employment insurance. There are two urgent issues in this file. I have already discussed them with the minister and his colleague, the Minister of Finance. First of all, I would like to know whether the government will continue the pilot projects set up by the previous government to bridge the infamous seasonal gap encountered by employment insurance beneficiaries in the regions of Quebec and the rest of Canada. Also, has the minister given any thought to allowing older workers who are victims of mass layoffs to benefit quickly from what used to be called the POWA, that is, the Program for Older Worker Adjustment? This program was abolished in 1997.

Mr. Speaker, you granted four minutes to my colleague. I hope you will be equally indulgent with me.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lawrence Cannon:

Mr. Speaker, I understand your indulgence with my colleague.

The question raised is an extremely important one. It will be recalled that, at the time of the Speech from the Throne, my colleague’s political party proposed an amendment designed to develop some strategies, particularly to help workers, both those living in the regions and those about to leave their jobs, or forced to do so.

The Minister of Finance has already answered this question. He said that his colleague who is responsible for the file and he were open to considering different strategies. We will have to wait and see what direction my two colleagues plan to take in this file in the coming weeks.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in the discussion of infrastructure. The number one fact that is holding back economic development in northern Ontario is the lack of infrastructure investment over the last dozen years.

The COMRIF program, which is in place now, does not work. It does not work for northern communities such as Moosonee, Larder Lake and Elk Lake, which continually are rejected because there is not enough money in the COMRIF fund due to trying to fund such a large area across Ontario.

I have a question for the minister. The tax cuts are not going to fix the roads in Moosonee. What does the government have in place that will work for small rural communities to rebuild our infrastructure?

(1255)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lawrence Cannon:

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. The COMRIF program has been renewed. All other problems that stem from the COMRIF program obviously come from the former government and the work it had committed. Not only am I open to listening to suggestions that will be made by my hon. colleague, but certainly I think that we must be open-minded to any other kinds of issues we find in regions such as the one he represents and, for sure, open-minded to those people in northern Ontario.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Transport for his speech and for his willingness to split his time with me.

I appreciate the opportunity to stand in this House to offer a speech for the very first time since my election to this legislative body. I am humbled to serve with so many individuals from across this country who are similarly passionate about working together to build a strong Canada for future generations.

I am even more humbled to have the privilege to represent the hard-working and visionary residents of my constituency. I would like to take just a moment to thank the men and women of Peace River who have elected me their representative in this assembly. I will endeavour to work for each member of my constituency and ensure that the future is bright for the generations that will follow.

It is my privilege to serve such a hard-working people. In my riding, there are people who have built and sustained its communities. They have built an existence as latter day pioneers. We have a community comprised of farmers and ranchers, forestry workers, truckers, carpenters, oil field workers, professionals and other hard-working residents. We have families who have taken the responsibility of reaching out and building a strong community where no community existed before. There are so many in my constituency who are truly Canadian leaders.

The picture has been painted, and I think it is clear that people in my community work hard for their money and for their successes, so I will not belabour the point. I do not think there is a reasonable member in this House who would criticize the hard-working and innovative Canadians who live in this nation's rural communities, particularly those who call the constituency of Peace River home.

Yet for years, my constituents, along with many other rural Canadians, have been left out in the cold by previous administrations. I will rise and speak in support of this budget, because not only is it the first budget that we have seen in over a decade that truly respects and responds to all Canadians, but for the first time in a long time, this budget specifically responds to those who work in and call rural communities home.

For years, in budget after budget, we have seen previous governments overlook the needs and the demands of our communities. We have seen previous governments make light of our concerns by promising the world during election campaigns and then ignoring the needs of rural Canada in the years to follow, choosing rather to focus their effort and spending on sponsorship initiatives to buy the next election. Not only did they not reinvest in rural communities, but rather, they stole money from hard-working families in rural Canada to pass around in brown envelopes to buy influence among some of the country's most wealthy.

I am pleased that we finally have a budget that delivers the goods to communities like my own.

I am very supportive of the announcement in the budget for farmers. For too long, our farmers have been overlooked, overburdened and misled by the previous government. In his first act as minister, the Minister of Agriculture moved to expedite the payout of $755 million to grains and oilseeds producers. Yes, that was good news, but the budget provided much more.

In the budget, the Minister of Finance not only announced that we would meet our campaign commitment to give the industry $500 million, he announced that we would triple that investment. We not only lived up to our commitment; we did it three times over.

This budget has so much good news for farmers in the specifics, but one of the most important things the budget provides for our farmers is a positive vision for the future. Producers in my community have been looking for a government that will stand with them to help rebuild the industry to ensure that farming will be a viable option for generations. That is exactly what we have done.

As I have travelled my constituency, I have seen the effects of the red hot Alberta economy and the resulting increased growth and the demands on our communities. I am pleased to see that this government takes seriously the additional needs this change creates. This budget provides an additional $2.2 billion over five years to the municipal rural infrastructure fund. This fund will allow communities to provide better highways and cleaner water and to create an overall better place to live.

(1300)

Also in my travels, there has been much discussion about our commitment to provide child care assistance to parents by way of a payment to those with children under the age of six. This budget provides a benefit of $1,200 a year for every family in Canada with children under the age of six. This will allow families to choose how to provide child care for their children rather than having the government dictate what is best for their children. This budget will create over 100,000 new day care spaces for children.

The previous government had suggested that it was building a national child care program but how can it be considered a national child care program when it leaves out entire regions, regions like my own? Children in my constituency deserve a head start as well.

Like so many other promises the previous government made, it took the Conservative government to see real, universal action.

Many of the communities in my constituency are rural. We have no access to institutionalized day care. Many of the working families in my community work shift work, part time work and seasonal work. Fathers are going in one direction and mothers are going in the other direction. It is just not possible to provide a cookie cutter system of service for people in my constituency for child care.

Residents have been telling me that they are tired of contributing their tax dollars to services to which they have no access. This government wants every child to have a head start. We will not play a game of choosing winners and losers based on where parents live and what they do for a living. Every child is important and every child deserves a head start. We promised a child care benefit in our election platform and again here we deliver.

Speaking of promises, the previous federal government had promised and promised again that it would make changes to the GST. Thirteen years later, it took our government and our leadership to finally reduce the GST. This change will benefit all Canadians and put money back where it belongs, in the pockets of Canadians.

There is more. This budget also benefits the businesses across Canada and in my community. Small and medium sized businesses employ over 58% of all Albertans. These businesses will see tax changes that will help them grow, develop and employ more Canadians.

The government is committed to Canadians at home and at work. At the end of the day, this budget is about families, families that have been overlooked, overtaxed, overburdened and underappreciated by our previous government. We have turned a new leaf and once again are appreciating and respecting the hard work of all Canadians.

Once again, I am pleased to stand in support of this family friendly, farm friendly, rural friendly and Canadian friendly budget, of which I hope to see many more.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Denise Savoie (Victoria, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I hear the words “$1,200 benefit”, “choice” and “universal programs” but where is the choice for parents who have to work and there are no places to leave their children?

Housing in my city of Victoria is so expensive that it is difficult, even when there are two parents, for one of them to stay at home. I do not see the choice there and I am wondering if the hon. member would tell me where the choice is for parents in those circumstances.

(1305)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Chris Warkentin:

Mr. Speaker, I certainly count it as a privilege to serve in this House alongside the hon. member.

Her question was about choice and where there is no choice. I will tell the member that there was no choice in the proposed Liberal program that was cast as a universal benefit to all Canadians. There was no choice for people in my constituency. Many people in my constituency live in rural areas. We have farmers and loggers and many people who work shift work, seasonal work and all different types of work. The program that was being presented by the Liberals offered absolutely no benefit.

When the member talks about no choice, I would again reiterate that the previous program and the programs that we have seen in the past provided absolutely no choice for people in my riding. This program of $1,200 per child per year will at least assist families in providing choices that otherwise would not be available.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member actually understands the number of dumb choices that were made in the budget. Does he actually understand how dumb the GST cut is? Does he understand that over the panoply of tax relief measures that could have been chosen, the GST cut is probably the worst?

If he were to look at the material from the Department of Finance for more than five seconds he would realize that the choice the Conservatives made is anti-productivity and anti-prosperity. Does he realize how dumb the choice is with respect to transit passes? Ninety per cent of the money will go to the people who already use transit. The government is not improving the transit infrastructure of the nation.

Does he realize how dumb the choice is with respect to the athletic money? Why is it that athletics is preferred over cultural activities? I have a daughter in swimming who will benefit from that, but my daughter in music will not. Why does the budget make so many incredibly dumb public policy choices?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Chris Warkentin:

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to sit with the hon. member as well.

I am glad the member used the word “dumb” because I would like to talk about the dumb things we saw in the previous administration. We saw good money being spent on a sponsorship situation. I do not want to get into it simply because it has been reiterated and continued on but the sponsorship program was one dumb thing.

People in my constituency know that the gun registry was a completely dumb situation and the billions that have been spent, misspent and misappropriated under the previous administration are truly dumb.

I just cannot think of what we could have done and the benefits that Canadians could have seen if that money had been placed in positive places rather than in the dumb spending that we saw under the previous administration.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.):

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

There are two very curious aspects to the budget and some have just been referred to recently by my hon. colleague from Scarborough. The first is a total confusion between what I would understand to be a true Conservative philosophy of libertarian laissez faire, small government versus, in the same budget, social engineering, economic meddling administrative burdening and inefficient fiddling.

The second further fundamental confusion is about the very purposes of society itself, the functions of a state and the limitations of individual actions in effecting change.

Let us begin with the inherent contradiction of the budget. On the one hand, we are told that the purpose of tax cuts is to put more money in the hands of citizens and businesses, to increase freedom of choice for citizens and businesses and to reduce the heavy hand of the state in making social and economic choices.

On the other hand, there are many examples in the budget of tax policy where the state is clearly, as my colleague from Scarborough said, acting as a nanny, a know-it-all, a bossy-boots and an unrepentant, economic dirigiste.

[Translation]

A real expert on everything.

(1310)

[English]

Let us take the case of children and families, as the hon. member for Peace River has just done. On the one hand, we are told that the $1,200 taxable annual child allowance for children under six is all about freedom of choice for families in making child care arrangements, although of course parents do not have to spend a cent on child care to get the money.

How many times have we heard the words, “There are millions of experts whose names are mom and dad” in justifying parental freedom of choice? But wait, the government is also providing a $500 tax credit to cover registration fees for children's sports. What if mom and dad would prefer piano lessons, dance lessons or art classes for their children? Nope, father knows best.

The bossy-boots federal government is now dictating to parents which extracurricular activities are worthy for their children and which are not. What happened to freedom of choice? How come mom and dad are experts in child care but raving incompetents when it comes to after school activities? If the government can give $1,200 without condition, why can it not give another $500 for children under 16 years of age without conditions and let parents decide how to use the money? Why create an additional paper burden with proof of payment for swimming lessons?

Beyond this selective social engineering, this “we know best what's best, we know what is best for families when it comes to sports”, a similar attitude prevails in singling out certain economic sectors for special treatment. We just have to look at the fiddling around in selected industries, such as jewellery, wine produced by small vintners and beer produced by small brewers. Since when, under classic conservative philosophy, is it the duty of the state to micromanage microbreweries? When did the state decide that small vintners are better than big vintners?

Todd Hirsch, economist for the Canada West Foundation, said that the budget neither reduces the size of government nor simplifies the tax system, nor represents a return to more sound economics, criticism echoed by John Williamson of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

If the budget is full of inconsistencies from a classical conservative point of view, it also fails the second test: understanding the respective roles of the individual citizen and of the state in the modern world.

Let us examine three cases, two of which we have previously considered. Child care and early learning is a good example. The national child care and early learning strategy of the previous Liberal government had the ambition of creating a major social system, like the public education system or the public health system. A government cannot create a major social system with tax breaks for individuals alone. It is the role of government, for example, to build and run hospitals, to build and run public schools and to build and run early childhood learning and care systems for those who need it. There is only true choice when the public system is available. No one would talk about choice in education if public education were not available as well as private or charter schools.

[Translation]

My second example is the $500 credit for costs related to physical activities for children.

Children may have the best equipment available but without an arena, a park, a community centre or a public swimming pool they cannot engage in their activity. Once again, there are no options for taking the place of the government when it comes time to provide public infrastructure.

This is why, during the last election campaign, the Liberals promised to create a $350 million fund in order to generate a total investment of over $1 billion, including the contributions of municipal and provincial partners, to put in place the Community, Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund.

(1315)

[English]

My final example is public transit. The Liberal approach was to use three separate funds: a renewed strategic infrastructure fund; continuing gas tax money; and a special two year $800 million transit fund to build new public transit systems. This budget reduces the total of those commitments to building public transit and substitutes a tax credit for transit passes. A tax credit for transit passes, as transit operators have noted, do not build new subway lines or purchase new buses. It creates greater demand on existing systems, but builds no new capacity.

Once again, favouring individual transit users is not a substitute for direct government intervention in favouring and building new capacity for public transit.

There we have it, a budget which is schizophrenic, which speaks in one breath of putting money back in the pockets of taxpayers and giving them freedom of choice and in the next, starts bossing them about, dictating choices to parents and singling out certain industries for special treatment over others.

Finally, it is a budget which fails to understand that there are some things which individual taxpayers cannot do and which society and governments must do, such as building public transit systems, building public recreation facilities and building a public system of child care and early learning.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Luc Harvey (Louis-Hébert, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech of my hon. colleague on the other side of the House and I have a question for him.

He spoke about daycare and the federal program we had before. I would like to remind my hon. colleague that the Liberals’ proposal for Quebec was $1.25 billion over six years, or about $208 million a year. The various early childhood centres or CPEs in the great province of Quebec take 200,000 children. The subsidy per child was therefore $1,040, while our proposal is for $1,200.

Second, in addition to these 200,000 children, another 230,000 do not go to day care in a CPE. Either they stay with relatives, their mother or a family member, or they use an alternative care system. So our program covers 100% of the children and provides an additional $160 over what was originally promised. That makes it very flexible.

I want to raise a final point before asking my question. In his or her first year, about one child in six goes to a CPE, while the other five children stay with their relatives or their mothers, who can get parental leave or something of that kind.

So when talking about fairness, what is my colleague referring to here?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Godfrey:

Mr. Speaker, we have taken as our model, and even our gold standard, the child care system in Quebec. We have seen that when there is a real choice, as in Quebec—the member across the aisle knows very well—parents want a system based on the CPEs. There are waiting lists for the Quebec system.

The Quebec system is the model in North America that we would like to have for the rest of Canada. That is why we wanted to support and salute Quebec’s pioneering efforts in this area.

When Quebec instituted its system of CPEs and daycare centres, it gathered up all the little funds that existed and created an integrated system based on the CPEs. At the same time, these centres are surrounded by other child services, other family services.

It was to strengthen the Quebec system and not break it up that we supported it and recognized it as the leader.

(1320)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, when we look back at the Liberal record, it is like looking in a fun house mirror. We are supposed to look at something that is narrow in terms of what it has delivered and we are supposed to think of it is as wide as the ocean.

I was stunned to hear the member's view of the role of government. The former government downloaded the debt onto the backs of students across Canada. We have a situation now where students come out with $40,000 worth of debt from their university educations because the former government made no commitments to post-secondary education. It downloaded the debt onto municipalities year after year while it accumulated the surplus. It did nothing except make promises in the red book, but it never delivered upon it.

We have heard the talk about what the Liberals achieved at Kelowna. I remind the former government about the years of neglect as the surplus rose. We have no national water standards on first nations. There are no health standards. There are no education standards, except those that have been deliberately pegged lower than non-native schools because the former government did not want to pay a single dime above what it absolutely had to for first nations, while it was swimming in surplus dollars.

How can the hon. member stand there without blushing when he makes such outrageous comments on what the current government's obvious lack of vision is compared to his government's lack of vision?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Godfrey:

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the hon. member from Timmins on the specific points he raised. On access to higher education, we created the millennium scholarship fund, which had that precise objective in mind.

During the last electoral campaign, we put forward the fifty-fifty proposition where we would pay for 50% of tuition fees in the first year and 50% in the last year.

Thanks to us, municipalities got the GST rebate. In the last five years they received $5 billion for their infrastructure funds, for strategic infrastructure, for border infrastructure and for municipal and rural infrastructure.

We also delivered, in the previous regime, the gas tax money that was a further $5 billion to municipalities. Had we been re-elected, we would have increased the strategic infrastructure funds by $5 billion over the next five years. We were building on a record that we had already established.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Todd Russell (Labrador, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, first, at the start of my first full speech in this session of Parliament, I want to thank the wise, hard-working and kind people of the big land, Labrador, for the confidence they placed in me this last election. It is a tremendous responsibility that I have been given, to represent the full diversity of Labrador, the Metis, Innu and those who have made Labrador their home.

We were hoping the new government would live up to at least some of the promises it had made to us in the past two Labrador election campaigns, but we were sadly disappointed.

Let us sit back and view the budget and the government's record so far through a different lens.

During the election campaign this past winter, the Prime Minister wrote a letter to Premier Danny Williams, outlining a whole raft of very specific promises to Newfoundland and Labrador. The Prime Minister's letter covered many issues: retraining of fisheries workers; coastal custodial management of the fisheries outside 200 miles; a loan guarantee to develop the Lower Churchill; equalization reform; cost-sharing the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway; a whole series of very specific promises to 5 Wing Goose Bay; and all kinds of other goodies.

Not one of these issues made it into the government's woefully thin Speech from the Throne. Not one of these is in the five priorities on which the government is focusing. The Prime Minister has forgotten his written promises to the people of Labrador and, indeed, the entire province.

Let us start by looking at fisheries.

The fishery, the backbone of the economy in the coastal part of my riding, is in crisis. Help is needed and it is needed now. The Prime Minister's letter promised to look at retraining fisheries workers. Setting aside the question of retraining for what, the budget is silent on this subject.

Our regional minister, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, was in the media a few weeks ago, saying that the Prime Minister was even willing to reconsider on the issue of an early retirement program, cost-shared with the province. Is that in the budget? No. This government simply does not view this as a priority.

The Prime Minister promised to extend Canadian jurisdiction beyond 200 miles to implement custodial management immediately and unilaterally. It was a bold promise, bait designed to hook the electors. Some people may have bit, but our nets are coming up empty. The Prime Minister did not back it up with even a dime.

Similarly, the Prime Minister and the very quiet Minister of Fisheries and Oceans were very loud when they appeared during the election campaign in Petty Harbour. They promised joint management of the fisheries between the federal government and the coastal provinces that wanted it. Again, not a dime.

I am very concerned about the budget for small craft harbours. Will the necessary funds be there to carry out vital work at fishing ports in my riding? I have heard that millions are to be cut from the small craft harbours budget. The government needs to come clean on this situation.

Still within fisheries, the commitment that the Liberal government had made to beefing up the Coast Guard's presence in Labrador, stationing a vessel in Goose Bay and increasing surveillance and hydrography in coastal Labrador has all been wiped off the table by the new government. Who spoke at the cabinet table for our interests when these projects were put on the chopping block and the hatchet came down?

On defence issues, the budget proves two things. First, the Conservatives overreached with their election promises. Their defence platform was grounded in strategic considerations: which ridings did they think were strategic, rather than which strategic considerations would shape our defence policies. Second, the Conservatives had no intention of keeping many of their promises.

As a senior defence official once told me, the hon. member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills, now our defence minister, was writing cheques with his mouth that he could not be cashed. That has been proven right.

The Conservatives promised, and I am quoting directly from their own campaign literature, “a Conservative government led by the Prime Minister would ensure the employment at CFB Goose Bay does not decline and encourage increased flying training operations at CFB Goose Bay”.

In his letter to the premier, the Prime Minister said that his government, “will also maintain a foreign military training program at 5 Wing Goose Bay and actively encourage increased allied flying activity”.

They have a funny way of fulfilling these promises.

I have spoken in recent weeks with several former base employees, former because since the Conservatives came to power, they have lost their jobs at this facility. Only in Conservative math could fewer employees equal employment not declining.

(1325)

On the flight training file, the Conservatives have encouraged increased flight training by cancelling a major flying exercise scheduled for this year. They have killed the funding for ACMI pods and mobile threat emitters, a $25 million investment that the Liberal government was solidly committed to. It would have significantly boosted Goose Bay's status as a flight training centre. It has been cut by the Conservative government. It is off the table.

The Liberals had put $5 million toward aggressive marketing of Goose Bay as a flight training centre. Guess what? This is yet another of the reallocations and cost savings that the Conservative government has made in order to pay for its political program.

Not only are the Conservatives reneging on their promises to keep allied air forces at Goose Bay, they are backtracking on their promises regarding Arctic sovereignty. The Conservatives promised to make Goose Bay an important point for exercising Canadian sovereignty in the north. A year later they were making the same promise to just about every base in the country and for the same reason: to win votes.

Now we see the real extent of the Conservatives' supposed commitment to Arctic sovereignty. The Arctic deep water port that was to have been a component of this promise has been cancelled. Our existing military infrastructure at Alert has been downsized. Half the personnel are to be cut. Less than a year after promising the rapid response battalion as a special arrangement for Goose Bay, the Prime Minister promised rapid response battalions for almost every province in the country. The budget is also silent on the unmanned aerial vehicle squadron that the Conservatives promised as well.

This is not a defence policy. This is a political chicken in every political pot, as it were. One hand takes it away and the other hand does not giveth. It is like that commercial: Rapid response battalion? Millions of dollars. UAV squadron? Millions of dollars. The value of a Conservative defence promise? Worthless.

On equalization, this budget thankfully reveals the Conservatives' true colours. In the past few months the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs have both made snide and disparaging comments about the Atlantic accord agreements reached last year with my province and Nova Scotia.

In the Conservative budget papers the truth emerges in the form of a direct attack on the Atlantic accords. Is the government really committed to the principles in the Atlantic accords? How can the Conservative members from Newfoundland and Nova Scotia continue to sit within a government that has blatantly attacked the same deal that they were supposedly all in favour of just a few months ago?

This budget is also silent on the Trans-Labrador Highway. The premier has said that the Prime Minister in a January letter agreed to cost share the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway on a fifty-fifty basis. I would point out, of course, that the federal government during Liberal administrations had put almost half a billion dollars into the Trans-Labrador Highway. If the province had matched federal Liberal contributions, the highway would have been done years ago. However, the Conservatives still have not put that election pledge into action, not in the throne speech and not in the budget.

On aboriginal issues, the Conservatives have torn up the Kelowna accord. The Liberal government budgeted over $5 billion to meet our commitments to first nations, off reserve, Métis and Inuit peoples. The money would have gone toward health, housing, safe water, education and other important initiatives to bring aboriginal living standards up. It was historic and our people were looking forward to the benefits. Instead, this budget offers a pittance for the Innu and Inuit and absolutely zilch for the Métis who face the same challenges in respect of housing, drinking water and other issues that the Kelowna accord was going to tackle.

Last week the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development dismissed the Kelowna accord as nothing more than a press release. The government says it will meet the Kelowna targets, but without the Kelowna funding. It has replaced the Kelowna accord with the Conservative bologna accord. It is bologna and the members opposite know it. This is a disgrace. It is a major setback for aboriginal Canadians. It is time for the government to honour the deal signed in Kelowna.

All in all, this is a budget that favours the wealthy. It benefits people who do not need the help and does not help the people who need the benefits. This budget leaves a lot of unanswered questions. What programs and services are going to be slashed? How will my constituents be better off when the Conservatives raise their income taxes?

This budget, like Conservative policy generally, leaves rural areas of the country out in the cold. It turns its back on the most needy and vulnerable in our society.

For all these reasons, I cannot support this budget.

(1330)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering how the member could say that the budget does not address the problems of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Surely the member is impressed with the tax relief and the infrastructure spending that we see in the budget. Does he not agree that the tax relief in the budget gives the people of Newfoundland and Labrador an extra $124 million per year?

The people of the province will pay $124 million less in taxes in 2007. The $1,200 per child per year will put $33.7 million in the hands of his constituents and my constituents. The budget will provide the provincial government with an additional $2 million for health care, bringing it to $352 million in health care spending in 2006-07. The province will also benefit to the tune of $54 million in extra equalization payments, bringing the total to $687 million in equalization payments each year.

For seniors the budget honours the election commitment to go from a $1,000 to a $2,000 deduction in pension income. This move will benefit 2.7 million taxpayers and will remove 85,000 people from the income tax rolls.

Then we have the commitments that the federal government has made to 5 Wing Goose Bay, which happens to be in the hon. member's riding. Is he saying that the government has fallen short on its commitment to 5 Wing Goose Bay?

I am astounded that the member could stand in the House today and make that kind of a statement with regard to this budget, when the people of Labrador are benefiting so much from this budget. How could he make that statement?

(1335)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Todd Russell:

Mr. Speaker, with all the supposed benefits the member talked about, it is quite interesting that the provincial minister of finance said that what was in the budget was negligible in terms of its benefits to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The provincial minister said that it would not make much of a difference at all to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In fact, what we see in the budget is that taxes will rise, particularly for low income people in our communities. The taxes will rise by .5%. I do not see that as a benefit.

We can talk about 5 Wing Goose Bay, but where is the money for our Coast Guard vessel? There was $96 million on the chopping block when the hatchet came down on it, $25 million for threat emitters and ACMI pods, gone; $5 million for marketing and this is for Goose Bay and for Labrador, gone; $20 million in the ACOA diversification fund, cut, slashed. If he calls that good for the people of Labrador, I would be astounded at how he would arrive at that particular logic. There are aboriginal people who would benefit from the Kelowna accord. That is gone.

As we say, it is baloney that the member would even rise in the House and try to make a mountain out of a molehill of benefits.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jim Abbott (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I never cease to be amazed at the very short memory of my Liberal friends. The member has forgotten that it was the Prime Minister, the then leader of the opposition, who proposed the Atlantic accord. It was the member's prime minister who said that he would match it. Then when the Newfoundland premier said to get on with it, the then prime minister said no. It was only through the pressure on the Liberal government by the Newfoundland and Labrador members of the Conservative Party that the prime minister finally went ahead. The member has a very selective memory.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Todd Russell:

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a selective memory at all. I remember very clearly it was the prime minister at the time, the member for LaSalle--Émard, who did the deal. It was the prime minister at the time who signed the Atlantic accord.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP):

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

What a joyful and perplexing scene it is for many Canadians watching the Tweedledum-dumber debate going on day after day in this House where one party accuses the other of playing fast and loose with the memory and the record and the other just accelerating the direction of that record.

It is an extraordinary challenge to address a budget that is faulty in so many different ways, particularly when it comes to the west coast and particularly when it comes to the environment.

It is rather easy for opposition members to get up and simply criticize, as that is our role. I know the government appreciates our being able to have open, honest and frank debate in this House, a crashing together of views so that Canadians are better served by the best views coming forward. When I look at this budget, I have to wonder exactly whom the government was listening to when it made some of its most critical decisions.

Allow me to start on the west coast. Allow me to throw some small credit for the continuance of the Pacific gateway strategy, although for some reason it is being stretched out over a further amount of time with still no concrete items to be spent on. We have deep concerns about what type of committee and process will be used to make the decisions that are critical to the infrastructure of the west coast, particularly in the northwest. The area that I represent is the new Pacific gateway in Prince Rupert. The prospects for that container port are absolutely astounding. Members across the aisle have approached me regarding grabbing on to this project and becoming a part of something that is going to be very significant.

With respect to the aboriginal file, my riding is made up of more than 30% first nations, some of the strongest communities and nations in our land such as the Nisga'a, Haida, Wet'suwet'en, Tsimshian, Haisla and others. These communities represent the absolute cultural and historical backbone of my region. After many months of deliberations and after more than 12 years of stalling and delaying on the part of the previous government, we finally arrived at an accord that lo and behold all the provinces could agree with. I was at the signing of that accord. It was a moment that even the current Minister of Indian Affairs marked as historic and important, only to turn around and have it destroyed within mere months.

It is discouraging because of the astounding poverty and the astounding cultural erosion that we see taking place in our first nations communities, not just in my riding but across the entire country. The sense of urgency on this file can no longer be ignored. With respect to the playing of partisan politics between those two parties, I say a pox on both houses for having so long ignored the plight of aboriginal Canadians who, in my experience, display the greatest sense of generosity and forthrightness. In my region they always deal in good faith when dealing with the government, even though over decades their faith has been misplaced.

Some money has been set aside to deal with the pine beetle epidemic that has raged across British Columbia, and I applaud the government for that. The question now becomes how it will be spent and by whom. Many of the largest forestry companies in my region are turning their most significant profits in their entire histories and they are looking to do replanting and road deconstruction projects, which frankly is outrageous.

The government finds it most significant and important to invest in the regional economic development that our communities need. For Houston, Fort Fraser, Fraser Lake, right across all of British Columbia, we need to plan for the future and actually make some serious investments. I see the budget commitment as a first step, but only a first step.

We went through one of the most tragic years in our province's history two years ago with forest fires. The prospect of more intense forest fires is increasing. Forestry councils came to us here in Ottawa. My colleague from Windsor will know this. I specifically identified climate change as one of the leading economic threats to the forestry industry in Canada, not only with respect to forest fires but also with respect to the pine beetle. Connections have now been made between the economy and the environment.

I can remember addressing the former minister of the environment from the Liberal Party about the outrageous increases in pollution that were going on under that party's watch. At one point in this very chamber he said that our economy has grown and there will just have to be a lot more pollution. What an astounding admission, finally revealing the true intention and the true philosophy of a government that believes that economics and the environment cannot be married, cannot be put together for mutual benefit for each of those categories and for all Canadians.

(1340)

When it comes to the environment, this is an increasingly important topic that is again gaining interest in the minds of Canadians and in public discourse. I almost want to open a counselling service in my office for the environmental and progressive industry groups that are coming by, absolutely stunned at the destruction and the wanton acts the government has done when it comes to key environmental investments that are needed.

Investments is the word we need to use in this place when understanding the role of government when it comes to the environment. There is a short term political strategy by this party that is going to lose time and cause long term pain and costs, not only to government but to society right across Canada.

I have two last points about my region before I get into the environment. It is an issue that can absolutely absorb me. The west coast and many parts of Canada have been calling for, and I know Quebec has been calling for a long time, a fundamental reform of the EI fund. This slush fund was used by the previous government to shuffle billions of dollars around. Many Conservative members have said that this was deplorable, that the actions were inexcusable and should be stopped immediately. Then they get into government and make absolutely no fundamental reforms when it comes to EI and get support from the Bloc. That is confusing.

When it comes to the west coast fisheries, it is absolutely crying out after one of its most desperate seasons on the water. Prices are down, cost of fuel is up, insurance is through the roof, and DFO plays a role that is counterproductive to the fleet and to private fishers across the province. There is nothing in the budget.

The government found $10 million to support fish farms on the east coast without even much mention or notice. It was a little slip in the budget speech, yet there is absolutely nothing for the west coast, when the fleet has been reduced by 75% in my region over the last five years and is faced with a further crunch of a similar value. We know the value of wild salmon in particular to the people of Canada.

Regarding the budget and the environment, the two shall never meet under the purview of this government. Thankfully, it picked up the $900 million from the NDP budget and put it toward some infrastructure, when it comes to public transit. It is welcome and we expect flowers, maybe chocolate would be nice, but that is fine. We will just take the positive action. That is what the NDP is about, in pushing for strong and significant environmental actions.

Outside of this there was a small investment to help people get on the bus, but it has been absolutely discredited as the best bang for the buck. In the government's own budget documents, it talks about using taxpayers' money wisely and in the most efficient way to achieve the best results, yet when we look at the environment, it has chosen a method that the Suzuki Foundation, the Canadian Urban Transit Association and the Sierra Club have all said is not the best bang for the buck, when it comes to reducing the pollution that we cause. It will not get people out of their cars in the way that the government pretends or imagines.

Once we step outside of the public transit debate, which has some merit but not the consequential effect that we are looking for, what are we left with? The silence is deafening. When it comes to climate change, we have essentially lost yet another year on this most critical issue. It is showing up on the pages of Maclean's, the front pages of The New York Times, and across our communities. People want something done about this.

What did the government of the day do? It cut $1 billion, with little or no analysis and certainly no public disclosure at all, for home retrofit programs, for low income seniors, and for fundamental things that we know work and are cost effective. The government has turned its back. It had some notion of a made in Canada plan. We have had no plan presented and yet more than a year ago in this very place, the then environment critic for the Conservative Party of Canada said that her party had a plan. Her party was just not going to show it to us in case we might steal the ideas. A year later, we are being asked to wait more.

When it comes to the environment, there is no more significant tool than the budget. The message that the Conservative Party of Canada has sent to Canadians is that the environment simply does not matter, that the environment can wait again while the Conservatives go out for short term political gain and cause us long term pain.

(1345)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate my colleague on his speech. We have seen many efforts over the last number of days to draw attention to some of the cuts that are coming in the environment section in this budget period. My concern is that the government is taking a consumptive approach in its outline. It is anti-conservation in many ways. The solutions that are being proposed are not the solutions that are going to really make a difference in this economy.

How does the member see this budget addressing those issues of conservation? How can the budget possibly make a difference to Canadians in that regard?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Nathan Cullen:

Mr. Speaker, I know there are a few regions in the country that are feeling the impact of environmental destruction more than his region. We see the ice roads over the wintertime, we see the effects on the caribou herds and the subsistence living that many people in his region survive on and are a cornerstone, I would suggest even an icon for Canadians living across this country. We are, as the famous Quebec song notes, not a country but a season, a winter.

Yet when we look at the actions of the previous government, the numbers simply do not lie. It will always trump the announcements, the confetti and the pretty documents and dossiers. The numbers, when it comes to pollution under the previous Liberal regime, were absolutely outrageous.

The Conservative response to that was to do little or nothing. There is no prospect in the budget that we see to alleviate the problems or reverse the trend in any significant way what we are seeing in my colleague's riding of Western Arctic, the smog days that are experienced in Ontario, Quebec and across the country, and the absolute dramatic increase in smog that we have seen. There is nothing of significance in the budget to alleviate that.

Canadians are being asked to wait again. So much for the changing of the guard. It is business as usual and perhaps a little accelerated but in the wrong direction.

It is at a time when Europe and Texas, for heaven's sake, come to us and talk about their energy plans and the ability that they have to make more consistent green energy projects come to life. We are embarrassed in this country. We have absolutely failed the Canadian people in this respect. A river of opportunity is flowing by to increase our productivity and our competitiveness has failed us. The budget has utterly failed Canadians in this regard.

(1350)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.):

I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the member would vote against the budget. This budget should be a lot less conservative than what he should have guessed would be coming when he supported the election of the government, and when he voted in a motion of non-confidence.

When he and his party asked for the lend a vote campaign, knowing that it would put a Conservative government in power, he should have known that there would be a neo-conservative budget. The member should be amazed that the budget did not go further to the right. He should ask the question like I do: what happened to the Conservatives' flat earth society in their flat tax and when did they come to this convoluted system of tax credits, tax breaks and tax manoeuvring, and abandoned that simple flat tax principle that they had?

It is not that I supported it, but obviously the member did because he participated in the election of the Conservative government. He should wonder when it was that the Conservative leader realized, with his core western support in this country, that he could not, under the Reform Party, fight Brian Mulroney. He realized that he had to get his instructions from Mulroney and Harris, and form a government in the image of Mulroney and Harris with all his key people in those key positions. The member should not be surprised at all.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Nathan Cullen:

Mr. Speaker, the DaVinci code of the Liberals continues. There are conspiracies under every rock. While I know the member does not, to his constituents or to me or to others, present the arrogance of the notion that somehow the Liberal Party is entitled to the seat of power in this country, it is amazing to me how much credit and power the Liberals have allowed the New Democratic Party, with 19 seats in the last government, to be able to tell Canadian voters that the Liberals were in fact inherently corrupt and had mismanaged the files for so long. I thank the member for the accolades, but I think he might be mistaken.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Denise Savoie (Victoria, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I see that I may have to do this in two parts.

I came to Ottawa to stand up for the needs and priorities of Victorians. Today I stand against this budget because it fails the people of Victoria in many important ways. I will focus on three of these: post-secondary education and skills training for which I am the critic, housing and the environment.

A budget is a tool used to achieve practical ends. How much is allocated to one line item reveals how much that item is valued. Conservative budgets show what ends Conservatives want to achieve and they are not the ends that even Conservatives acknowledge that Canadians want.

(1355)

[Translation]

The Minister of Finance states in his own document, and I quote: “There is also a clear consensus among Canadians on the importance of support for health care, post-secondary education and training, and infrastructure”. He also says that Canadians must have access to “affordable, accessible and high-quality post-secondary education and training”.

This budget offers a bloodless version of those fine words, although we do have to acknowledge that this budget is an improvement over the Liberals' do nothing model, because this government has finally taken steps to support education and training.

The tax incentives and grants to promote training and learning are a good start, as is the move to exempt bursaries from federal income tax.

However, in the global race for the knowledge economy, the new economy, the government has stumbled at the starting line.

[English]

My party proposes a national, concrete, long term strategy that recognizes that the level of skills required in most sectors will reach new heights and our economic prosperity of the future rests on those skills. Included in the NDP strategy to start would be a recognition that skills training is required throughout one's life by using the employment insurance system, for example, to support retraining and skills upgrading programs including soft skills like language training that many members in the House have benefited from. A lifelong learning strategy would finally reinvest in our college and university students, and improve access to education.

In this budget there is no increased financial support for students. Instead, the government makes it easier for students to start their working lives with larger debt loads than ever before. This is an administrator's budget where $1 billion of the $1.5 billion NDP budget intended to support the reduction of skyrocketing tuition fees was instead channelled toward university infrastructure, and an $83 book allowance. That is maybe one textbook. This budget shows the finance minister is out of touch with the real costs of a college education.

[Translation]

There is a very broad consensus among Canadians across the country that there should be a transfer specifically for post-secondary education. I would even add that this is part of the Conservatives' electoral platform. Where, then, is this transfer?

The Minister of Finance recognizes that keeping funding for post-secondary education in the overall cash transfer envelope poses a problem, but he is doing absolutely nothing to change this deficient process.

How will Canadians be able to clearly see what the provinces are doing with federal funds for education and training? This makes no sense, coming from a government that supposedly promised transparency.

[English]

This Conservative budget falls far short of actual student needs and it skirts around another issue critical to my city's future, to Canada's future: affordable housing.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

It being two o'clock, we will now proceed to statements by members. The hon. member will have five minutes left when debate resumes.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[Statements by Members]

* * *

[English]

Agriculture

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Storseth (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, farmers are hard-working people who, by the very nature of their profession, need to plan ahead.

As farmers plan for the future today, they have more reason for optimism than they have had for a very long time.

The security of our farm families is a concern of the government. We are acting to respond to the challenges of today while we work to ensure long term stability.

We are moving forward to replace CAIS with a program that separates disaster relief from income stabilization, but in the meantime we are making the program simpler and more responsive to the needs of our farmers.

In the budget we tripled our original commitment and are investing an additional $1.5 billion in our agriculture producers this year.

The government is working with our producers to build a road map of our agricultural future to help provide the security that our farm families deserve.

The planning and hard work of the government gives our farmers plenty of reasons to be encouraged.

* * *

(1400)

Lakehead University Thunderwolves

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the members of the Lakehead University Thunderwolves, the 2006 Ontario University Athletic Men's Hockey champions.

Following their Queen's Cup win to become the central division champions, the Thunderwolves travelled to the CIS National University Championships in Edmonton where they fell one goal short of the national championship.

I offer my sincere congratulations to coach Pete Belliveau, captain Joel Scherban and the entire team and coaching staff.

In only five seasons, the Lakehead University Thunderwolves have risen to the top of the men's university hockey scene. In that short time they have set home game attendance records and have earned the support of all of northwestern Ontario.

I ask all members to join me in congratulating the Lakehead University Thunderwolves.

* * *

[Translation]

Défi Sportif

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the 23rd edition of the Défi Sportif was held April 26 to 30 at the Claude-Robillard sports complex in my riding of Ahuntsic.

Over 2,800 athletes whose disabilities were of five types—auditory, intellectual, physical, psychiatric or visual—came from 13 different countries. In all, 14 types of sports were involved during the five days of the Défi Sportif. Over 250 clubs and 30 primary and secondary schools took part. Over 800 volunteers and 350 trainers ensured the success of this unique event which, since 1984, has promoted a dynamic image of persons with a disability.

I took part in the awards ceremony at the 23rd edition of Défi Sportif and I must tell you I have nothing but admiration for the courage of the athletes and the generosity of the volunteers.

My congratulations to Défi sportif on the nobleness of heart, which is even a greater reflection on Quebec.

* * *

[English]

Citizenship and Immigration

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, there are eight countries to which Canada will not return failed refugee claimants and others here without status because of the dangerous situation in their home countries. These people face lives on hold, lives in limbo, indefinitely. They can only work temporarily. They pay higher fees for education. Their access to health care is limited. For some, this has gone on for over 10 years.

Canada needs a program that allows them to get on with their lives as permanent residents after a period of three years.

Last year Canadians were shocked to learn that after over 20 years, 2,000 Vietnamese boat people were still in the Philippines, forgotten by settlement programs and without legal status. More lives on hold and lives in limbo.

Canada agreed to take 200 of these refugees but only 27 met the conditions imposed. Australia, Norway and the U.S. have done much more but 148 remain stranded.

Canada needs a special program to bring these 148 people to security and a future. Lives on hold, lives in limbo are not acceptable.

* * *

The Budget

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Blaine Calkins (Wetaskiwin, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, this government celebrated its 100 day milestone last week with a budget that brought tax relief to all Canadians.

TV jingles promote the fact that cars cost less in Wetaskiwin, but on July 1, they will be even more affordable when the GST is reduced to 6%. Rodeo fans celebrating Canada Day at the renowned Ponoka Stampede will pay less GST on their tickets.

Farmers and producers gathering at the Rimbey and Thorsby auction markets are relieved to finally have a government that is keeping its promises and delivering more effective disaster relief and farm income stabilization programs.