2007-12-07

Mrs. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to issue a formal and unqualified apology to the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam.
On Wednesday, I stood in this House on a point of order and drew the attention of this House to images I saw on the computer screen of the member. The member has explained what those images were and I have accepted his explanation.
I recognize in hindsight that I should have approached the member and sought the explanation before I rose in the House. For that I am truly sorry.
I fully and without qualification apologize to the hon. member and his family, and to all members of the House. I join with the member in the desire to now close this matter.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the point of order from the hon. member for London—Fanshawe and indeed the matter is now closed.
Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-28, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007 and to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on October 30, 2007, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: With respect to Bill C-28, I would like to inform the House that there is one motion in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-28. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP):  moved: 
 Motion No. 1 
 That Bill C-28 be amended by deleting Clause 181. 
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to speak to the amendment that I put have forward. I want to begin by thanking my colleague from Hamilton for seconding the motion.
 In fact, it is a very short amendment to Bill C-28. It asks that we delete clause 181. I say that because Bill C-28 is quite a document. It is in fact a document that is hundreds of pages long and this one particular amendment to delete clause 181 would do something extremely important. It would delete the corporate tax cuts that are in this package.
Notwithstanding the brevity of the amendment, the impacts I think would be substantive and positive.
We have seen in this country unprecedented growth. We have seen prosperity for some, but not spread out and achieved by all.
It is my belief that when we are dealing with tax policy, it is important to look at the many and not just the few. In this case, clause 181 looks at the few; in other words, those who would benefit from corporate tax cuts.
Some would say that is well and good, that it actually would be a good tax policy because it would increase investment in the country.
It sounds good, in theory. However, we have to strike a balance in this country. When we have Canadians sitting around their kitchen tables, as we speak, looking at how they are going to make ends meet, they would not see the same benefits in Bill C-28 that are proposed for corporations. They would see less benefits, if we were to do a cost benefit analysis.
In fact, in the last number of years, we have seen a widening prosperity gap, and our party has been very clear on this issue. In fact, the affordability of things is increasing for many Canadians, such as health care, which I know, Mr. Speaker, has been a concern of yours in the past and remains a concern of yours. 
In 1980, 80% of our health care system was publicly financed. We are at the level now where 70% of our health care system is publicly financed which means that 30% is financed through the private sector.
I say that because many Canadians cannot afford the drugs they need. Many Canadians are on waiting lists and are having to seek other forms of help in terms of getting health care when they need it. 
There is nothing in this package that would help them. There is no affordable drug plan in this package. There is nothing that would help everyday Canadians who need affordable education. There is nothing in this package that would deal with the housing crisis. There is nothing in this package that would give hope to people who need help right now.
This amendment would eliminate the corporate tax giveaway. In fact, David Lewis once famously said it is corporate welfare.
I see it as corporate welfare because the party in power right now never ever campaigned on this corporate tax cut. Members will remember the Conservatives famously ran on five things. I can guarantee that corporate tax cuts was not in those five issues. They talked about the GST, certainly, but they did not talk about corporate tax cuts. 
So, this is about holding the government to account. It is about equity. It is about the importance of investing to make our country more productive. In fact, a representative who spoke to committee on another bill recently said:
 Investors will keep investing in Canada. Why? Because we have an educated, efficient workforce. We're marvellously endowed in resources. We have a good, though perhaps somewhat neglected, infrastructure. 
He went on to say that corporate cuts are not what brings an educated and efficient workforce, it is not what protects our environment and natural resources, and it does not rebuild and strengthen our neglected infrastructure.
The point that we are endowed with resources and have a good, though perhaps somewhat neglected, infrastructure is key because when we look at the way these corporate tax cuts will be handed over, it is basically like throwing money into the wind and hoping it lands in the right place.
By the way, the person who I am quoting was actually a representative from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. From my perspective certainly not someone who the government would usually ignore. However, in doing this act, in providing these kinds of corporate tax cuts, in fact it is.
I want to take a moment to speak to the opposition parties, both the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party. Recently, the leader of the Liberal Party spoke to his party's vision on economics and fair taxes. He said that the previous Liberal government reduced the federal corporate tax rate to 19% from 28% and that the Conservatives will reduce it to 18.5% by 2011. He said that he would go deeper than that and then went on to tell us why.
I would plead with the Liberal Party to take a look at where our corporate taxes are. The fact is that it gave the green light to this government with this speech in saying that it should go further. Indeed, it did.
Many have said that once the Conservatives heard that the Liberals were going to go deeper in corporate tax cuts, they raced to 15% when they were going to stay at 17%. I hope the Liberal Party takes a look at who benefits from these corporate tax cuts, particularly in the way they are ascribed.
I do not believe that at this point in our economy, when students have record debt, when we have an infrastructure deficit of $123 billion, and when people cannot afford the medicines they need, that we need to give corporations welfare. 
This is a very simple, sanguine, smart amendment to a policy that is wrong. Further corporate tax cuts were never debated during the election. I have quoted spokespersons from the Chamber of Commerce who have said that the key thing to invest in is infrastructure. 
There is absolutely no guarantee, when corporate tax cuts and gifts are handed over to corporations, that they will invest. We hope they would, but where is the guarantee? Indeed, where is the accountability?
It is interesting to note that we see on the front page of the Ottawa Citizen today that the government was able to forgive huge tax bills for a select few Canadians, 35 of them, that had been burned during the boom and bust of the high tech industry. It is sad for those people and I guess terrific for those few who are going to benefit, but where is the tax fairness for other Canadians? 
Where is the fairness in this bill? This amendment would actually balance things off. It says now is not the time for deeper tax cuts for corporations. Now is the time for key strategic investments in people. That is what has been missing from the government. Where is the human face in its economic plan? 
It throws out the idea that there is a GST cut. When we compare that to the deep cuts in corporate taxes and the minuscule crumbs that are being handed over to everyday people, there is a balance problem.
When we take a look at certain people being rewarded because of successfully lobbying the government for investments they made and were burned on in the case of JDS Uniphase, we have to wonder who the government is listening to. 
The government is not listening to seniors. Recently, my colleague from Hamilton pointed out that seniors have been burned. Their pensions were not properly indexed. Is the government helping them out? No.
In summary, I hope that my friends from the Liberal Party will support this measure, will not stay with this corporate tax cut craze, and that my friends from the Bloc will support this amendment. 
Indeed, I urge the government to look at this as a progressive thing that will help people and their communities. It will allow us to invest in people, our communities, our infrastructure, and cut off the corporate welfare that seems to exist today.
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but think back to an argument which I have made frequently since my days on the finance committee and a statement which I hear so often from the NDP members, one that I think I need to challenge. That is, when they use the phrase “tax cuts”, are they talking about the reduction of the tax rates or are they talking about the amount of money in absolute value that is collected?
In economics there is a thing called the Laffer curve, which I have read about, named after the Professor Laffer who discovered it. That is, there is a relationship, and I wish we could use graphs and props here, such that if one's tax rate is zero, one's income will be zero. If one's tax rate is 100%, one's income will be zero, because everybody is either going to do nothing or go to some other country to do it. Somewhere in between, there is a place where one can maximize the income.
In regard to a reduction of corporate taxes, the fact of the matter is, and I am convinced of it, that if we reduce the rate of taxation, if we add in all of the economic activity that it generates, the total amount of revenue gained by the government actually increases at a certain stage. The question is, of course, where is that particular point?
I believe that our tax rates in Canada are eminently fair for the most part, but in the case of tax cuts, when we talk about reducing the rates for businesses in this country, I think that we actually gain at the present level. In regard to reducing them from 21% to 19% to 17%, in that range a reduction of tax rates actually increases the total amount of revenue, which would of course give the government more money to spend on government programs and social programs, which I think the NDP and I would agree with. They are necessary things to do.
I would like the member's comment on what I have just said.
[Interjection]
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I know of the Laffer curve, but we also have to keep in mind, and I think the member said it, that he believes the tax rate right now is more or less fair. I agree with that. Now is not the time for a further decrease. I call it a cut and the member may call it an adjustment, but at the end of the day there is less money required for corporations to pay in terms of the rate, the percentage. 
I understand what the member is saying about the work that has been done on the Laffer curve. It is the idea that perhaps by reducing the amount of tax required, we actually will increase more investment, and therefore there will be more money in the coffers. I fully understand that.
There is also the law of diminishing returns. That is, if we lower the rate and money is not reinvested, if we do not attract more investment, we potentially will have less money in revenues as well. In other words, if we do not see reinvestment and if we do not attract more investment, then we will have less money in the treasury to redistribute or invest. I do not think there has been enough work done on this and certainly there has not been enough debate to suggest that we should go ahead with it at this point.
In fact, I remember what TD economist Don Drummond said back in 2005 when we got the then Liberal government to change the budget's $4.5 billion in corporate tax cuts. He said those corporate tax cuts would not go into reinvestment but in fact into excess profit. Now, the Laffer curve would deal with that as well and would say that if the money is going to go into excess profits then we should not make these kinds of reductions or what I call tax cuts.
 I think it is a valid point. That is why I think this should be debated. That is why I think the clause should be deleted until we have the evidence and proof, which we have not had. All we have seen is a widening prosperity gap.
As I have mentioned, the investments we need to make right now are investments in people, in things such as an affordable drug plan and affordable education and, for goodness' sake, reinvesting in the infrastructure of the country before we hand over tax cuts in the way that is being proposed in the bill.
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Revenue, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in the 2007 economic statement, the government announced broad-based tax relief that will help provide Canada with a tax system that rewards Canadians for realizing their full potential, encourages investment in Canada, fuels growth in the economy, creates more and better jobs, and improves standards of living.
Our bold, broad-based business tax reductions are a key part of this plan and will give Canada the most competitive business tax regime in the G-7. Internationally competitive business taxes are crucial to attracting investment to Canada, and many other countries are recognizing the value of lower tax rates.
A lower tax rate on business income encourages investment and entrepreneurship by both domestic and foreign firms. This investment in new capital increases productivity and economic growth, creates jobs, increases incomes and raises living standards.
Even the Liberal leader has admitted that our Conservative government is right for cutting corporate taxes, stating:
 A low corporate tax rate is not a right wing policy or a left wing policy. It is a sound policy. 
It is especially important during these times of economic uncertainty to reinforce the Canadian business environment. Adapting to changes in the global economy and dealing with the weakness of the U.S. economy are significant challenges for Canadian business.
 The strong fiscal position of the Government of Canada provides an opportunity to put in place broad-based tax reductions that few other countries can afford. At this time of economic uncertainty, we are putting in place tax measures that bolster confidence, encourage investment and support job creation.
 In the 2007 economic statement, we introduced a bold new tax reduction initiative that will lower federal corporate income tax rates to 15% by 2012. With this initiative, the federal corporate income tax rate in 2012 will be a remarkable 14 percentage points lower than its level in 2000. These broad-based tax reductions build on the measures announced in the 2006 and the 2007 budgets to strengthen Canada's tax advantage.
 As a result of these tax reductions, businesses in Canada will meet the Advantage Canada goal of achieving the lowest tax rate on new business investment in the G-7 by 2011. Further, by 2012 we will have the lowest statutory corporate income tax rate in the G-7.
The tax reduction actions our government took in the 2007 economic statement are sustainable and durable. They make Canada a country of choice for investment, not just today but in the years to come. This will provide Canadians with more and better jobs and a higher standard of living.
Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's statement on this amendment. I am curious about what the minister said in regard to what attracts corporations to invest in this country.
I would say that right now corporations are attracted to investing in this country for our great resource base, one that is accelerating in value. Around the world, resources are at a premium. Many corporations are investing in energy in this country, once again because the energy is here.
Let us talk about the manufacturing sector. One of the largest incentives for manufacturing investment in Canada is our public health care system, which gives us a tremendous advantage over the United States and its private insurance system for employees of large companies.
What we see in Canada is that we have incentives for corporations that are built into, first, what we sell, our raw resources, which are in high demand, and, second, the services we provide to corporations. How are these tax cuts going to improve that situation? How are they going to make that any better?
[Interjection]
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the recent budgets addressed not only a reduction of corporate tax rates but a whole lot of other issues, such as infrastructure, transfers to the provinces, health care and all these other requirements of our society. The budgets of 2006 and 2007 and the update do not address only corporate tax cuts.
Yes, when investors decide to invest in Canada, they take into consideration a lot of those factors: our well-educated population, our health care, our infrastructure, our energy resources, et cetera. However, they also look at the tax rates. It is in our interest to reduce the tax rates for corporations to as low as possible to encourage investment, because it is corporations that provide most of the jobs. Other than the public services such as government, schools or hospitals, the rest of the economy is a corporate economy, which requires tax rates that are as low as possible.
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, recently the Conservative government announced a bold new infrastructure program that is a $33 billion investment in infrastructure projects across Canada. This is following the disastrous infrastructure deficit that the Liberals left us over the last 13 years.
I have a question for the minister. What exactly does this $33 billion investment mean to municipalities, to seaports and to Canadians as a whole?
[Interjection]
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, through the building Canada plan, our government is making the largest investment in infrastructure in modern history, with $33 billion over the next seven years. This is new money to build roads and improve public transit, to rehabilitate bridges and water systems, and to upgrade our international gateways, ports and airports.
We believe that we are going to be able to leverage this $33 billion into $100 billion through cooperation with the provinces and with private investment. I think that as our plan is implemented over the next seven years, members are going to find substantial improvements in infrastructure that had been allowed to lie and decay in the last 13 years of the Liberal regime.
Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I speak today to Bill C-28, the budget implementation bill.
First, good governments make good, long term choices. They do not focus their policies on short term polls or on next week's polls. In fact, they focus on the challenges and opportunities in the coming century, which is why the Conservative government has made such a remarkable mistake in moving forward and cutting a consumption tax, the GST. 
 Cutting 1% on the GST represents a $6.5 billion loss to the federal treasury per year, and 2%, of course, is $13 billion per year, which is a lot of fiscal capacity that could have been used to invest in the priorities of Canadians, to invest in the social infrastructure of Canadians and to address the infrastructure deficit that is so critical in Canada today. It is also a lot of money that could have been used to reduce personal income taxes and help Canadians keep more of their hard-earned money, to reduce business taxes, to build a more competitive corporate tax environment and, ultimately, to build a richer, fairer and greener Canada.
Except for perhaps the Prime Minister, I do not think there is an economist in Canada who believes that cutting the GST is a good idea. In fact, if economists were a licensed body, the Prime Minister would probably lose his licence over the decision to cut the GST because it is such a bad economic policy.
Just 1% of the GST, that $6.5 billion per year, in terms of needed infrastructure, would mean approximately $20 million in every federal riding in Canada. Let us consider what that could mean in terms of green infrastructure, water and sewage treatment and recreational infrastructure across Canada, whether we are talking about arenas, pools or libraries, a great infrastructure deficit is going on. 
When we look at it, there were two waves of federal government investment in infrastructure. One was the memorial infrastructure with memorial community centres across Canada, built, I believe, after the second world war. Further to that, there were the centennial projects after the great year of 1967, which was the year I was born. My mother was at Expo 67. I was there but I had not been born yet.
Beyond that, the fact that the government has made no investment in those kinds of infrastructure in a significant way ignores the facts. The facts are that Canadians need to live in healthy communities with up to date water and sewage treatment. They need investments in public transit, in green transit infrastructure. We recognize now the imperative of green investment in infrastructure. Canadians also need to live healthier lives and they cannot do that if they do not have recreational infrastructure for their children. 
I will give some examples from my own riding of the kinds of infrastructure I am speaking of. The East Hants Sportsplex in Lantz, Hants county, which was built decades ago, has served the community well during its time. However, Lantz and Elmsdale, that whole area of East Hants, has doubled in population over the last 10 years. Its recreational infrastructures are strained and require significant investment.
When our government was in power, the Liberal government, those were the kinds of investment we made. In my riding, we invested in indoor soccer facilities, libraries, pools and community infrastructure, which can make a difference. Those kinds of infrastructures can make the lives of families better and can ensure we have healthier Canadians. In the long term, it would reduce the cost to the taxpayer by reducing the costs to the health care system over the long term.
We invested in transportation infrastructure, whether we are talking about the twinning of Highway 101 in my riding to the Annapolis Valley or we are talking about investments being made in conjunction with the provincial government at the time. 
We invested in infrastructure on a community basis because we were part of a government that recognized the important role that municipal leaders have in building their communities. The fact is that municipal leaders have limited capacity to raise money. They have property taxes, which is a very blunt instrument.
The government of Jean Chrétien and the government of Paul Martin were the first Governments of Canada to recognize--
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member knows that the immediately former prime minister is still a member of this House and, therefore, should be referred to as the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.
[Interjection]
Scott Brison: I regret the error, Mr. Speaker. The member for LaSalle—Émard's government was, for the first time in the history of Canada, a federal government that recognized the important role that municipal leaders have and the important need for them to have the kind of funding to address those needs. 
I want to speak to the whole issue of the Atlantic accord because a large part of this legislation supposedly deals with the Atlantic accord. When we had a briefing session on this, a public servant told me that this new amendment would ensure that the budget respects the Atlantic accord. I read those same words in the budget just a few months ago. 
However, if the original budget respected the Atlantic accord, why did the premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, principled members of parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, have to fight the federal Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister over the last several months to actually get a new amendment that would respect the accord?
 If the original budget respected the accord, why did the federal government commit months of work in the Department of Finance to finding a new way to respect the accord? It is not credible. In fact, if we could not trust the Conservatives in the budget when they said that the budget respected the Atlantic accord, why should we trust them now when they say that this document respects the Atlantic accord?
It was only a few years ago when the Prime Minister referred to Atlantic Canada as “having a culture of defeat”. The only culture of defeat that will exist in the next federal election will be in Conservative campaign headquarters across Atlantic Canada, because Atlantic Canadians do not like being misled. 
Atlantic Canadians know that if they cannot trust a government to honour a written accord, they cannot trust a prime minister on his verbal commitments. Atlantic Canadians want a fair deal to ensure that we have the opportunity as Atlantic Canadians to build our economy, to diversify our economy and to move forward. 
Furthermore, the province of Nova Scotia's own figures show that Nova Scotia will lose $42 million next year and $306 million over the next four years as a result of the government's ripping up the Atlantic accord.
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the hon. member for Mississauga—Brampton South.
The government, on a wide range of issues, from failing to honour the Atlantic accord, to a misguided tax policy that will actually build a less competitive, less fair and a less green Canadian economy, is moving in multiple directions and in a way that Canadians do not share in terms of values or of sound economic policy.
Furthermore, the manufacturing sector, the forestry sector and agriculture are facing multiple crises in key sectors across our economy. The government has done nothing to address competitiveness and has done nothing to address the manufacturing sector crisis. For instance, the accelerated capital cost allowance should be offered on a permanent basis to Canadian manufacturers to allow them the time they need to invest in productivity enhancement.
The forestry sector is key to our economy. The government is doing nothing to invest--
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am sorry but the hon. member's time has expired. I would remind members that we are into 10 minute speeches and 10 minute speeches do not get split into 5 minute speeches, especially after you have spoken for 9 minutes.
The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's comments on the amendment that I put forward but I did not quite grasp where his party was or where he was on the amendment, notwithstanding some of his comments.
I mentioned in my comments that the Liberal Party supports deep corporate tax cuts. Indeed, I quoted from his leader who said that his party would go further and he encouraged the government to go further, giving it the green light to go to the level that his party had gone.
Notwithstanding the member's comments, will he be supporting these deep corporate tax cuts or will he support our amendment, because if he supports the deep corporate tax cuts, all of the things he mentioned will not happen? These are not strategic investments. These are right across the board tax cuts. We throw the money up in the air and hope it lands in the right place. We know that does not happen. They need to be strategic and this document does not provide that, which is why we asked for an amendment.
 I know the Liberals did not want to vote on this but would you please tell us where you stand on it?
The Deputy Speaker:  I would remind the hon. member for Ottawa Centre not to use the second person unless he wants the Speaker to answer the question instead of the hon. member for Kings--Hants.
[Interjection]
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, we would all like to hear from the Speaker, the best member of Parliament in Canada.
Innovative, forward-thinking governments globally have proven that we can build a competitive economy with dramatic reductions to corporate taxes while investing in social policy.
We only need to look at the Netherlands, Sweden and Ireland. Australia and New Zealand have reduced corporate taxes dramatically. They have reformed their tax system to make their economies magnets for capital and talent and, at the same time, have invested significantly in social policy.
The Scandinavian example is particularly important to help guide us because Scandinavian countries value investments in social policy, in child care, in early learning and in good health care policy, and, at the same time, they saw the need to reduce their corporate tax levels to some of the lowest corporate taxes in the world.
The old globaphobic, socialist, Luddite nonsense that somehow innovative and forward-thinking economic policy is contrary to good social policy is wrong. In fact, we need good, economic policy to afford sound, social investment.
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I love Fridays because we hear some of the most outlandish statements on Fridays.
The member for Kings—Hants, now get this folks, says that the GST is a great tax and that Canadians do not deserve to have tax relief on the GST. Somehow it is a bad thing to give Canadians tax relief that they can see every time they go to the till, every time they go shopping for something. If they are going to buy a car, even a used one, they can see that tax relief, but the member for Kings—Hants thinks this is a bad thing.
The leader of the opposition party said a short time ago that the Liberals, God forbid if they ever get to power again, would raise the GST.
Here is what we can expect in the next federal election. The Liberals will be campaigning all across this country, probably led by the member for Kings—Hants, telling Canadians to elect the Liberals and make them government and they promise they will raise the GST back to 7%.
Mr. Speaker, do you not just love Fridays? I just love it. I thank the member for Kings—Hants for making our next election campaign just a little easier.
[Interjection]
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should reflect on whether the GST is payable on cash transactions of $300,000 to former prime ministers.
Beyond that, we are committed to reducing taxes. We are committed to a fairer approach to reducing, in a broad base way, personal income taxes to actually help Canadian families. With his approach to cutting the GST, a 1% GST cut will give someone buying an $80,000 Cadillac Escalade a great savings of about $800 or so--
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It seems like an appropriate time to resume debate. 
The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the NDP's amendment to Bill C-28, which is about the Conservative government's economic statement.
At the outset, I would like to make it clear to my NDP colleagues that the Bloc Québécois opposed Bill C-28 and the economic statement. We will also oppose the NDP's amendment for one simple, good reason. The reason we are opposed to the economic statement is that it does nothing to address the most serious crisis currently facing Quebec's regions: the crises in the forestry and manufacturing sectors. Once again, the NDP must be seeing the world through rose-coloured glasses, because it has not put forward anything to solve the real problem: the crises in the manufacturing and forestry sectors. 
My colleagues here in the House will confirm what I am saying. The member from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord will tell you that the Saguenay region has been hit hard by the forestry crisis, and my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé will tell you that Mauricie has been feeling the pinch because of the crises in the forestry and manufacturing industries. The time for looking at what the Conservative government could do through rose-coloured glasses has passed. Once again, it is time to see things as they really are.
It is clear that the Conservative Party has decided not to do anything about the forestry and manufacturing crises in its economic statement. The party's philosophy is to let businesses die, to let the free market do what it wants, to believe that big companies will survive and should be allowed to destroy small companies every day. Right now, the problem in the manufacturing and forestry sectors is that the big companies are destroying each other. Even they cannot survive. That is the reality of the situation. 
The government is offering tax cuts to businesses, and that is fine for businesses that are making a profit. But right now, Quebec's forestry sector and much of its manufacturing sector are having problems. The softwood lumber crisis was never resolved. Businesses were never given the help they needed. Then the Canadian dollar rose to dizzying heights. Even in the economic statement, the picture painted by the Minister of Finance is one of economic recession in the manufacturing sector. Oil companies will not be affected.
Obviously, in granting tax reductions, the Conservative Party wanted mainly to please its friends, the oil companies. That was the purpose of the economic statement and that is the problem I have today with the NDP motion. Once again, it does not address the real problem. The idea behind the motion is to remove tax credits, which is fine, but the NDP is not addressing and does not want to address the real problem, which is the crisis in forestry and manufacturing. The NDP, with its rose-coloured glasses, is as bad as the Conservative Party, except that the two parties are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
I am glad to be a member of the Bloc Québécois. It is the only party in this House that is in touch with the grassroots, close to the people, and that can clearly say what impact the higher Canadian dollar and the softwood lumber crisis, which the Conservative government never solved, are having today. Jobs are being lost in most regions of Quebec.
Companies are closing on the other side of the river in Gatineau. Everyone will say that it is a large city, but Domtar has closed and Bowater has shut down one machine. Once again, the forestry crisis is affecting the cities in Quebec. Imagine the impact it is having in the regions. That is the hard reality and the impact of the Conservatives' free-market approach.
In the manufacturing and forestry sectors, the government should look at its own data, its own figures, which clearly show that there have been successive job losses since 2005, totalling 125,000, including 65,000 jobs lost in Quebec since the Conservatives came to power. The economic statement solves nothing, absolutely nothing. The member from Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean and the Minister of Labour are telling us to wait for the next budget. That means there is nothing in the economic statement, absolutely nothing.
That is why, once again, we will vote against Bill C-28 and against the NDP amendment. It was a flawed economic statement, a flawed bill for the forestry and manufacturing industries. We will take a stand for Quebeckers in the regions and in the urban centres who are being hard hit.
Shawinigan was hit hard last week and so was the City of Gatineau and insecurity reigns. Large companies such as Bowater and Abitibi-Consolidated have merged. That was the first phase of a shutdown that will be followed by a second phase. The companies, the industry and the owners are no longer hiding the fact that there will be a second phase.
The Conservative government is being consistent in its Conservative philosophy. It will wait as long as possible until as many businesses have closed as possible. In the end it will come to the rescue of one company that has only half its labour force left. 
On one hand we have the Minister of Labour's attitude and on the other hand we have the Economic Development Agency of Canada, which is trying to revive the regions through diversification. At worst, we will end up with the Minister of Labour's approach. In my opinion, the member for Jonquière—Alma is an embarrassment to his region. He is saying that many jobs are being created in Alberta and that 55 year old unemployed workers should go there for work. That is his message. It is terrible coming from a minister from Quebec, especially from Jonquière—Alma, a region that has worked hard to build the Quebec of today and part of Canada.
Finally, if it were not for the primary resources sector, the forestry and mining sectors, Quebec and Canada would not be what they are today. The people in those sectors are living day to day.
The Conservatives think that since the oil industry is doing well we should all fall all over ourselves and make oil. Society is more complex than that. We realize every day that the Conservatives want nothing to do with Quebec's problems. The Conservatives say so and prove it every day. In any event, they have shown it in Bill C-28, in their economic statement. The New Democratic Party is doing the same thing by showing its flagrant lack of interest in the problems Quebeckers in the regions are experiencing in the forestry and manufacturing crisis. They must be able to sense that in the rest of Canada, but with their rose coloured glasses, instead of making amendments and proposing things that would solve the industry's problems, they want to lower corporate taxes.
The Quebec association of manufacturers and exporters is in favour of the tax cuts. In fact, the day these industries start making money, they will be happy to have more competitive taxation. But they are saying that this is not enough, because the crisis in the forestry and manufacturing industries must be addressed now. It is serious and will take some serious money. We must find a way to revive these sectors and implement everything the Bloc Québécois has called for in this House. We are telling the government that cuts and credits alone are not enough, that tax credits must be made refundable. This means that if a company is not making money, instead of it being deducted from profits, the company will receive a cheque, because it did not in fact turn a profit in a given year. With that money, the company would be able to purchase new machines and upgrade.
We are trying to make them understand that the solution is simple, and they know it. The problem is that they do not want to do it. Once again, the Conservative free market philosophy is that things should fix themselves. But things will not fix themselves in the forestry and manufacturing sectors for the simple reason that the Canadian dollar will not stop rising. 
Obviously, the brilliant Conservatives had not counted on the dollar rising. Now this is happening and jobs are lost every week across Quebec. The Bloc Québécois will never accept this situation and will never stop rising in this House to speak out against what the Conservatives are doing and what the NDP is in the process of doing: ignoring the real problems, which leads to massive job losses in the forestry and manufacturing sectors.
These Quebeckers who have worked hard their entire lives to support this society deserve to be taken care of now. They deserve a good chunk of the $11.6 billion surplus to revive the forestry and manufacturing industries and not to create something new. That is what they deserve. 
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to my hon. colleague's statements. I find it somewhat incomprehensible that a member of a party elected by many progressive voters in Quebec would come out with a statement like that on a very serious topic: the complete movement by the government toward reducing corporate taxes, as supported by the Liberals. This is a direction from which we cannot return.
The member has provided many ideas and direction on the need to carefully select areas in the economy for which to provide incentives. We cannot do it if we do not have the revenue base.
By going against the motion, he has set up a future in which the federal government will not have the ability to make the kinds of investments that need to be made to improve industries in his province.
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, my NDP colleague has a problem. His party has never changed. It has always been against corporate tax reductions.
There is a problem. The forestry industry and the manufacturing sector are facing an unprecedented crisis. They are in an economic recession, which is what I have been saying since the beginning of my speech. The question today is not about attacking tax cuts, but rather about helping forestry and manufacturing businesses.
If he had decided to propose an amendment to convert or transform tax credits into refundable tax credits in order to be able to help businesses, we probably would have supported it. The problem is that the New Democrat philosophy does not change. They do not see the problems and always regurgitate the same line: we are lowering corporate taxes, and so on.
The crisis is more significant than that. Now is no longer the time to put on the NDP's rose coloured glasses. It is time to solve the real problems.
Mr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on his fine speech.
I would like him to expand on something. Since 2002, 135,000 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector, affecting one in five workers. As my colleague mentioned, the Quebec furniture industry is a very important economic sector. In 2007, it employs 24,000 workers, although in 2000, it employed 30,500 people. The net job losses in this sector are a result of the government's failure to act. It has been slow to react and support our industries.
I would like my hon. colleague to tell us why the Conservative government refuses to act, from a budgetary point of view, to support our industries?
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank my colleague for Berthier—Maskinongé who is working very hard to try to stop job losses in his region.
He asks me what I think of the Conservatives.This is the worst possible government in terms of its ability to solve the crisis in the manufacturing and forestry sectors. It is totally insensitive. The Conservative philosophy is to give the market free rein.
As I was explaining earlier, there is a problem in the forestry industry. It is one thing, when times are good, for big companies to gobble up little ones. However, right now, the big companies are cannibalizing one another and when they emerge they are no longer able to cope with the situation. That is the reality.
The Conservative philosophy does have an end.The writing is on the wall for the forestry and manufacturing sectors, and it says “The End”. We have to get rid of the Conservatives and put in place real programs to help the men and women who worked very hard to establish the society in which we live. The forestry sector sustained the economies of Quebec and Canada for dozens of years. It is now time for us to help these workers and no longer just stand by and watch, as is the case with the Conservative laissez-faire policy.
The forestry sector is finished. The writing is on the wall. We must stop this from happening and solve the problems. The Conservatives have $11.6 billion in reasons to solve them so let them do it.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I want to address a couple of points my friend from the Bloc made.
He said that we viewed things through rose coloured glasses. I have to challenge him on that. I think he is looking through revisionist glasses. Members of that party propped up the government on its budgets. When it comes to the government and its policies, which he criticizes, I predict his party will support the government yet again because his party is on life-support right now.
How can the member say that the proposal to amend tax cuts is not a progressive policy when he decries the Conservative approach of the invisible hand? Does the member not understand that we need to have key investments and that corporate tax cuts or giveaways are nothing more than corporate welfare? Social democrats—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. We need to give the hon. member a few seconds to respond.
 The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I repeat and I will continue repeating that he must take off his rose coloured glasses. He is like the Conservatives, who show no sensitivity. The member would have us believe that Bill C-28 would be fine if the tax reductions were removed. Bill C-28 is a bad bill all around. The economic statement is not good. Furthermore, how the NDP views this is not good, either. We must resolve the crisis. 
With respect to tax reductions, I am very happy for any businesses that are turning a profit, but the Conservatives should have been able to support refundable tax credits to help the industry directly.

Statements By Members
Montessori Educational MethodMr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this year, 2007, marks the centennial of the work of Dr. Maria Montessori. We proudly recognize the great work inspired by her discoveries.
 The purpose of education is to nurture the energies of childhood—intellectual, physical, emotional, moral and spiritual—so that every member of the human race can make a constructive contribution to the world.
All children deserve the best possible conditions at every stage of their development.
When fully developed, children become individuals committed to human solidarity, social progress and peace.
Montessorians declare their commitment now and in the future to participate in a universal social movement that places children at the centre of society, recognizing them as citizens of the world.
 They are also committed to reforming education as a reciprocal, lifelong process in which every member of the human race is profoundly engaged.
Please join us in championing the cause of all children.
Norval MorrisseauMs. Tina Keeper (Churchill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay respect to the life of Ojibwa artist Norval Morrisseau who passed away at the age of 75 on Tuesday morning.
He was one of Canada's greatest painters. He was a master artist. He was a shaman. He was known as the “Picasso of the North”. He was the innovator of what would become the woodland style.
Norval Morrisseau spent his childhood immersed in his Ojibwa culture in northwestern Ontario. His self-taught style reflected this oral history, this spirituality and this environment.
Creating his own genre, he would become one of the most important artists Canada has ever produced. He has exhibited his works internationally for decades.
 In 1978 he was made a member of the Order of Canada. He was a member of the Royal Canadian Academy. He will be honoured in 2008 for a lifetime achievement award by the Aboriginal Achievement Awards.
I encourage all members of this House to join me in honouring the incredible life and contributions of Norval Morrisseau.
Quebec Sports Hall of FameMr. Luc Malo (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the Quebec sports hall of fame was established, dozens of athletes and sports figures have been honoured and recognized for their achievements.
On November 12, six new members were inducted into the Quebec sports hall of fame. Motorcyclist and snowmobiler Yvon Duhamel, skiers Peter Duncan and Lloyd Langlois, hurdler Rosey Edeh, hockey player and golfer Robert Rousseau and trainer—and also cyclist and speed skater— Maurice Gagné were inducted into the hall of fame. Maurice Gagné is the first person to be inducted as both an athlete and a builder
This woman and these men have each made a contribution to the development of sport in Quebec and today are showing the way for future generations.
ImmigrationMs. Denise Savoie (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize a group of very special constituents in my Victoria riding. They heard a documentary on CBC last February about the plight of Iman Kate and her two children, Iraqi refugees, currently residing in Syria, who live in constant fear for their lives.
Within two months of hearing that program, my constituents raised over $20,000 and submitted five sponsorship applications so that they could save Iman Kate and her children's lives and support them in their move to Canada.
I ask that the government intervene and expedite the approval of this application. In doing so, not only would the government be supporting the remarkable efforts of these Canadians, but it would also be saving Iman Kate and her children's lives before it is too late.
Fred RungeMrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the contribution of well-known Ottawa Valley newspaperman, Fred Runge, who after nearly 30 years in the business received an offer he could not refuse: selling his 17 newspapers to big city based Metroland.
It was no secret that Fred's father, prominent Pembroke businessman Donald F. Runge, believed in helping his children. The elder Runge was quite happy to see his son Fred return to the Ottawa Valley to run a local newspaper after being in southern Ontario.
Once at The Renfrew Mercury newspaper, Fred totally immersed himself in the newspaper business, growing the business from three papers and a press to the substantial business it became.
While fathers usually look to their sons to follow them into the family business, in the case of Fred, his interest in fine wines was passed on to his son Graham, who has a successful career with a southern Ontario distillery. It may be Fred following Graham.
I say to Fred and his wife, Barbara, to enjoy their retirement while they can, because I know their community in Renfrew is not going to let a man of his talents sit idle.
Jacques HébertHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this House to pay tribute to our former colleague and friend, Senator Jacques Hébert. 
I first met him as a young student and was immediately touched by him. An architect of Quebec's quiet revolution, he was the tireless voice of and for youth in Canada and around the world, for whom Katimavik was metaphor and message.
A man of words and intellect, he chose to brandish his pen in the fight against injustice.
An example is the wrongful conviction of Wilbert Coffin.
A writer, journalist, intellectual, voyageur du monde, and visionary, Jacques Hébert was the people's conscience, a man who dreamt of a better world and helped build it.
He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002.
We express our condolences to his family as well as our thanks for his tremendous contribution to our society and to the entire world.
HeadingleyMr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in the 15 years that the rural municipality of Headingley has been in existence, it has made remarkable progress.
Headingley has low property taxes and no business tax, yet it has been able to build a new water and sewer system, pave roads and provide excellent services. The community has built a state of the art community centre, a new library and is home to a heritage centre.
Headingley is a booming business centre. The business community includes Shelmerdine Garden Center, Headingley Sport Shop, the Gates on Roblin, McMunn and Yates Building Supplies, the Flying J, a new Sobey's grocery store distribution centre, Taillieu Construction and Nick's Inn, to name a few.
Moreover, many Manitobans, like myself, share fond memories as a camper or councillor at Camp Manitou.
Headingley's fully serviced residential developments are some of the most sought after properties in the region. This, combined with Phoenix Elementary School, make Headingley an excellent environment for families.
I wish to thank the people of Headingley for their support.
International Civil Aviation DayMario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, International Civil Aviation Day was established in 1994 on the 50th anniversary of the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, which was created on December 7, 1944, and whose headquarters are in Montreal. In 1996, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution officially proclaiming this international day.
The intention was to share and appreciate the importance of civil and commercial aviation to the world's social and economic development. Let us acknowledge ICAO's importance in promoting airline safety and efficiency.
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the significant contribution of the workers in the airline industry. These men and women who are our pilots, flight attendants, engineers and labourers, ensure our safety in the air every day through their excellent work. On behalf of my colleagues, I want to thank them for contributing to the success of the airline industry.
Queen Alexandra History CentreMr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the recent opening of the Queen Alexandra History Centre in my riding of Edmonton—Strathcona.
The work of the history centre is designed to support the delivery of knowledge and historical thinking skills to students in grades 4, 5 and 7. 
The centre will focus on the historical knowledge about the rich history of Alberta and Canada, offering resources not readily found in the ordinary classroom.
This history centre is the result of a unique partnership between many educational stakeholders in the community, including Edmonton Public Schools, the University of Alberta and the Old Strathcona Foundation to name just a few.
The centre allows students and teachers to access the resources and research techniques used by historians and educators in their own pursuit of knowledge about early Canadians, as well as the history of our great country.
Knowledge is power, and education is the critical tool that students must access to get that knowledge. It is my hope that the Queen Alexandra History Centre will serve as a model for other schools to follow all across the country. 
Congratulations to Queen Alexandra school which recently celebrated its centennial year. Once again, congratulations to all who made the history centre a reality.
Government PoliciesHon. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East—Cooksville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party chose to abstain from voting on last month's economic statement because the government has itself abstained from acting on the crucial issues facing the nation.
The cost of employing Canadians is now 50% higher in U.S. dollars than it was just five years ago. The pressure on exporters to cut costs and cut jobs is growing. Yet the government remains so oblivious that it is actually trying to boost imports from Korea with an unfair trade agreement that will cost Canadian jobs.
On the environment, a $14 billion surplus did not shake a dime free to support action on climate change. The government could have given the provinces more green for being green by providing a cent for every kilowatt hour of green energy they produce, but there is not a penny for our thoughts if our thoughts are about the environment.
The government has had a surplus of opportunity, but suffers a deficit of direction on the crucial issues of our time.
Richard PoundMrs. Sylvie Boucher (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to Richard Pound, who, after nine years as chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency, will officially retire from the position at the end of the year. 
As vice-president of the International Olympic Committee, Mr. Pound coordinated the creation of the World Anti-Doping Agency and has been the chairman of the organization, which is headquartered in Montreal, since 1999. He made a unique contribution to the world of international sport. For the first time, the Olympic movement and governments were working together as part of one organization to fight doping in sport around the world.
Mr. Pound epitomizes the fight against doping in sports and has become a passionate spokesperson and international champion of this important cause.
Please join me in thanking Richard Pound for his leadership and his exceptional contribution to integrity in sport and the advancement of the anti-doping movement—
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.
National Anti-Racism Council of CanadaMr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the National Anti-Racism Council of Canada is an international leader in research, education and advocacy to end racism, yet the Minister of Canadian Heritage has refused to renew funding for NARC, a crippling blow to that organization.
NARC educates and advocates for an end to racial profiling. It fights to end the biases in our media. It strives to end racism in our communities. It educates youth and other community leaders on how to identify and fight the root causes of racism and hatred. Knowing this, it begs the question, what is it about NARC's work that the government does not like?
Canadians want their government to stand up to hate, to stand up to racism and to stand up to intolerance in our communities. To do that the government has to invest. It has to invest to give the leaders in fighting racism and hatred the tools and resources to do this valuable work.
It is time for the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism  to support the National Anti-Racism Council of Canada. It is time to renew its funding.
MulticulturalismHon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a movement that plays on people's fears and promotes intolerance, and that movement was introduced by a concept called reasonable accommodation. This debate is based on the false premise that when people are allowed to be unique, it somehow encourages segregation of communities and risks the growth of fundamentalism or some other un-Canadian value.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I know this because I have experienced it first hand. I grew up immersed in the Canadian mosaic. However, growing up under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms means much more than just understanding it. It also means appreciating our differences that enrich our society and make us stronger.
That is why I find the flawed debate surrounding reasonable accommodation so insulting. I find it offensive because I know that it is an unnecessary distraction fanned by unfounded fears. It is just an attempt to make intolerance acceptable.
As Canadians, we should all stand up to this attempt to water down the very rights and freedoms that have become part and parcel of our Canadian identity. In the debate between the charter and intolerance, and the charter must prevail.
John Humphrey Freedom AwardMs. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Rights &amp; Democracy presents the John Humphrey Freedom Award each year to an organization or individual from any country or region of the world, including Canada, for exceptional achievement in the promotion of human rights and democratic development. 
This year's recipient of the award is Akbar Ganji, the celebrated Iranian journalist and dissident. Mr. Ganji, a staunch defender of human rights, is an inspiration and source of hope to his fellow Iranians. Mr. Ganji spent six years in prison for exposing rights abuses committed by the Iranian government. Throughout his detention, he continued to write, producing a series of influential political manifestos and open letters calling for the establishment of democracy. 
My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to this strong advocate of human rights.
Hull-Volant Social and Athletic AssociationMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on October 20, 2007, more than 400 people celebrated the 75th anniversary of the Hull-Volant Social and Athletic Association. The organizing committee was under the capable direction of Jean-Claude Trottier.
The members and volunteers of the Hull-Volant association, chaired by Émile Sabourin, have demonstrated how social and athletic involvement, dedication and generosity can stand the test of time and make such a difference in the Outaouais.
During the event, Léo Gauthier was inducted into the Hull-Volant sports hall of fame. He is the 27th athlete to join this select group. Mr. Gauthier has been committed to the organization's activities since 1961. Two other members were also recognized for their great social involvement within the association. Richard Murray and Henri Monette were honoured as the 36th and 37th people to become life members.
Bravo and congratulations on 75 years of history. I wish Hull-Volant continued success.
TaxationMr. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark 2007 as “the year of lower taxes”. 
In the past year, our Conservative government has aggressively reduced the tax burden for all Canadians. Budget 2007 set the stage for lower taxes with the new $2,000 per child tax credit. 
Farmers, fishermen and small business owners will enjoy substantial tax savings through the increase to the lifetime capital gains exemption.
The fall economic statement went even further. All Canadians will pay lower taxes because we reduced the GST another percentage point. 
This, combined with the reductions to income tax and our commitment to having the lowest corporate tax rate in the G-7, means that Canadians will save a total of $60 billion over the next five years. 
Unlike the Liberals who want to go back and raise taxes, we believe hard-working Canadians deserve a break. 
As 2007 draws to a close, Canadians can rest assured that they have a government that will continue to fight for lower taxes for all Canadians.

Oral Questions
HealthMr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, across Canada, medical tests are either being delayed or cancelled because of a shortage of isotopes. The Canadian Association of Nuclear Medicine estimates that 50,000 Canadians a month will experience delays in their medical tests.
How did the government let the shutting down of a nuclear reactor turn into a national medical crisis?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about this situation. As the people of Canada know, there are two independent, arm's length entities that are responsible for the situation. One is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited that is the owner and operator of the reactor. The other is CNSC, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which is the regulator.
These two organizations together have a difference of opinion on the operation of the reactor. We have spoken with them and encouraged them to resolve those differences, so that production of isotopes can resume as soon as possible.
Michael Ignatieff: Mr. Speaker, arm's length is no excuse here. The Chalk River reactor shut down on November 18. That is 18 days ago. Shortages of isotopes began to show up almost immediately. 
When was the minister advised of the problem? Why did it take until December 6, 18 days later, to announce a plan of action?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, we are very concerned about this situation. The government has spoken to the agencies involved to have it resolved.
In the interim, Health Canada has been working on an alternative means to obtain a necessary supply of isotopes for emergency procedures.
I will point out that this is a situation that dates back to 2005. The previous Liberal government never had any kind of alternative process in place. We did have a contingency plan in place. The difficulty is that the closure is now extending beyond the period contemplated.
Michael Ignatieff: Mr. Speaker, this government has been in power for two years. It must start taking responsibility. Canada's nuclear safety officials are now saying that the problems in Chalk River are more serious than was thought.
Does the minister know when the problems will be resolved and when we can get isotopes from Chalk River?
This situation is endangering the lives of millions of Canadians. What is his department doing to put an end to this medical crisis?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows full well, and I am sure he has seen in media reports, neither of these organizations are run by the government. They run at arm's length.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has indicated publicly that it feels it is able to start the reactor now. CNSC is insisting that certain long term improvements be made in the short term during the current closure.
We hope that the two will resolve that issue, bearing in mind the very strong public interest that comes to bear in this matter.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not only has the government failed to bring down wait times, instead the health minister has created a new wait category for cancer and cardiovascular patients who need critical diagnostic testing and treatment.
Because he had no contingency plan in place for an emergency supply of radioisotopes, we now have a national medical emergency. The Canadian Society of Nuclear Medicine says this crisis could affect almost 50,000 patients a month.
When will the minister admit that his incompetence has put the lives of patients at risk?
Steven Fletcher: Mr. Speaker, the government is concerned about this issue. I am pleased to tell Canadians that the health minister is taking action. We are looking into alternative supplies from other countries. We are ready to fast track those sources.
We are also coordinating efforts among the provinces to help with emergency procedures. We are taking action. We will keep Canadians informed on this very important issue.
Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, we are looking into emergency supplies. I do not think the minister seems to grasp the urgency of the situation.
This is a national medical crisis. Lives have been put at risk. Now, will the government immediately commit the necessary funds to allow repairs to continue around the clock, 24-7, until the reactor is fixed?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is an issue of funding. I think that the improvements that AECL indicated that it has to make, that CNSC is asking it to make, are planned improvements. It is not an issue of funding. It is an issue of timing and approvals.
Manufacturing and Forestry IndustriesMs. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, pressured in this House by the Bloc member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, the Minister of Labour finally gave $1 million to Shawinigan, which has been hard hit by the recent closure of the Belgo plant. This last-minute response clearly shows that the government has no overall plan.
Does the Minister of Labour understand that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and that to deal effectively with the crisis that is hitting both manufacturing and forestry, he needs to introduce a real emergency plan now? With the surplus he has, he can afford it.
Sylvie Boucher: Mr. Speaker, we, too, are concerned about what is happening in Shawinigan. I would like to describe some of what the minister announced yesterday in Shawinigan.
First of all, to support Shawinigan, the government will assign an advisor in a business office in Mauricie to this sector full time. We will also fund the hiring of a development officer for three years. We are making a $1 million fund available to Shawinigan to help start up and expand small and medium-sized businesses. 
These are real steps that the Bloc—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, every region of Quebec is being affected. There are dozens of companies like Belgo, and unfortunately the list is growing longer. Some union members are getting impatient, with good reason, and are calling on the government to stop standing idly by. In the case of Bowater, the workers agreed to pitch in to find solutions.
Does the government not think it should do the same by introducing emergency measures for all the regions in Quebec?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, we have taken steps to help manufacturing workers and the manufacturing sector.
We have decreased corporate income tax. We have twice reduced employment insurance contributions—a tax paid by every employer, even manufacturers with little income. We have brought in accelerated depreciation for the manufacturing sector, encouraging investments that make companies more competitive. 
We are helping the manufacturing sector in Quebec and across Canada flourish. We have confidence in that sector.
Older WorkersMr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour's announcement offers nothing to inject some life back into the Belgo plant, which will be letting 550 workers go. Moreover, we know that 270 of those workers are over 50. The minister's announcement will do nothing at all to help them. 
Will the minister acknowledge that he could have used this opportunity to show some compassion for older workers by announcing a new income support program for them?
Sylvie Boucher: Mr. Speaker, the minister has always worked for the regions, unlike the Bloc, which has never been able to do anything. The minister announced six measures that demonstrate his vision and concrete commitment to economic development in the regions. These measures will support community vitality and enhance business competitiveness. 
The Bloc members do not have the responsibility that comes with wielding power, so they can say whatever they want.
Robert Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, rather than suggest they move to Alberta, the best thing we could do for these workers would be to give them access to a real income.
The government knows that a program like this would cost just $60 million in its first year. It has a projected surplus of $11.6 billion. What is holding it back?
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is very concerned about the challenges facing the older workers who are left vulnerable in these communities. 
We therefore have set up an expert panel for older workers. It currently is undertaking evaluation of measures to assist these older workers. We also have invested $70 million into targeted initiatives for older workers. We have many other programs, including the $500 million for the labour market agreements. 
The government has taken action. We support Canadian workers and we will continue to do so.
Aboriginal AffairsMs. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Lorna Standingready, a residential school survivor, received $12,000 less than what she expected for her common experience payment.
 The summary of payment explanation was terse and unhelpful,“residence could not be confirmed”. Yet Lorna was a ward of the state from the age of six until eighteen. There was not a single year of her childhood not spent in an Indian residential school. 
The government directed kids where to go. Now it needs to direct the money. When will survivors like Lorna receive their full common experience payment?
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, to date, the Government of Canada has received over 80,000 applications in relation to the Indian residential schools settlement. At this time, it has processed 34,000 of those 80,000 initial applications, totalling some $600 million.
This is an important finality to a very troubling era in Canadian history, and we are getting the job done.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, that answer is simply not good enough for Lorna Standingready and other survivors like her. The government must stop making it so difficult for survivors to get their rightly deserved benefits.
Day students face an even more bitter blow. They at the same food, had the same teachers, but are not considered eligible for payments because they did not sleep in the dormitories. 
It is unacceptable that some survivors are left behind. When will day students receive the compensation they deserve?
Rod Bruinooge: Mr. Speaker, this process has been approved by the courts. The courts themselves, in conjunction with the Assembly of First Nations and the Government of Canada, have indicated a process for which claimants can make their claim on their own behalf. There is a process which validates those claims. Should there be a difference of opinion on those claims, there is a process for appeal.
The EnvironmentMr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here is what someone once said on how best to address the climate change crisis:
 —our approach must be based on global participation, including that of developing countries whose net greenhouse gas emissions now exceed those in the developed countries. 
Does this sound familiar? It ought to. That was the excuse President Bush used when he announced to the world that he was taking the United States out of the Kyoto deal after promising he would ratify it during his presidential campaign.
Why is the Prime Minister insisting on isolating Canada while providing cover for a wounded Republican administration with one foot out the door?
Mr. Mark Warawa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic and hypocritical for a question on the environment to be coming from that member. It was the deputy leader of the Liberal Party who asked his leader, “Why didn't we get it done?” He was being advised by the member for Ottawa South. No wonder emissions went up 33%.
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's position is a Republican position. He talks a big game about accountability, but he refuses to be held accountable for the fact that 75% of greenhouse gases currently in our atmosphere were put there by developed nations like Canada.
Here is what the Prime Minister is really saying, “We won't stop dumping our pollution into the atmosphere until you stop dumping yours”.
Exactly how is this juvenile tit-for-tat sandbox game going to help us achieve a binding agreement at Bali to deal with the climate change crisis?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, after 13 long years of a Liberal government doing absolutely nothing, we now have a government that has realistic, ambitious targets.
The member asked for a quote and I would like to give him one. This man says—
[Interjection]
Hon. Ralph Goodale: Canadians know. They don't believe a word you're saying.
[Interjection]
Hon. Carolyn Bennett: What did you do? You chaired the round table, where were you?
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the frontbench of the official opposition, and some members in particular, and you know who they are, to keep it down while government members are answering their questions.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
[Interjection]
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, this is a great quote, and what they are advocating defies logic. This is a great quote:
 —there can be no serious argument for Canada to make mandatory commitments, while exempting the giant emitters of the world such as China and India. This is like plugging a leak while ignoring a flood. 
Who said that? It was--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Kings—Hants.
Wireless IndustryScott Brison: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister refused to answer the simple question, “Has the Prime Minister ever discussed wireless spectrum with Brian Mulroney, yes or no?”
Instead of answering, he quivered and huddled, red-faced, with his Minister of Industry in the House. Miraculously, two hours later, the Prime Minister's Office, not the Prime Minister, but his office, responded.
Who did the Prime Minister's Office speak with in the interim to get its story straight? Did the PMO speak directly or indirectly with Mr. Mulroney or his associates?
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate. This has probably been the worst week for tabloid politics, and the member continues to slag current members and past members of the House.
 Let us take a look and see what the National Post said about his credibility yesterday. It said:
 Who is [the member for Kings—Hants] to be slagging Quebecor and the Peladeaus? The same [member] who sent e-mails after a Liberal Cabinet meeting to his friends on Bay Street assuring them they'd be happy with the [the Liberal] government's policy on income trusts. The same [member] who, as a Progressive Conservative, went to Mulroney's home to seek his advice and accepted two major donations from Mulroney for his 2003-- 

The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Kings--Hants.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, there is an insidious and the incestuous collusion between Brian Mulroney and that government, when that government needs to gets its lines from Brian Mulroney's speech writer, Ian MacDonald. The fact is, on November 9, the Prime Minister called for an end—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. If the government members want to applaud when I chastise the opposition, then maybe they should chastise themselves and be as quiet as they want others to be.
The hon. member for Kings—Hants.
[Interjection]
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, on November 9, the Prime Minister called for an end of all dealings between his government, its ministers and Brian Mulroney. We know that Brian Mulroney lobbied the former industry minister. 
Was the Prime Minister aware of discussions between his former heritage minister and Brian Mulroney on the wireless spectrum auction? 
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe these speculations and allegations. I notice the member was blushing and it is for a good cause. Again, I will read a quote for members. “The steps necessary to reduce and eliminate the deficit began 15 years ago under the PC government of Brian Mulroney, who was responsible for introducing the structural changes in the Canadian economy which were largely responsible for putting in place fundamental changes such as the free trade policy which the Liberals fought vociferously, the GST which the Liberals fought vociferously and now claim to have invented, the deregulation of the financial services industry, transport and industry”.
Who said that? It was the member—
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord.
Guaranteed Income SupplementMr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government knows very well that seniors were cheated out of thousands of dollars because for years they were not paid the guaranteed income supplement to which they were entitled. 
Given that the government will have a surplus of $11.6 billion this year, what is it waiting for to reimburse the $3 billion to those who were burned because of poor management of the guaranteed income supplement program, and to stop this growing problem which causes our seniors to live in poverty.
Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, when we formed government, we took steps to modernize and strengthen the guaranteed income supplement, the old age security and the CPP. This is exactly what we have done by bringing Bill C-36 into law. 
Seniors can rest assured that this government listens and delivers for them.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, does the government realize that seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement are among the most disadvantaged in our society?
How can the government ignore them? When in opposition, the Conservatives promised to support and help them.
Why is this government treating our seniors like second class citizens when they are the ones who tightened their belts and worked their entire lives to help our economy grow?
Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, we have created a secretary of state for seniors in recognition of the important issues they face. We have established a national seniors council to advise the government on issues of importance. We have added $10 million per year to the new horizons for seniors program. In combatting serious issues that seniors face with elder abuse, we have invested $10 million.
We take these issues very seriously because we consider seniors to be a very important part of our society.
The EnvironmentMr. Marcel Lussier (Brossard—La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this government's doublespeak has reached new heights when it comes to the environment. While it claims to want to fight climate change, we learn that it wants to call into question the very foundation of the Kyoto protocol.
Will the government confirm that its real intentions are not just to sabotage the Bali conference, but also to call into question the very foundation of the Kyoto protocol?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, that is utter nonsense. Canada is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is a realistic plan, it is an ambitious plan. In fact, it is one of the most ambitious plans in the world: 20% by 2020. That is huge. That is 150 megatonnes, but globally it cannot be achieved. We cannot reduce greenhouse gas emissions unless all major emitters participate.
Canada is doing its part. We need all the major emitters to do their part, too.
Marcel Lussier: Mr. Speaker, instead of going back on past commitments and rethinking the very principles, structure and objectives of the Kyoto protocol, should the government not be recognizing that it is only normal for industrialized countries to make a greater effort because it is easier for an American to replace his Hummer with a smaller vehicle than it is for an Indian to stop cooking his food in his traditional way? 
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, the fact is global emissions do not recognize where the emissions come from. It is a global problem and we all need to do our part. Canada is doing its part.
There is a great quote from Mr. Steiner, the executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme. He said, “The approach Canada has taken, looking at the twin benefits of reducing emission of greenhouse gases and air pollutants, is exactly what we need to do on a wider scale”.
This government is getting it done.
AirbusMr. Pablo Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that the $300,000 that Brian Mulroney received from Mr. Schreiber in 1993 came from a bank account containing $4 million in commissions paid by Thyssen. 
This money existed only because Brian Mulroney's government signed an agreement with Thyssen for the Bear Head project in 1988. If Mr. Mulroney had not signed that agreement, he would not have had a comfortable retirement. 
Can the Prime Minister promise Canadians that the public inquiry will examine all aspects of the Bear Head project, including those who benefited from it?
Rob Moore: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been very clear on this issue and has done the right thing by announcing a full public inquiry into the allegations contained in a sworn affidavit.
 I wish the hon. member, and he knows this full well, would allow Professor Johnston to do that work.
Pablo Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, it gets even worse, much worse. 
The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics also heard that commissions from the Airbus purchase, the Bear Head project and the purchase of Coast Guard helicopters ended up in the same Swiss bank account.
Mr. Mulroney's $300,000 came from this big, questionable pile of dirty money. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the public inquiry examines every aspect of the Bear Head project, the Coast Guard helicopter agreement and the Airbus purchase, including those who benefited?
Rob Moore: Mr. Speaker, Professor Johnston will make recommendations as to the appropriate mandate for a public inquiry into any allegations that were made, including specific issues that warrant examination.
Mr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard that the $300,000 Mr. Mulroney received ultimately came from a $4 million payout Mr. Schreiber got after an agreement was signed between three Mulroney cabinet ministers and Mr. Schreiber. The paper trail proves this.
Will the Prime Minister guarantee that the inquiry will look into all contracts signed between the Mulroney government and companies representing Mr. Mulroney's lobbyist friends? Will he let us find out who got what cash?
Rob Moore: Mr. Speaker, this is a little ironic, because those junior Matlocks on the other side are calling for a public inquiry and the Prime Minister has set the parameters and has said that there would be a public inquiry. Professor Johnston is going to be making recommendations as to the appropriate mandate for that public inquiry.
 Let us do that and let Professor Johnston do the work that he has been mandated to do.
Mark Holland: Mr. Speaker, the question is simple. I am asking whether or not this information will be included in an inquiry. Mr. Mulroney was paid $300,000 in cash that was a direct result of an agreement his cabinet approved and signed with Mr. Schreiber. On top of this, Mr. Mulroney received $100,000 of this cash while sitting as an MP, an act expressly prohibited by law.
The question is simple. Will the Prime Minister ensure the integrity of his office? Will he direct the inquiry to thoroughly review the contracts Mr. Mulroney's government signed with companies like Thyssen, MBB and Airbus, to determine what commissions were paid out--
The Deputy Speaker: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.
Rob Moore: Mr. Speaker, our government has announced that there would be a public inquiry into this. Professor Johnston is going to be making recommendations as to the appropriate mandate. Hon. members should let Professor Johnston do the work that we have asked him to do.
TaxationDick Harris: Mr. Speaker, a number of former JDS Uniphase employees paid taxes on stock options that they never actually received.
The Liberals, specifically the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and the member for LaSalle—Émard, repeatedly said that they were going to address the issue. In fact, those were more promises made and more promises broken.
Could the Minister of National Revenue tell us if our government has resolved this situation?
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the Income Tax Act, of course, I am unable to talk about the specifics of the case. However, I would like to point out that the member for LaSalle—Émard, when he was prime minister, and the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca on a number of occasions promised to resolve this issue, but they just did not get it done.
 We are getting it done. I can tell the House that a remission order to address this case was passed on November 14 and the CRA is working to process this order in a timely fashion. Moving forward, we will be examining the tax rolls to determine whether measures should be taken to help prevent a similar situation from occurring in the future.
Manufacturing IndustryWayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, the provincial government in Ontario established a council to advise MPPs on manufacturing issues. It is undoubtedly a weak response. What the sector needs is a plan, not more advisement.
 However, it is at least a step forward. Since taking power two years ago, the Conservative government has not moved with the times of increasing dollar values and continued cuts in the manufacturing sector.
When is the government going to take seriously the plight of workers and the communities that depend on those jobs and establish a plan for these manufacturing industry workers and their communities?
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where this NDP member has been, but last year the industry committee did an unprecedented report which came up with 22 recommendations that his critic actually supported. The interesting thing with the NDP is that in our budget we addressed 21 out of 22 of these recommendations and the member voted against it.
 We lowered corporate income tax rates. He voted against it. We increased the capital cost allowance writeoff. He voted against it. We cut the paper burden on businesses. He voted against it.
There was $800 million per year for education, $1.3 billion for research--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Hamilton East--Stoney Creek on a supplementary.
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, those scripted answers from the minister will be of little consolation to the families and workers who have lost their jobs.
Statistics Canada today says that 16,000 people lost their jobs in November. Study after study has shown the negative impacts of job loss and plant closures on workers and their families.
If the Conservatives will not help save the manufacturing sector with a comprehensive jobs strategy, will they commit to immediate and serious investments to help unemployed workers and their families?
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, all the NDP has are strategies. I hear they even strategize on whether or not to shave off their leader's moustache.
The manufacturing sector does not need strategies. It needs action. That is exactly what we have given it. We have lowered taxes by $1.3 billion. We have increased the capital cost allowance. We have responded positively to 21 out of 22 recommendations in the INDU report. We are taking action, which is something the NDP will never do.
Art and Art ExhibitsHon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, exchanges of art exhibits and works of art are an excellent way for Canadians to become better acquainted with one another and their country. Exhibit Transportation Services facilitates these exchanges, which, otherwise, could be too costly.
Without considering the consequences of its actions, the Conservative government decided to eliminate this important program, thereby abandoning our institutions. Canada's galleries and museums are very disappointed and are calling on the Conservatives to reverse this regrettable decision.
Hon. Jim Abbott (Parliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, the government took the action that it took as a result of some conflict with respect to labour issues. The government is continuing to work on this issue.
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, during the last election the Conservatives promised, in writing, more money for museums. Instead, they cut the museums assistance program. Then they promised a museum policy for Christmas. That was Christmas of last year. They did not deliver then and they will not deliver for this Christmas either.
Now they have cut one of the very few programs that help our museums in Canada. What have Canada's small museums done to the Conservatives to deserve such miserable treatment?
Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, the member refuses to acknowledge the fact that our government has invested a total of over $267 million in museums. We firmly believe that museums have an essential role to play.
I do not understand what his problem is. He knows full well that the members of our committee and I work very diligently and closely with the Museums Association.
Canada Pension PlanCarolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the Canada pension plan is the cornerstone of income security for the vast majority of Canadian seniors, but not all eligible seniors are receiving their benefits.
 In fact, more than 55,000 eligible seniors are not receiving their benefits. They paid into the plan. They need their money now.
Why does this mean-spirited government continue to ignore these vulnerable seniors?
Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member gets her statistics from, but we are investing heavily in seniors' issues. 
We have created a Secretary of State for Seniors. We have the advisory National Seniors Council. We have added $10 million per year for the new horizons program. We continue to invest $10 million for combating serious issues of elder abuse.
Seniors can be reassured that the government is listening to them and we are delivering results.
Guaranteed Income SupplementCarolyn Bennett: Sadly, Mr. Speaker, it gets worse. Statistics Canada says that 130,000 low income seniors eligible for the GIS are not receiving it. Eighty per cent of these Canadians are elderly women.
When will the government get it together, simply phone these vulnerable citizens and get them on the list?
Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, we continue to invest in our seniors. As I said, we have the Secretary of State for Seniors and the National Seniors Council.
Our last budget spoke directly to the issues of seniors' concerns. We also invested $39 billion for social programs that the opposition parties continue to vote against.
Firearms RegistryMr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government paid a $10 million settlement to kill a contract with CGI, which was working on a replacement for the Canadian firearms information system. Some $81 million had already been spent on this project. 
Why was there no public announcement about this decision? What did the government have to hide?
Mr. James Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government has nothing to hide. The $10 million was not a settlement with CGI. It was a payment for work already performed.
Serge Ménard: Mr. Speaker, that does not really answer my question about why there was no public announcement.
If the government has agreed to pay a $10 million settlement, it is hard to believe that CGI was doing a poor job. Through repeated amnesties that allow people not to register their long guns, the government is making the registry less and less reliable and easier to discredit later.
Is this latest move not part of the very plan to go over the head of Parliament in order to abolish the registry, as indicated in their electoral platform?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the way my colleague presents the information as fact, when it is not.
Our government is determined to have efficient measures for gun control and it is comfortable with the decision to cancel this contract. This is a good management decision that will save taxpayers money.
International TradeNavdeep Bains: Mr. Speaker, first we had the softwood sellout that compromised our sovereignty. Now it seems that President Bush is using our Prime Minister to rush through his own trade deal with Colombia, this despite the numerous human rights issues and allegations of corruption that touch the current Colombian regime.
Experts have stated that there used to be facets of the Canadian policy in Latin America that distinguished it from Washington's, but unfortunately that is no longer the case. Does the Prime Minister still believe in an independent trade policy or should all future questions on this file be directed to the White House?
Hon. Helena Guergis (Secretary of State (Foreign Affairs and International Trade) (Sport), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member will agree that trade and human rights are mutually reinforcing objectives. That is the position of the government. Economic development and strengthening the social foundations of countries can contribute to a domestic environment where individual rights and the rule of law are respected.
InfrastructureMr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberals were not fooling anyone when they tried to attack our government on funding for cities and communities. For 13 years the Liberals ignored and neglected the needs of municipalities and slashed funding, while it was the Conservative Party that was pushing for action.
Our government made the largest infrastructure investment of modern times. We consulted the provinces, the territories and the municipalities across this country. We are delivering long term, flexible and predictable funding, which is exactly what they asked for. 
Can the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities say what action our government is taking to help Canadian municipalities?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): That is an excellent question, Mr. Speaker, and I am very happy to address it. Over half of the $33 billion will be flowing to communities and municipalities throughout the country. 
I might add that now that we have launched the building Canada plan, British Columbia has agreed to sign on to the framework agreement. Nova Scotia is there. This afternoon, my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, will be with Premier Graham of New Brunswick to sign the framework agreement. 
We are getting the job done, contrary to what the Liberals are saying.
Shanker's Bend Hydroelectric ProjectMr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a Washington State county is proposing to build a major dam on the Similkameen River near the Canada-U.S. border, which would inundate extensive areas of ecologically rich southern B.C. Half of the flood zone would be in B.C's dry Similkameen Valley, encroaching on close to 24 kilometres of Canadian soil south of Keremeos and west of Osoyoos.
The Minister of the Environment has personally assured me that he is watching this very closely. I thank him very much for this. Could he please advise the House of what concrete steps he has taken or will take to ensure this project never happens?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for this question and for his meeting with the environment minister. He has also talked to me. I can assure him that we are dealing with this with our counterparts in Washington State and also in the province of B.C.
Canada takes the environment very seriously. That is why we announced the creation of a new national park on the east arm of Great Slave Lake. We announced $30 million to clean up Hamilton harbour. We announced $11 million to clean up Lake Winnipeg. We just keep getting it done.
Alex Atamanenko: Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his concerns. We are looking at a potential flooding of 7,200 hectares, threatening 37 endangered species, first nations territory and prime agricultural land.
The Washington State Department of Ecology has granted $300,000 to Okanagan County Public Utility District No. 1 to study three dam proposals. The B.C. minister of the environment has written his Washington State counterpart outlining his concerns. I have written the B.C. minister asking to be kept informed.
 Will the Minister of the Environment commit to working closely with the B.C. government and locally elected officials to put a stop to this project?
Mark Warawa: Yes, Mr. Speaker, our government is working very closely with our counterparts in the province of British Columbia and also in Washington State. Our number one priority is protecting the environment for this generation and for future generations. We are getting it done.
InfrastructureMr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, $5 billion in direct funding, $7 billion in GST rebates, support for public transit, and a seat at the table, that was the new deal for cities under the previous Liberal government.
Now a $123 billion shortfall in infrastructure investment, a shortfall in public transit, and no seat at the table. That is the Conservative government's no deal for the cities.
Instead of calling them grumpy whiners, when will the government show respect for Canada's cities?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, we have to be able to get the facts straight here. From 1993 to 2005 the previous government invested on a yearly basis $1.3 billion in infrastructure. We all know the debate the Liberals had on transferring the gas tax, but the parliamentary secretary for public works is the one who stood up for it.
When we took power, we committed over five times that amount, $5 billion for cities and communities for infrastructure. The Liberal Party is going to have to stop listening to the member for Wascana who continues to--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Burlington.
The EnvironmentMr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the United Nations Conference on Climate Change is being held in Indonesia this week and next, where nations are meeting to chart a path for negotiating a post-2012 agreement on fighting climate change. Our environment minister will be there leading the Canadian delegation and showing leadership on the world stage.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment tell this House what Canada's goals are for this conference?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for the great question. Hopefully the Liberals are listening on how to ask questions.
Canada's principles in Indonesia are clear. We believe that any post-2012 agreement on climate change needs to include all major emitters, countries like China, India and the United States, developed or in the developing world.
The agreement must be fair and economically realistic without placing unfair burdens on any specific country. The agreement must be long term and flexible, and have a balanced approach that preserves economic growth and protects the environment. The agreement must call for real, absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
JusticeMr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to issues such as the environment and justice, the Conservatives like to follow the example of the Americans and their friend George W. Bush. Yet this government's plan for youth justice is based on harsher sentences, an approach that is no longer supported by half of the American states, which believe, with good reason, that this is not the right approach. Like Quebec, the states of Illinois, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and Washington have proven that reintegration and rehabilitation produce very positive results, both socially and economically.
Can the Minister of Justice explain why he insists on using a counter-productive approach that does not help young people and has been abandoned even by the Americans?
Rob Moore: Mr. Speaker, our government was elected to provide safer streets and safer communities for all Canadians. That is why after 13 years of Liberal inaction, 13 years of a Liberal revolving door justice system, we have taken action with an ambitious justice agenda. 
We are restoring the principles to the Youth Criminal Justice Act of deterrents and denunciation of criminal activity. Of course, our number one goal is to provide young people with the resources they need to ensure that they never enter into a life of crime.
The EnvironmentDennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, a recent report done by the Alberta community of Fort Chipewyan, downstream from the oil sands, found elevated cancer causing chemicals in the water of the Athabasca River. Other reports have shown a clear link between the oil sands development and water pollution.
The federal government is responsible for trans-boundary water pollution. Rather than encouraging even more oil sands development, when will it work to protect the people of northern Alberta and the Northwest Territories?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that this government is committed to cleaning up the environment.
After 13 long years of Liberal inaction, we now have a $1.5 billion fund to work with the provinces. We are doing that. We are working with B.C. We are working with Alberta. We are working with every province to clean up the environmental messes left by those people over there.
Forest IndustryMr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 800 forestry workers in northwestern Ontario have been laid off in the past two weeks and over 300 more learned last week that their mill is now closed permanently. The government scrapped the Liberal $1.5 billion forest industry competitive plan and has presented no new plan.
How many more of my constituents will have to join the unemployment line? What is the Prime Minister's plan for these families?
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, the government is taking the crisis in the forestry sector very seriously. Since we took office, we have taken strong action to support the forestry workers and the industry, and we will continue to do so.
The Speech from the Throne highlighted the government's ongoing commitment to support Canada's traditional industries, including forestry and their workers. 
We work closely with all Canadian forestry industry leaders and our record of delivering results is another example of what we can get done. We are getting the job done.
The Deputy Speaker: Regrettably, this brings an end to question period.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsMr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
Committees of the HouseMr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage related to the nomination of Hubert T. Lacroix to the position of President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, CBC/Radio-Canada.
Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on International Trade. 
In accordance with its order of reference on Monday, November 26, 2007, the committee has considered Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, and agreed on Thursday, December 6 to report it without amendment.
PetitionsMr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this income trust broken promise petition on behalf of Mr. Jim Bell from British Columbia, who remembers the Prime Minister boasting about his apparent commitment to accountability when he said, “There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept”.
The petitioners remind the Prime Minister that he promised never to tax income trusts, but he recklessly broke that promise by imposing a 31.5% punitive tax which permanently wiped out over $25 billion of the hard-earned retirement savings of over two million Canadians, particularly seniors.
The petitioners, therefore, call upon the Conservative minority government to: first, admit that the decision to tax income trusts was based on flawed methodology and incorrect assumptions; second, to apologize to those who were unfairly harmed by this broken promise; and third, to repeal the punitive 31.5% tax on income trusts.
Mrs. Patricia Davidson (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition on behalf of approximately 250 constituents in support of the World Trade Center Families for Proper Burial. On September 11, 2001, over 2,700 people were killed at the World Trade Center in New York and 25 of those victims were Canadian citizens. 
The signators to this petition are asking that the Canadian government endorse the goal of the WTC Families for Proper Burial, enter into a dialogue to work toward rectifying this horrendous situation for all WTC 9/11 families, and ensure that Canadian citizens are not left behind in a New York City garbage dump.
Dean Allison: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with regard to age of consent that has been signed by over 200 constituents not only in my riding but also from neighbouring ridings. They are asking that Parliament take all necessary measures immediately to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsDavid Anderson: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 93, 95 and 96 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Irwin Cotler: What investments, deposits, purchases and procurements has the government made, through its various departments and agencies over the period of January 24, 2006 to October 23, 2007, in the following firms that are conducting business in Sudan: (a) China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC Hong Kong and PetroChina); (b) Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas); (c) Oil and Natural Gas Corp Ltd.; (d) China Petrochemical Corporation (SINOPEC Group); (e) Lundin Petrolium AB; (f) AREF Investment Group; (g) Muhibbah Engineering Berhad; (h) Kencana Petroleum Berhad; (i) Kejuruteraan Samudra Timur BHD; (j) Petrofac; (k) PECD Bedhar; (l) Weatherford International Limited; (m) Wartsila OYJ; (n) Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.; (o) Harbin Power Equipment Company Limited; (p) Alstom; (q) AVICHINA Industry and Technology Company Ltd.; (r) Dongfeng Automobile Company Limited; (s) Mitsui Engineering &amp; Shipbuilding Company Ltd.; (t) Indian Oil Company Ltd.; (u) SCOMI Group Berhad; (v) Weir Group PLC; (w) La Mancha Resources; and (x) Electricity Generating Public Company Ltd. (EGCO)?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Irwin Cotler: What funds, grants, loans and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments, agencies and Crown Corporations to the Government of Soudan, organizations in Soudan, and individuals in Soudan over the period of January 24, 2006 to October 24, 2007 inclusive, and in each case, where applicable: (a) what was the program under which the payment was made; (b) which Sudanese state institution was involved in the exchange; (c) what was the monetary value of the payment made; and (d) what was the percentage of program funding covered by the payment received?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Irwin Cotler:  What funds, grants, loans and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments, agencies and Crown Corporations to the Government of Iran, organizations in Iran, and individuals in Iran over the period of January 24, 2006 to October 24, 2007 inclusive, and in each case, where applicable: (a) what was the program under which the payment was made; (b) which Iranian state institution was involved in the exchange; (c) what was the monetary value of the payment made; and (d) what was the percentage of program funding covered by the payment received?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed consideration of Bill C-28, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007 and to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on October 30, 2007, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.
Navdeep Bains: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents of Mississauga—Brampton South, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-28.
 I do have some fundamental problems and concerns with the bill because it revolves around the economic policies and concerns that I have with the Conservative government.
When I recollect last year during the budget discussion, I was reminded by many of my constituents, who I know very closely watched the debate, of how shocked they were to hear one of the worst tax policies to come out of Ottawa in 35 years, which was the interest deductibility measure. That is just one example.
I want to speak to two key themes today regarding the bill. One is that it is a reflection of the government's lack of understanding of creating a plan, of setting forth an agenda that looks at promoting prosperity and productivity. The government's ideas, strategies and policies are driven by polls and, as we have seen, it has spent a lot of money on polls.
The second issue I will be discussing is missed opportunities and what this particular bill misses and the opportunity on which it could have capitalized.
First, before I get into the specifics, if we look at where we are today as a country and look at our fiscal capacity at the federal level, it is a reflection of sound Liberal management over the course of many years, as they recite, over 13 years of hard work to turn around this country's fiscal position. We were in huge deficits, which created huge debts and put a tremendous burden on our future generations.
However, through sound Liberal management, sound government policy and the hard work of many Canadians, we were able to eliminate the deficit and ultimately start to reduce our debt.
Today we have surpluses, as we have had for many years now, and that is a reflection of hard work and good management. It is so important that we recognize how we want to spend this money. 
It is unfortunate for the government, for example, when it comes to two particular issues in the bill.
First, I want to thank the Conservatives for reinstating the personal income tax reduction that we put in place when we were in government and that they reversed. I also want to applaud them for their efforts of copying our corporate tax policy. Those are two specific examples that stand out.
However, if we look at the bill we see that it pits province against province. We have seen what the Conservatives have done with the Atlantic accord. Just recently, if we take into account what they have done with respect to Bill C-22, they attacked the Premier of Ontario by calling him the small man of Confederation. They insulted not only premiers and put provinces against one another, but they also attacked mayors. We do not run a country by calling our mayors grumpy. 
My mayor has served proudly for many years and is one of the most well respected mayors, not only in Canada, but across the world. She has received numerous awards for achievements, hard work, fiscal management and running a good city.
The bill also reminds us of a legacy of a government of broken promises. The one that stands out, which was mentioned in a petition just a few minutes ago, is the income trusts. 
Many hard-working Canadians, many seniors who have worked really hard, invested their money in income trusts because they were led to believe by the current government, in a commitment it made in its platform, that it would not change the rules to income trusts. What did the Conservatives do when they came to power? They broke that promise. That cost seniors and many other Canadians millions, if not billions, of dollars of investment opportunities and it has really hurt their fiscal and financial situation.
As I said before, I do have concerns with regard to the prosperity and productivity agenda laid out by the government. The GST example is a clear indication of where it is driven by polls and by gimmicks as opposed to trying to promote this prosperity and productivity agenda.
If we look, for example, at my constituency of Mississauga—Brampton South, it has many manufacturing jobs. We have the Pearson International Airport, which has become a hub of economic activity, but we need to ensure we remain competitive and, in order to do that, we need the government to show leadership and put in place a regime, an environment and policies that will ensure we are not only competitive in Canada, but we can also compete with the world. That is something this particular bill lacks.
I want to speak to missed opportunities, which is something I can speak to from my personal experience of living in my constituency of Mississauga—Brampton South. My constituency has a $123 billion infrastructure deficit, which is a substantial amount. The mayors and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities have mentioned this on numerous occasions. They had a protest here and mentioned that their deficits needed to be addressed.
What bothers me is that in March, the Prime Minister and his entourage came to the GTA and made an announcement about rapid transit funding for not only my constituency, but for surrounding regions as well. The announcement was made in March and yet we have not received the cheque. The province has put forward the money and the mayor and our councillors have the money there, but the federal government has not written a cheque.
That is something that is profoundly disturbing because these announcements are made and it is a missed opportunity. The longer the delay in this funding, the more gridlock continues to grow in that region. 
 I was very fortunate to become the father of a baby girl about eight weeks ago and I understand now, as a new father, the importance of spending time with one's family. However, if individuals are driving to and from work and are spending an additional 20, 30, 40 or 50 minutes in traffic because of gridlock, that is less time with their families.
If the government professes to care about families, why is it not giving us a cheque for our city? Why is it not helping us with our huge deficit? It is not the fact that it is not contributing more money. It is the money that was committed in the past that it is not honouring.
As I indicated, it was a missed opportunity, not only when it comes to the cities agenda, but manufacturing is a key area for the constituents of my riding, for my province of Ontario and for my neighbouring provinces. This is the economic hub that drives our country's economic wealth. It is unfortunate that high value jobs are being lost. 
I can cite a quick example from a question I was asking in question period with regard to the forestry sector. The jobs in the forestry sector in northern Ontario and even the spin-off jobs in my riding are directly impacted by the fact that the government cannot do anything because it signed a flawed softwood lumber agreement that prevents it from actually playing a role with industry. I am talking about provincial governments because, in the absence of federal leadership, the provincial governments had to play a role. However, any time the federal or provincial governments play a role, they will be sued by the United States because of the flawed softwood lumber agreement signed by the federal Conservative government.
That is an example of how there is not only a lack of initial investments when it comes to this bill that has prevented assistance for manufacturing, but it further compounds it by preventing other levels of government to play a meaningful role.
We saw the latest census a few days ago and it showed a tremendous amount of immigration to this country in the past five or six years. Immigration is another key area where we need to find a way of integrating new Canadians and allow them to utilize their skills to ensure they are able to perform and reach their potential that not only benefits them, but it benefits our communities and our economies. Again, the government has made no substantive investment there, which is another missed opportunity.
The leader of the Liberal Party has demonstrated our position on poverty. When we look at the poisonous debate on reasonable accommodation in Quebec, it is a reflection of the fact that people's fears are perpetuated by fear and ignorance and they assume that certain ghettos are created. Those ghettos or those concentrations of people is a reflection of communities being segregated because of lack of opportunity, low income earners and people who lack opportunity. We need a strong poverty agenda to ensure all Canadians have equal opportunities to succeed and we need to stop segregating people based on income.
Another concern in my riding is health wait times. We could have invested much more money in this area. We could have invested money to reduce wait times. Every day I hear of instances in waiting rooms and the problems it is causing. 
Going back to the first point I made on prosperity and productivity, education is another lost opportunity. If we want to build a productive society and a society that is prosperous, we need to invest in education.
 I have fundamental problems with the government's economic policies. These are lost opportunities, wasted opportunities and missed opportunities. With such a large surplus, the Conservatives could have done so much more.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising a number of important issues, one being the forestry sector crisis. My riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan is a forestry riding and we are seeing a number of our sawmills close. One of the pulp and paper mills is now in bankruptcy protection. The Conservatives in their economic statement acknowledged the fact that our manufacturing and forestry sectors were in difficulty and yet did nothing to address the issue in the economic statement.
A couple of weeks back, the Bloc proposed a motion that, if all members of the House had supported it, would have seen support going to the manufacturing and forestry sectors. I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that the Liberals chose not to support that important motion that would have seen some money going into our forestry communities, if he thinks forestry is an important industry in this country.
[Interjection]
Navdeep Bains: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern raised by the member opposite. It is an important issue. In my role and capacity as international trade critic, I have had the opportunity to meet with many people in the industry and to listen firsthand to the crisis that is currently looming with the job losses and the tremendous pressures they are facing just trying to maintain their operations.
When we were in government, we put forth a very comprehensive $1.5 billion forestry industry competitive plan that was announced in November 2005. This plan included funding and support for our transformative technologies, incentives for bioenergy expansion, assistance to respond to innovation opportunities, support for market expansion and a national forest community adjustment fund.
Those initiatives were all part of that $1.5 billion package to create a partnership with our industry in recognition of the fact that jobs and communities were important and that Canadian families needed the federal government to play a substantive role.
Instead, unfortunately, the Conservative government came into power and not only did it not follow through with this $1.5 billion commitment, but it signed a flawed softwood lumber agreement that effectively placed quotas in the system, that effectively raised tariffs and that effectively prevented the government from providing any type of incentive or initiative or any type of ability to work with the forestry sector.
What we see today is an absence of federal leadership on that front. The provincial governments are now forced to play a role and, unfortunately, any time they take any action they will be sued by the United States because of this flawed softwood lumber agreement. 
We understand the concern and we were the ones who put forth a $1.5 billion initiative in November 2005.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the amendment proposed by the member for Ottawa Centre to delete a portion of part 17 specifically dealing with corporate taxes.
In the recent economic statement and the throne speech, and in view of the substantial surpluses it has, the Conservative government had an opportunity to correct the direction it has been taking. Instead, it has continued in the wrong direction. It has continued to ignore the very serious prosperity gap that is growing in Canada for many of our working and middle class families. The government has failed to target tax relief to people that it would help the most.
The Canadian Labour Congress made a submission to the House of Commons finance committee during its prebudget consultations. The paper is dated August 2007 and contains an analysis on corporate income tax. It talks about the fact that despite increasing cuts to corporate income tax, what we have seen is an unprecedented lack of investment in companies, in the bricks and mortar, in training and re-education within companies, things that would actually make a difference to working and middle class families. The following is a quote from that paper:
 Pre-tax profits have soared to record heights and after-tax profits have grown even faster. There has been no comparable increase in corporate investment. Simply adding $15 billion to the 2000 investment level would have increased total investment to nearly 13% of GDP in 2006. 
Further on it states:
 Business leaders are using this huge surplus to become net lenders to households, stockpile liquid assets, acquire other enterprises, and buy back stock. While these actions may be viable business strategies, it is not clear why the public should subsidize them through further corporate-tax cuts. 
That is a very good analysis in terms of why we would support business decisions on where they are going to put their profits.
I mentioned in a question to a Liberal member that in the economic statement the Conservative government acknowledged the difficult times that manufacturing and forestry are in for a number of reasons, yet it simply failed to follow up on what it acknowledged is a very serious problem.
In the riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, sawmills are laying off shifts of workers. A pulp and paper mill has filed for bankruptcy protection. There simply is not the national leadership around the forestry sector.
I have argued in this House previously and I will reiterate that forestry in British Columbia is not a sunset industry. It is a viable part of who we are as a province. We have the resources. We need to demonstrate national leadership around reinvestment in the industry, retooling where necessary and providing education and training for workers who need to transition into other jobs within the forestry sector.
The government had an opportunity in the economic statement and Bill C-28 to demonstrate that, but the government failed to do it.
There is a crisis in British Columbia caused by pine beetles. Although some money has been allocated, where is the long term, strategic planning for what will happen to those communities in five to ten years when all of the dead wood has been cut? Those communities are facing serious transitions and yet the government is failing to demonstrate the leadership that is required to make sure that those communities maintain their viability.
In addition to the challenges in our forestry and manufacturing sectors, we also are seeing the growing prosperity gap. Working and middle class families continue to struggle to make ends meet.
Many of us have been activists in our communities for a number of years. When food banks opened well over 20 years ago, many of us thought they were a temporary measure and that as our economy recovered, the food banks would close because they would no longer be needed. It is a very sad fact that there are more food banks rather than fewer.
In “HungerCount 2007” put out by the Canadian Association of Food Banks, there are a couple of startling figures. It says that the number of people assisted by a food bank in March 2007 was 720,231. There have been changes in food bank use. There is 91% more usage of food banks since 1989. There are 673 food banks in Canada with 2,867 affiliated agencies. The number of provinces and territories without a food bank is zero. It has been 26 years since Canada's first food bank opened in Edmonton. Seventy-three per cent of Canadians believe that hunger is a problem in Canada. Fifty-seven per cent believe that the government should take responsibility for solving the problems.
There are some very stark figures in that report which speak to the fact that there are men, women and children in this country who simply do not have enough to eat. I want to end the part on the food banks by saying that of the food bank clients, 38.7% are children. The percentage of households containing at least one child was 50.6% . It has been 18 years since the federal government promised to eliminate child poverty.
That leads me to the Campaign 2000 report that just came out entitled, “It Takes a Nation to Raise a Generation: Time for a National Poverty Reduction Strategy”. In 1989 the House unanimously passed Ed Broadbent's motion to end child poverty by the year 2000. Here we are in 2007 and it has not happened. Still there are children and their families, because of course there are no poor children without poor families, who continue to be the poorest of the poor in this country. The child poverty rate of 11.7% is exactly the same as it was in 1989. Forty-one per cent of children living in poverty live in families with at least one income earner working full time all year.
In my own province, despite a growing economy, British Columbia continues to report the highest provincial child poverty rate, which is 15.2%. In aboriginal and immigrant communities, the story is even worse. In aboriginal communities one in four children is poor, which means their families are poor. Aboriginal children and their families are living in substandard housing unable to access adequate drinking water, unable to access adequate medical care.
I recently put forward a private member's bill called Jordan's principle which talks about putting children first. It is a very good example that children on reserve often do not have access to adequate medical care. In Jordan's case his family had to surrender him to the province, put him in foster care in order for him to get the care he needed. Consequently, the federal and provincial governments fought over which one should pay for his care. The child ended up in hospital for four years. In the last two years of his life he could have been in a special foster home, but neither the federal government nor the provincial government would step up to the plate and pay for his care. He died in hospital instead of going to a foster home. That is a stain on Canada's reputation as being a caring and compassionate country.
Lest we only talk about problems, I want to talk about solutions because there are solutions. The winter 2007 report of the National Council of Welfare states that there are some real things that can be done. The report talks about childhood development care, access to education and training for adults so that they can better participate in the labour market, better jobs, income, social security for people who are not in the labour force, access to health care and other services, and affordable housing. The report states that in the absence of any leadership from the Conservative government on a national anti-poverty strategy, some of the provinces are taking some leadership around that, notably Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec. Those provinces are developing action plans. In Newfoundland and Labrador there is a cross-ministry initiative to develop an action plan with some real meaningful targets.
In this wealthy country of ours, the surplus was an opportunity to invest in Canadians. People talk about the rising tide lifting all boats, but it is not happening. We should have taken this opportunity to invest in child education, housing and other initiatives that would make a difference to families and which would close the very serious prosperity gap.
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to point out during the debate on Bill C-28 some of the failings of the budget, failings that were not corrected in the fall financial update. Given the tone of the throne speech, I do not see that there is much intention to correct those failings going forward.
Ultimately, the general overarching problem that I have with the direction of the government in this regard is that, having been given the opportunity to significantly affect a variety of areas and challenges that face Canada, it has chosen instead to basically withdraw. The government is talking about withdrawing in its relationship with provincial governments, withdrawing in its relationship with municipalities. 
Given the magnitude of the surplus, the opportunity was presented to the government to deal with universities. The reality is that since 1993 as soon as the fiscal situation was improved, the first thing the former Liberal government did as a national government was to invest heavily in research. The research chairs program, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and the indirect costs program, all of these things were investments by the Government of Canada in Canada, in Canadians to generate prosperity, because prosperity going forward is going to find its way where there is investment in knowledge.
That is just one example of the opportunity that was squandered by the Conservative government as it has chosen rather to simply make itself smaller, driven by an ideological agenda that simply does not believe that government can be an instrument for good. I do not hold that view.
Having said that, I also wish to say that I was very disappointed in the spring and most recently that the government still has not honoured the vote that it cast in favour of a motion calling for a national autism strategy, including a financial component. The government had the opportunity to do that and it did not. 
Today what I would like to bring to the attention of the House and to Canadians is the nature of the change in the formula as it relates to transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education, social services and health.
In the 1960s and early 1970s the provinces were lobbying the national government, quite justifiably I think, for the government to adjust the taxation system because the provinces were carrying much of the costs of the most recent cost drivers, such as, education, health and social services. The tax system reflected an earlier time when most of these costs were federal.
In 1977 the Government of Canada responded to that request by offering the provinces 13.5% of personal income tax and 1% of corporate tax. It was attempting to do the right thing, but the problem with that remedy is that 1% of personal income tax per capita is not the same across the provinces. The problem is that in a rich province 1% of personal income tax per capita is worth significantly more than 1% of personal income tax per capita in a poorer province.
In an effort at the time by the Government of Canada to mitigate the fact that it was about to make a decision that would bring less equity to the country, which certainly was not in anyone's interest, it included a cash component in the transfer, which was worth at the time $2.7 billion. Last year it was worth $20.5 billion, so it is no small amount of money.
At the time the federal government then introduced a cash component that it would transfer to the provinces. Inside the cash component was an equity seeking provision which allowed that there would be mitigation for the damage that was done to the equilibrium in the country when it used taxes as a way of giving more money to the provinces. In other words, if the tax changes benefited Alberta significantly more than Newfoundland and Labrador, which they did, then the amount that would go to cash would reflect that and Newfoundland and Labrador would get more.
That was the way the decision was taken in 1977. This remedy, to a structural problem in Canada, which everybody recognized, would not hurt the smaller, poorer provinces. In one fell swoop, with that 1977 decision to mitigate the inequality, perpetrated on Canada by the Government of Canada, was eliminated.
As a result, from this year to next, the post-secondary education and social services transfer will increase in Alberta by $102 a person, in Ontario by $40 a person and in my province of New Brunswick by $7 a person. That will have incredible impacts on the provinces receiving equalization. I think it was a decision that was taken by the government without a clear understanding. The way it was referenced was equalization through the back door. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The reality is it was not done to equalize Canada. It was done to ensure that the tax point transfer did not make Canada less equal. That was the purpose. It was recognized as such. Members can go back to Hansard and read the debates in the seventies and eighties around this. 
The truth is the effect of this decision has impacted the smaller provinces in the areas of post-secondary education and social services, areas where we are struggling constantly to keep up. I accept that we receive equalization in our provinces. However, if we do not invest in universities, in knowledge and in research, and the provincial governments will have a hard time doing this given how much less money the small provinces have relative to the rich provinces as a result of this decision, then consequently the future holds more equalization.
In our province Premier Graham has boldly set out on self-sufficiency agenda so we will not find ourselves at the whim of these kinds of decisions. I have not decided whether I think that this was done deliberately or just unknowingly, but the bottom line is this. Try to explain to me and to Canadians where the justice is in increasing the amount of money available to the province of Alberta for post-secondary education and social services by $102 a person and the amount of money available in Newfoundland and Labrador or New Brunswick to $7 a person. How can that be just?
 If that is not bad enough, by 2014, when the health accord expires because it is a 10 year agreement that was reached in September 2004, they will apply exactly the same forward to that. All the transfers that come to our provinces, the provinces that would suffer from this decision, all those provinces will be in a lesser position to provide those fundamental services in the area of health, in this case, and social services, but also the kinds of investments that would allow us to be more self-sufficient, to use Premier Graham's term. It will make it very difficult. It makes it all the more imperative to do this.
 At the end of the day it is obvious, when we are as dependent on these transfers as we are, that we are at the whim of political decisions, whether taken out of malice or simply lack of forethought, and the effect on our province and our entire region will be disastrous.
It has not had a lot of attention. Members can check. It is on page 369 in the budget document and it is very clear. The increase in Alberta will be $102 a person. The increase in New Brunswick will be $7 a person. How can that be fair? How can that be just? How can we expect to build the Atlantic region when we are treated in a way that simply will not allow us to make the same kinds of investments that are made in provinces that have more of their own resources to invest?
Patricia Davidson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member opposite. I know he has done a lot of work and supported disability issues in the past. He says that he cannot support Bill C-28.
 I want to ensure that the member is aware of the registered disability savings plan in Bill C-28. It is a new plan. It will allow funds to be invested tax free until withdrawal. It is intended to help parents and others to save for the long term financial security of a child with a disability.
The plan's structure is similar to a registered education savings plan. Contributions to it will be eligible for the new Canada disability savings grant and there is also a new Canada disability savings bond for individuals with lower family net incomes.
There are all these things for the disability plan, but we have also had some very positive quotes from people who work in the industry. The Canadian Association for Community Living:
 —congratulates the Government of Canada on introducing a Registered Disability Savings Plan...to provide families greater opportunity to save for the future financial security of a child with a severe disability. 
The Vancouver Province in an editorial said:
 —the [finance] minister is to be congratulated for adopting a plan that is comparatively uncomplicated and...accessible at all income levels....the great good it will do is beyond calculation in mere dollars and cents. 
Given the fact that the member opposite has done so much great work in the past on this issue, how can he not support Bill C-28?
[Interjection]
Andy Scott: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her acknowledgement of the work I have done on disabilities. I am very familiar with the programs she mentioned. I helped draft them and that is why they were in our platform in the last election.
The budget and the update are large documents and they contain a large number of things. There are many worthy things in the documents and that would be one of them. I commend the government for that.
At the same time, the damage that will be done to my province as a result of the changes in the transfer on social services will do so much more damage to those very programs that the province has to deliver around social services. In no way could there be compensation in those things that are positive.
If the government had not changed the social transfer, it would be a different story, but it has. As a consequence, my province will be unable to deliver programs in my community. It has nothing to do with equalization. Nor has it anything to do with the structural inequality. This is an inequality that was created by a decision of the national government in 1977. It protected itself against a cash transfer that had an equalization element inside it to simply mitigate the inequality that was in the tax transfer. It has been eliminated and the results for the smaller provinces are disastrous.
Consequently, with all due respect to the good pieces of this legislation, it cannot trump the damage that will be done by this one single decision.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Maritimes for his comments. I have a very quick question for him.
The amendment I put forward is an amendment around clause 1(a)(1), which has to do with corporate taxes. Where does he stand on this amendment and where does his party stand ultimately on this bill? Are they for or against the it?
[Interjection]
Andy Scott: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would have more credibility if he went after all the tax measures. We have mentioned them. We had the courage to mention them. The NDP members have not. They are cherry-picking in terms of those which they can politically play better.
The reality is there is no credibility at that end of the House.
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, an interesting occurrence happened about an hour ago. I made a call to a friend in Hamilton and he asked me why my party was literally hammering the Conservatives on this budget update. He had not been watching the headlines closely, but he had seen from time to time various members of the NDP caucus on their feet, particularly from Hamilton and today from Ottawa, who talked about our major concerns with the economic update.
Simply put, and as I expressed to my friend, the update is taking us in the wrong direction. It is not balanced. We have an unprecedented opportunity to make some changes for the good of our country. 
As we know, we have a manufacturing crisis. More people are living in poverty than ever before. As a result of that, looking at the update statement, Bill C-28, it is abundantly clear that there is nothing for ordinary, hard-working Canadians, nothing at all.
The Conservatives have been following a well set pattern, a pattern set by the Liberal Party, of corporate welfare giveaways. We all know that in 2005 the leader of the NDP Party, the member for Toronto—Danforth, was able to get the Liberal Party to set aside some corporate tax cuts, but we are still in a position where there is almost a fond reverence for offering tax cuts to corporations by both sides in this place. These breaks will reduce our budget by over $12 billion, and those are moneys crucial to Canada.
In fact, I want to thank the member for Ottawa Centre for the amendment he has proposed today, which would completely remove clause 181 from the agreement. We hear from Canadians across our country. They are very concerned with the loss of fiscal capacity contained in the budgets brought forward with huge corporate tax breaks in quick succession.
Different members in the House have on many occasions expressed there concerns about the huge infrastructure problems facing Canada. Representatives of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities were in town recently. The report they released, which has been referred to repeatedly here, and justifiably so, tells us there is a shortfall of $123 billion, putting our fiscal capacity at risk. They have said that those moneys need to be invested now and if they are not, then the situation will clearly worsen.
Within that document, there were $40 billion for communities and recreation. Being the sports critic, I have a particular awareness of that part of the report. Communities like Hamilton, where I am from and am pleased to represent, have been forced year after year to turn to the province of Ontario for assistance with their municipal budgets. They usually face a shortfall in the area of $20 million and that is just to contend with day to day operations. 
A lot of that came about in the 1990s when the Liberal government of the day started offloading responsibilities to the provinces, along with tax collection. Under Mike Harris, the who does what committee, if I recall the name appropriately, said that his government should keep social services and leave education funding within the mandate of municipalities. What did it do? It reversed that.
Education is predictable and allows us to plan ahead. We know how many children are born and when they are born. When it comes to social concerns and downturns, we do not know how many people will lose their jobs. In fact, 11,000 jobs were lost last year in Hamilton. Everyone will hear me say that later. Because of that unpredictability, it made those moves to protect itself at the provincial level.
There was another more insidious thing at work, which was offloading from income, where people could afford to pay property taxes and many on fixed incomes could not afford the adjustments necessary to deal with such things. The province of Ontario has also made it clear to Hamilton that it cannot sustain the $20 million transfer and it will have to go back to the province regularly.
I also expect, from what I am hearing, that many major cities across the country have significant infrastructure problems similar to Hamilton. 
Hamilton has to renew its sewer system soon. This is one of the older cities in Canada and every year a significant number of water mains break and other failures of infrastructure are very evident. We have unique challenges in Hamilton. 
As the House knows new immigrants who come to this country travel to Vancouver first, or Toronto or Montreal. They find, after being there a short period of time, that they are unable to afford the cost of living. Many of them choose Hamilton as their second destination, but federal dollars go to those first communities where the immigrants arrive. So, there is a particular burden that befalls our city and I am sure other ones across Canada as well as a result of the fact that federal dollars are not spread as evenly as they could be.
Clearly, much could have been done by the Conservative government in its update before cutting taxes. I spoke in the House about the fact that Canadians are a people with a lot of common sense. I have also advised the House of the significant concerns I am hearing back in my riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. 
My constituents are quick to point out to me their surprise that a government with the massive surplus in the tens of billions of dollars does not seem, in their eyes anyway, to be approaching its fiscal management with the same common sense that ordinary Canadians apply in their day to day living.
Canadians are quick to say that they know when one is doing well, it is time to invest. They will invest their money in repairs and upgrades to their homes. Canada needs to repair its home, its infrastructure. 
Canadians will also put a little money aside for an eventual downturn which we well know follows in quick succession. I would argue that is happening at the present time and if we have surplus monies this is the time to address those needs.
Also, when ordinary Canadians do have good times, they do not head off to the bank to pay off their mortgage. They would not do that because they understand that keeping a reasonable debt is fiscally responsible in order to sustain their cashflow.
Canadians know that if their house foundation is rotten, that soon that house will fall. The foundations of Canadian cities are literally rotting across this country.
The other evening when I spoke about this fiscal update, I pointed to the fact that in conversations with my constituents at our local Timmy's, and that is our gathering point, there is a lot of sage advice given in those places. 
I also found in the last couple of visits that the seniors who were there were very angry. They have come to know that due to an error by the federal government that they were underpaid some $500 a year in their old age security. They are patiently waiting for the taxman to send them their money. I should add their patience is wearing thin.
I strongly advise the Conservative government to get on with the job and send Canadians the monies that they are owed.
The seniors are busily swapping opinions on the matter and most are quick to point to their personal experience. They have had experiences with the taxman over the years where they have owed some money and guess what, the letter comes with the demand for money or at times there might even be someone knocking on their door.
The House has heard from Hamilton members over and over of the terrible situation in our manufacturing sector. That is another area where we have to have a strategic plan. We have to invest. It is not just corporate taxes and not just a trickle down that is going to fix that problem.
The House has heard from the Hamilton members as well as the rest of our caucus that Hamilton is one of the hardest hit in the manufacturing crisis that is happening. I use that word “crisis” very clearly.
As I have said before repeatedly, 11,000 of my friends and neighbours have lost their jobs in Hamilton in the last year. Those taxpayers who have lost their jobs should rightfully expect changes to EI to help them adjust to their loss.
Turning to a damaged EI system, gutted by the former Liberal government, is not going to be that helpful when in fact the national average for accessing EI is only 40% and in urban areas 22% to 30%, which would include Hamilton.
In the eyes of many Canadians the EI fund, instead of being an insurance against job layoffs, has become nothing but a pool for the government. I would say to the government that it should choose Canadians over corporate Canada. It has chosen corporate Canada over Canadians in crisis. That is something that we all regret.
Joe Preston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my friend from Hamilton who certainly gave a great dissertation about the philosophies of his party. I have here quotes from a couple of former NDP MPs who stated some things drastically different.
One stated that the NDP priorities are to direct tax relief measures to those most in need. A reduction in the overall GST rate by two points would promote job creation and give hard-pressed consumers a break. That is what Nelson Riis said when he was here as an NDP member.
 Lorne Nystrom, when he was here also as an NDP MP, said that the NDP had been saying all along to roll back the GST. He kept asking when the finance minister would finally catch up with the Canadian people and roll back the GST, the most regressive tax in the history of the country?
I am not certain I am hearing the NDP talk about how great the roll-back in the GST is, which is part of this bill also.
I might ask him, has the NDP changed direction? Does it wish to continue to carry on with the most regressive tax ever or to hold on to a tax that if removed would help promote job creation? Has his party changed its mind?
[Interjection]
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting to hear the member going back into the past and drawing on the comments of previous NDP members. I guess maybe I should go back and draw on a few from Brian Mulroney and see where we end up with that one.
The reality is that this party opposed the implementation of the GST in the first place because a consumer tax hurts the poorest people in our country the worst. The reality is that those with disposable income have the opportunity to have a lot more money to set aside once they have paid their GST.
Now, as far as policies are concerned, our policy is quite direct. It calls for targeted tax reduction, and by “targeted”, we certainly do not mean corporate welfare.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Hamilton for bringing some common sense to this debate.
The amendment I have brought forward would essentially put the human face back on government policy. We do not see right now any problem in attracting investment to this country, but there is a problem in terms of where the investments are being made. It seems to me that what my friend from Hamilton is saying is not only logical but it is what is needed; that is, to invest in our seniors and our human resources.
The fact of the matter is that clause 181 is simply a gift to corporate welfare, to those who may invest in Canada but might not; it might go to excess profits.
 I would like my colleague from Hamilton to tell me what should happen in his community in terms of the investment in human infrastructure, in other words, the services that are required for everyday people because clause 181 clearly gives the nod to corporate Canada.
 I heard comments, from the government bench earlier in this debate, to the effect that corporations are the ones that create jobs. Last time I checked, I thought it was people and small businesses. I would like the member's comments on that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek has one minute to respond.
[Interjection]
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, one of the things we hear repeatedly in this House is about 13 years of mismanagement. I am going to start using the term 15 years of mismanagement because it is still happening today. There are people in my community who are in desperate straits.
However, as the member for Ottawa Centre just said, if we are going to target tax reduction, there are a lot of small and medium businesses that need it far more than corporate Canada, and that is part of what we talk about. We have sustaining programs for new immigrants and for seniors that need to be funded. I spoke in this House about the National Anti-Racism Council that needs funding as well. 
There are a number of areas if we had the opportunity, but one minute does not allow that. 
Hon. Bryon Wilfert (Richmond Hill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate and I want to first of all say that government members often like to say that in 13 years the Liberals did not do this and did not do that which of course is utter nonsense, but the one thing that the government never says is that in 13 years we left them the strongest economic policies of any government in the history of Canada. 
We inherited a $42.5 billion deficit in 1993. One-third of all of the money spent at that time by the Government of Canada was borrowed money. It was the strong economic policies of the Liberal government that created jobs that translated into an economic performance which was the wonder of the world.
I remember in 1995 it was suggested in the Economist that we were going to be the sort of basket case of the G-8 and that we might even have to go out and get a loan from the international development bank. 
What happened? The Liberals came in. We re-organized and did the kind of things that needed to be done in those 13 years. When the election occurred and the current government came in, it inherited so much money it did not know what to do with it. So, it just spent it, but it has not invested it. 
Look at its policies, the ones dealing with the GST. Any economists worth their salt would tell us the GST, which in this amendment I notice is missing and the NDP seems to cherry pick when it comes to dealing only with corporate taxes, costs the national treasury $5 billion to $6 billion a year. Think of the kind of money that we could be investing in terms of social programs and post-secondary education. The Conservatives are silent on that.
The fact is that they simply see the role of government being one of shrinking itself. It is not to be an agent of positive change in supporting people or giving them a hand up, not a handout as some of our friends in the corner might do.
The Liberal Party has a strong fiscal record. Let us look at the record of the current government. When it comes to universities, we have massive, growing debt for university students who come out after four years. We need to have a national conference and look at getting the provinces, the federal government and university organizations together, and look at how we can really tackle the issue of debt and investing.
When it came to the millennium, instead of building some monument, we decided on this side of the House to invest in the millennium scholarships. That was and continues to be one of the most positive programs for students across the country. We invested and created 500 chairs of excellence in universities across the country. 
We kept and we brought back the best and the brightest. We do not hear those kinds of visions from the government across the aisle. That is a shame because we need to make sure that our students have the right equipment, that they are ready to compete not only at home but abroad.
In the area of corporate taxes, we were the government that reduced them from 28% to 19% and the Conservatives took a bold step of reducing them to 18.5% from 19% by 2011.
Our leader made it very clear that we need to continue to deal with the issue of corporate taxes because lower costs obviously help Canadian companies invest. We think that is very important, particularly now when the economy is starting to show some bumps on the road. We still have not heard about a national manufacturing strategy or forestry strategy from across the aisle. We certainly need to see that.
We see that unemployment is back up to 5.9% which is the latest statistic. We never hear government members talking about investing in our cities. I certainly have talked about that over the past. They say what a wonderful job they have done on cities. I guess FCM said that it was extremely unhappy about the fact that the government was recycling half of the so-called $33 billion from the building Canada fund and that in reality the mayors and councillors should be happy. We know that because the government told them to stop whining.
The federal government said it does not deal with potholes. I have not heard that kind of comment in over a decade. As a former councillor and former president of the FCM, I thought this was back to the future. I could not believe that we were hearing that kind of rhetoric.
Obviously, cities need to be vibrant. We need to invest in roads, bridges and sewers and deal with waste management and those kinds of things, but we also need to invest in those post-secondary institutions in our major cities. We need to make sure that we have an innovation agenda. Under the previous government, we had a very strong innovation agenda. We do not hear innovation from across the aisle.
We have an amendment before the House that deals with only one aspect of taxes. We know about dealing with taxes because we brought in the largest tax cut in Canadian history in 2000, the five-year $100 million tax cut.
There is no question that we need to attract investment in this country. We need to have a vision and say to the world that we are open for business and prepared to welcome those companies that are on the leading edge. That is why corporate taxes are important.
I certainly believe in foreign investment. There is a difference, of course, between foreign investment and foreign ownership.
 Sometimes across the aisle the Conservatives talk about the GST, the terrible tax. The reality is that consumption taxes, as any economist will tell them, are not the way to go. Even the Fraser Institute told them that. The CAW told them that, but they know better. When my constituents are buying a pair of blue jeans, I am sure they are delighted to get a 1% reduction, but not too many people are buying yachts or luxury vehicles, which is where they would actually save money. 
Again, the government talks about economic vision. We have a Minister of Finance who brought Ontario to its knees with a $6 billion deficit when he was the minister of finance there. It is not surprising that we do not have the kind of vision that we really need when it comes to dealing with the economy and with real issues.
We have heard before about health care. We have heard about the lack of progress on wait times. Again, there is a failure to lead. The Conservatives talk about 13 years, but in the almost two years that they have been in office there has been a failure to lead and a failure to provide a vision to Canadians.
The Conservatives said that we would have peace in our time with the provinces, but now what do we have? They had more provinces angry with them after the budget than they did when they went in. Clearly, they do not understand. 
It is a small government. It is a government that believes in reducing the role of the national government instead of saying that we can be leaders, not only at home but abroad, and work with our partners. The provinces are out there are saying they need to deal with these issues in a collaborative way, but for them it is the highway or no way. That seems to be what the Conservatives like to put forward. 
The Conservatives spend all this money and yet they fail to invest. Canadians are not bribed: they know that these people do not have the ability to deal with crumbling infrastructure, nor do they have the ability to deal with the issues on innovation. Therefore, this is of grave concern. 
When the next election occurs, whenever that occurs, we are going to see a very pronounced difference between this side of the House and that side of the House when it comes to leadership, when it comes to investment, and when it comes to understanding our cities, our communities and our rural areas. Again, there is a failure to lead.
Immigration is another issue. More and more of our workers will come from abroad, yet again there is a failure to lead on that issue. There is a failure to create that kind of collaborative role with provinces and municipal governments in order to integrate foreign workers. Again, it is a failure. 
One simple example of just not being prepared is the passport issue. We saw tremendous lineups. Why? Because the government failed to prepare. The Conservatives knew they would need to have extra people to be online and to support the thousands of applications, yet again it was a failure to lead.
I get tired of hearing that side of the House saying that we did not do this or that. The reality is that we did a heck of a lot. The Conservatives need to look in the mirror. They need to look at what they have not done and at what they have not delivered. They continue to talk about the past. They are in government. They need to start leading, but maybe that is too much to ask of a government which really believes that we should be smaller and less involved in trying to promote this country, both at home and abroad.
Dean Allison: Mr. Speaker, I am curious about how the Liberals keep changing their position on the GST over time. Now they are talking about what a great tax it was. In 1993 they promised to get rid of it. One of their leadership candidates, who is now their critic for foreign affairs, said things like this: that he would just as soon that the Liberals “got rid of the GST”. He said, “I have not given up on” the Liberals keeping their promise and “getting rid of the GST”.
Does the member support what Mr. Rae has to say about getting rid of the GST? I realize that one month the Liberals support it and the next month they do not, but what is their position today?
[Interjection]
Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, if the member had checked the record, he would know that we talked about harmonizing the GST with provincial sales taxes. By the way, the government just tried to do that recently with the province of Ontario, but because of bad faith, unfortunately, it did not go ahead.
We talked about harmonizing the tax, not eliminating the tax. As for what would happen with harmonization, if the member were to read the record very carefully, he would know that this was and continues to be the position of the Liberal Party, and that when it comes to dealing with tax cuts, again, income tax cuts are the way to go. That party talks about wanting to reduce taxes, but the best way to go is obviously to reduce income tax and put more money in people's pockets. 
Again, on the GST, $5 billion to $6 billion a year in the national treasury does not have that effect. The Conservatives should know that. They should see what other countries have done and which way they have gone. Clearly, it has not been by way of the elimination of a consumption tax.
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, I am not noted in this place for giving a lot of credit to Liberals, but in this case I am very impressed with the member's speech. He talked about the fact that there is a need for a manufacturing strategy. As for the way he spoke on investment, I found that very interesting too.
I have a question for the member. For reinvestment and for the income tax cuts he is talking about, we have an opportunity today with the motion to amend to get rid of clause 181, which will end these corporate tax giveaways. Will the Liberal Party be supporting that amendment today?
[Interjection]
Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. The simple answer is no. The answer is no because, again, we believe in the kinds of corporate taxes that create jobs. I know the member is very concerned about jobs in his community and in fact across the country. We on this side of the House think it is very important that these companies reinvest. In dealing with taxes, there has to be an overall tax management approach. We cannot just simply deal with one aspect, in this case the one in clause 181.
Mario Silva: Mr. Speaker, I know that our colleague is a former president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Certainly, Canadian cities have been crying out for the government to take serious action and deal with the infrastructure needs of our communities and cities, yet the government has failed.
Could my hon. colleague comment on some of the concerns he has heard from his colleagues and from municipalities?
[Interjection]
Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, with an infrastructure deficit of $123 billion, the member is absolutely correct. When the Conservatives were in office from 1984 to 1993, they had the opportunity to take the FCM program on infrastructure at that time and adopt it. They did not, so they have no credibility on infrastructure.
 There is no question about it. We are seeing bridges collapse. We are seeing road problems. What the FCM has announced is just to deal with existing infrastructure issues. It does not even look at the future.
I think it is an important issue. This is why we are the party that understands urban Canada in particular and of course rural Canada because of our caucus members. We certainly want to work on this with people across the aisle, but they have to get it. They do not get it on this issue.
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand today to speak to the amendment that my party has proposed on the economic update statement delivered by the government. Of course, our amendment speaks directly to one aspect of the bill, not all aspects. It speaks to the aspect of the bill that we find most troubling.
We are only being consistent. We were only being consistent in 2005. At that time, we saved the Liberal government from imminent defeat by forcing it to retract a corporate tax cut it was proposing. We had the money reinvested in many programs, some of which are programs that the Conservative Party has taken much credit for over the last while in regard to the few things it has thrown out to people in Canada in terms of housing and post-secondary education.
Our position is very consistent. It has carried forward over the years. It has carried through different governments. Why is it like that? One reason, quite clearly, is that it is different from that of the other two parties that sit here.
The other two parties that sit here represent corporate interests. In their desire to represent those corporate interests, they have been bidding down the tax system in this country over many years. They have been bidding it down in order to hold the respect and the support of the corporate system in their efforts to get re-elected and hold on to power in this country.
Recently, the leader of the Liberal Party said the Liberals would be moving to the left with a platform that would include measures to aid students in paying for post-secondary tuition, to combat poverty and to support seniors. In order to do that, we need revenue. As a person who came up through the municipal side, and having been a mayor for many years, I know that collecting revenue is the only way that we can institute programs to provide services to people.
The cuts proposed by the Conservatives in their last budget and in this budget update are massive. They stand next to the ones that we just heard about from my Liberal colleague from Richmond Hill, who spoke of the $100 billion that the Liberals gave up to tax cuts in the early part of this decade. 
These tax cuts are in the order of $190 billion over the next five years. Of that $190 billion, where is it coming from? Our numbers show that with full implementation of the corporate tax cuts proposed by the government, by 2012 this figure would amount to $12 billion a year. Let us compare it to the GST cuts. The GST cuts now cost about $5 billion a year per percentage reduction, so we are going to see a $10 billion reduction through the GST cuts. On personal tax cuts, the estimate is that they will amount to only $8.4 billion over a six year period, so they are really not the issue that is of key importance here in terms of raising revenue for the government to deliver the services that Canadians require.
Therefore, when we stand up and say we do not support corporate tax cuts, we do that for a very good reason. Let us look at the profit in the Canadian corporate system, where one-half of the corporate pre-tax profits come from the financial sector and the booming oil, gas and mining sector. Half of the money that we are giving up here comes from two sectors in our economy that are not likely to leave. They are not likely to relocate to some other jurisdiction. They are essentially part of the Canadian economy. The rest of the corporate interests right across this country, from small businesses to large, make up the other percentage.
What we in the NDP say when it comes to providing incentives in the economy is that we need to send those incentives in the directions that are required. We do not need blanket corporate tax cuts that do nothing to answer the questions that our colleague from the Bloc raised earlier about the forest industry and the manufacturing sector. Corporate tax cuts do not do it. We are saying no to these cuts and we are hoping that others in the House will see the logic of that and join us in this effort.
Over the last six months, I took the time to look at the mining industry in the Northwest Territories because I felt it was very important to understand its impact. I also did it because the federal government has the final say on all mineral development in the north and makes the decisions about royalties and the direction of investments that may occur as a result of that.
Right now the diamond industry does not need tax cuts. It needs directed investment in infrastructure that can deliver more profit and royalties and can make a better deal for Canadians out of the resource being extracted in that region. Tax cuts will not accomplish that. Tax cuts will not build electrical transmission lines to the Slave Geological Province so we can reduce the costs of the fossil fuels burned to provide energy for the mines. Tax cuts will not build the highways required to get supplies to those areas. None of those will be accomplished through tax cuts. Those things will be accomplished through government investment in infrastructure that is required to produce more profit for government through increased royalties and taxation.
There is a role in this country for directed investment and I see it quite clearly in my area. When we looked at the opportunity for profits and to expand the diamond mining industry, we saw that there was a role for the federal government in establishing a national diamond strategy. The diamond industry needs a national diamond strategy. Diamond mines are being opened in Ontario and Nunavut. Opportunities also exist in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. 
Mining diamonds represents about 10% to 15% of the value of this resource. The way things are going in Canada, we are letting the rest of the value in this very large sector escape the country. This is because the Liberals have a laissez-faire or marketplace attitude toward investment and the Conservatives have the same ideology going on. They are not allowing us as a country to maximize the return from our resources and allowing us to say that we have an interest in making that happen.
Corporate tax cuts will not do that for us. That is not directed investment. That is not what we need right now. Let us get serious. Let us forget the ideology that drives those two larger parties, which may not be so large after the next election, to continue the way they are going.
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to a couple of things that the member said. He talked about ideologically driven parties. I think there is none more so than the NDP and particularly its unbalanced fiscal policies.
We have seen what happens when the NDP comes to power. We have seen what happened in Ontario. We have a former NDP premier who virtually destroyed his province and then wanted to be the federal leader of the Liberal Party. We had an example in British Columbia where the NDP came to power and left that province struggling for years. 
There is no better example than my home province of Saskatchewan. The question is often asked as to whether the NDP's fiscal policies have permanently damaged the province's ability to be what it should be.
Those of us in the federal Conservative Party take a much different approach and a much more positive approach than our NDP friends in the House here.
I believe the member was mentioning some of the tax cuts. I want to talk about some of the legislation that we have brought in and get his response. 
We are all familiar with the income tax cuts that we brought in and the fact that those cuts will make a difference for every taxpaying Canadian. Everyone knows that we kept our promise on the GST by reducing it by 2%. We have reduced corporate taxes, which the NDP opposed. We have brought in the child tax benefit to benefit children across this country. We brought in a tax credit for working folks, which gives them an opportunity to benefit from the changes we have made. We have brought in capital gains exemptions. We have brought in an accelerated depreciation, which benefits our manufacturing sector.
Rather than the very narrow and limited financial ideology that the NDP has, we have one that actually reaches out to all Canadians. It reaches across the board and gives everyone a break from the overtaxation that was previously in place because of the Liberal government.
[Interjection]
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, there was not much of a question there but there was a lot of historical inaccuracies. 
We have to look at what happened when the New Democratic Party took over in Saskatchewan from the most corrupt government that Saskatchewan ever had, a Conservative government that ran it into the ground, that is its record.
We can go back in history to look at the kinds of things that have gone on in government. However, what we are saying here is that the government will be taking $12 billion out of the system by 2012. That needs better emphasis. The government is taking that money, throwing it in the air and allowing it to fall anywhere. 
We need to have directed incentives in this economy to help the industries that need help and to move the country forward with infrastructure that can build industry and support industry, rather than this laissez-faire market approach that has driven this country for 20 years. It has driven our energy industry to the point where by 2020 we will be importing natural gas to heat our homes. What kind of a strategy was that? What kind of effort was that? I think the shame of that should stand in front of this Parliament.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River should know that in one minute I will cut him off.
Ken Boshcoff: Mr. Speaker, some of us can say in one minute what many other members may take fifteen minutes to say.
A few minutes ago in question period I asked the government a question about what plans it had to address the issues in the beleaguered forest industry. Much to the chagrin of the House, the question was not answered. The hon. member read from perhaps some campaign literature or something extolling the virtues of all the good things that are happening, and, in spite of the fact that I was very specific about the mill closures in northwestern Ontario and throughout Canada, my question was not answered.
The government clearly does not have a plan for forestry. If we are going to get anywhere, the government must understand that when 1,100 families are without work this Christmas that is just this month's bad news.
[Interjection]
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, once again, I really cannot respond to questions unless I understand the direction that is being taken.
I appreciate the member's concern about the forest industry. I think we need a massive strategy in the forest industry to drive new investment.
Last night I met with the manager of Tembec. We had a very good conversation about how we could actually work within the industry.

Private Members' Business
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The Chair would like to take a moment to provide some information to the House regarding the management of private members' business.
After a replenishment of the Order of Precedence, the Chair has developed the practice of reviewing the items there so that the House can be alerted to bills which, at first glance, appear to involve spending. The aim of this practice is to allow interested members the opportunity to intervene in a timely fashion to present their views about the need for a Royal Recommendation.
Accordingly, following the November 23 replenishment of the order of precedence with 15 new items, I wish to inform the House that one bill, Bill C-474 the national sustainable development act, standing in the name of the hon. member for Don Valley West, gives the Chair concern as to the spending provisions it contemplates.
I would encourage hon. members who would like to make arguments regarding the need of a royal recommendation in this case, that is Bill C-474, or in the case of any other bill now on the order of precedence, to do so at an early opportunity.
I thank the House for its attention. 
It being 1:32 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper. 
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from November 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-251, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning labels regarding the consumption of alcohol), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that the motivation for this proposed legislation is highly laudable. My hon. colleague's intentions in pursuing this project so diligently are commendable. 
What is also clear given all we know about the likelihood of labelling having the desired outcomes is that Bill C-251 will not achieve its intended results.
The evidence presented to the Standing Committee on Health in 2005, on a nearly identical bill, Bill C-206,  is unequivocal in concluding that in the absence of a wide range of other strategies to encourage Canadians to engage in safer alcohol use, warning labels alone will not result in an overall reduction in hazardous alcohol consumption or specific risk behaviours, such as drinking and driving or preventing the dangers of FASD.
Today, I want to speak about the unintended consequences which will likely result from mandatory labelling. As has previously been pointed out in interventions before the committee, an organization in Quebec, Éduc'alcool, came to the following conclusion when it looked into the pros and cons of alcohol warning labels:
 Reviews and primary studies concerning the impacts of the U.S. alcohol warning label experience, whether written by independent researchers or those employed by the alcohol industry, agree fairly closely that impacts on drinking behaviour are either non-existent or minimal. 
What is particularly worrisome is that the legislation proposed might not just fail to accomplish its objectives, but it could actually produce unanticipated and unwelcome consequences that could inflict another form of harm on some of our constituents.
Another huge concern is that the bill, if passed as it currently reads, would mean that all alcohol beverages currently on the market would be in violation of the new law once the bill would be enacted. The legislation would not allow companies adequate time to redesign the labels and implement the labelling requirements. The business community also stressed that Bill C-251 is inflexible in allowing different coming into force dates for small and large businesses. This is a major concern in my constituency as it could potentially cause unnecessary complications for my constituents.
What is vexatious is that interveners speaking on behalf of these regions and industries at the health committee in 2005 acknowledged that such legislation is well intended but misdirected. They worried that it could be detrimental to the economic well-being of people living in areas like mine.
Other points frequently raised are the implementation costs of the bill and its effectiveness. The costs associated with mandatory labelling would be significant, likely in the millions to make, pass and enforce regulations. It is valid to argue that this money could be better spent elsewhere. 
The real concern is that the funds badly spent on warning labels might prevent the implementation of a more comprehensive strategy in the future. This House has been told over and over again by the provinces, the food and beverage service industry, as well as groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving that a comprehensive strategy is essential to have a meaningful impact on the problem of alcohol abuse.
The majority of witnesses who have previously appeared before the standing committee have said that many of the established targeted programs currently in place have a much better chance of success than warning labels. There were strong arguments against diverting funds from these proven programs to underwrite the costs of warning labels which have not been proven to have a measurable effect on drinking patterns.
There is also the issue of potential trade and charter challenges which could further impose costs on the government. A representative from the Department of Justice has indicated that a violation of freedom of expression protected under section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would have to be justified under section 1 of the charter, and justification requires evidence that labels work. That evidence is lacking.
Something else to consider is that Canada must ensure it respects its international trade obligations in imposing technical regulations, including labelling requirements, on imported products. These would apply to any regulations to implement the legislation. No such consideration has been made in the creation of this bill as it currently stands.
Mr. Speaker, do not get me wrong. There is no doubt about the dangers of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, FASD, and drinking and driving, nor does anyone dispute the detrimental impacts alcohol can have on individuals and their families. However, all of these are problems of abuse or improper use, and based on the evidence presented by an array of expert witnesses, those behaviours are not likely to be changed because of alcohol warning labels.
Furthermore, in its September 2006 report, “Even One is too Many: A Call for a Comprehensive Action Plan for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder”, the Standing Committee on Health did not call for the implementation of warning labels on alcoholic beverage products.
There can be no debate that the Government of Canada takes this problem very seriously with its annual investment of some $100 million in a vast array of prevention, education and treatment programs. There is no question that the health minister  is determined to do even more.
The point I am making is that labels cannot solve every behavioural and health problem. It takes a complete, comprehensive plan, properly resourced, put into action. 
I can also assure the House that I am not implying that the underlying goals of Bill C-251 lack merit. I have nothing but praise and respect for my hon. colleague's efforts to draw national attention to the problems associated with excessive alcohol consumption. I am simply pointing out that this legislation does not provide the airtight arguments needed for its adoption and that it could unintentionally produce unexpected and undesirable results.
For all these reasons, I am unable to support this bill.
Luc Malo: Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to rise in the House to discuss Bill C-251, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning labels regarding the consumption of alcohol).
Before discussing my colleague's bill, I would like to mention something. On Wednesday, as I was telling the House about the situation facing potato producers in my riding, my microphone switched off before I could finish listing the families who have been affected. I would like to mention Marius Messier, his wife, Réjeanne Jussaume, their daughter, Manon, and their son, Michel, who are among the 21 families affected and who are continuing their fight in the hope of finding a very special gift under their Christmas tree: some assurance that they can feel optimistic about the future. I urge them to continue their fight. If, perhaps, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has not yet contacted them because his office has lost their phone numbers, I invite them to call my office, and I will be happy to send their numbers over to the minister again.
And now, back to Bill C-251. I am the second member of my party to talk about this bill. If my colleagues and those listening would like more information about my party's position, I invite them to check the Hansard for the brilliant speech given by my colleague from Québec, the Bloc Québécois health critic. It is my great pleasure to sit with her on the Standing Committee on Health.
It is clear that drinking alcohol can be harmful to people's health. Several factors are involved, including the drinker's age, the amount consumed and the physical condition of the person drinking. Ignoring the guidelines can have a negative impact on people's health. However—and this is what I will try to show—federal and provincial legislatures, including Quebec's legislature, already have regulations governing the consumption and advertising of alcoholic beverages.
First, I would like to mention some restrictions on the sale of alcohol. Quebec, the provinces and the territories have passed various limitations on the sale of alcohol and have also created organizations that not only sell alcoholic beverages, but also control access to those beverages. They have also put in place a system to control alcohol consumption, by issuing licences to sell alcoholic beverages to establishments that meet a number of preset criteria. Quebec, the provinces and the territories have also set minimum ages at which individuals may purchase alcohol.
In addition to these restrictions on the sale of alcohol, there are also a number of restrictions on advertising. Quebec, the provinces, the territories and even the federal government regulate the sale of alcohol. Quebec has also passed a number of acts and regulations establishing rules for the display, promotion and presentation of alcoholic beverages.
As well, Quebec has introduced an approval process for alcohol advertising and education programs. In addition, the CRTC, a federal agency, implemented a Code for Broadcast Advertising, which regulates the presentation of alcoholic beverages.
Speaking of the CRTC, it is clear that this agency acts as a regulator for communications and telecommunications, and in the coming years, the CRTC should be allowed to continue playing this role. However, it seems as though the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages is planning on doing the same thing as her colleague from Industry, who last December issued an order changing the telecommunications rules. We must push to have the CRTC continue to act as a regulator. I would like to read from a speech made by the Minister of Canadian Heritage at the convention of the Association of Canadian Broadcasters:
 [There must be] an increased reliance on competition and market forces— 
She went on to say:
 I challenge you to be open to change—because change will come...The status quo is no longer an option. 
However, we should not make changes that will prevent the CRTC from providing an appropriate regulatory framework in order to preserve what our society has achieved in terms of broadcasting and communications.
Naturally, I am expressing an opinion on the specific situation in Quebec with regard to the control of alcoholic beverages. As with a good number of other matters, Quebec has its own mechanisms, different from those of other Canadian provinces, for creating awareness of and preventing the consequences of alcohol consumption. In this regard, I would like to draw your attention to Éduc'alcool, an independent, non-profit organization established in 1989 by the industry and parapublic organizations to set up information, prevention and education programs to help youths and adults to make responsible and enlightened decisions about alcohol consumption.
Éduc'alcool provides various programs with an annual budget of almost $2 million derived from contributions by partners in the alcoholic beverage industry, the Société des alcools du Québec and private donors.
With regard to Bill C-251, which we are currently debating, the Bloc Québécois acknowledges that alcohol consumption can have devastating consequences and that Quebeckers and Canadians must be made aware of the risks of inappropriate alcohol consumption.
However, the Bloc Québécois notes that preventive measures already exist in Quebec, in particular the Éduc'alcool awareness programs. Other measures include discouraging alcohol consumption by pregnant women, prenatal courses, and SAAQ awareness campaigns—particularly spot checks—to change the attitude of pregnant women and drivers.
The Bloc Québécois notes that several microbreweries and other producers of alcoholic beverages already invest respectable amounts in awareness and prevention campaigns.
The Bloc Québécois believes that it is possible to meet the same objectives, and even to extend prevention campaigns to other groups, by introducing more effective measures to reduce the incidence of unfortunate consequences of alcohol consumption without imposing a heavy burden on microbreweries, brewers and other producers of alcoholic beverages who already invest in programs for the prevention and awareness of the effects of alcohol.
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-251, a bill that would place labels on bottles for substances containing 1% alcohol. I come from the Northwest Territories where labels have been on bottles for almost 20 years. Therefore, I feel somewhat enlightened on this issue in comparison to many other places in the country.
People in the Northwest Territories have struggled with alcohol issues for a long period of time. There are higher rates of consumption and incarceration. The criminal justice system is taken up with alcohol related issues. We can say what we want about other substance abuse, but the RCMP that polices us and the justice system that enforces penalties speak clearly with one voice. They say that alcohol is the substantive problem within the Northwest Territories.
In the last boom in the Arctic in the seventies, a boom that was artificially enhanced by the super-depletion allowance given to oil and gas companies to explore for oil and gas, we saw an incredible increase in fetal alcohol syndrome disorders in children. In some cases, schools were reporting that over 30% of children could be identified as perhaps having a fetal alcohol effect or fetal alcohol syndrome. This was an enormous problem and a heartbreaking problem in the lives of people. It created cost to society from birth onward. It caused family problems. It had an enormous impact on the population.
Therefore, 20 years ago we put labels on bottles to identify alcohol content for young women who may have drank for the first time or people who did not understand the impact of it. These labels would at least give women some indication that they were putting something very valuable and important at risk if they drank while pregnant. Over the years this action, along with others, has somewhat helped the situation with alcohol abuse in the Northwest Territories. It did not help completely, by no means.
We have also instituted rules that allow individual communities to ban alcohol consumption or to make decisions about alcohol rationing. We have done many things to try to combat the problem because we see the impact on society and in families, and it is still very much the case.
When it comes to supporting labels on bottles for the rest of the country, it is a great idea. The way it is done in the Northwest Territories is pretty simple. The bottles go into liquor stores and the owners and workers have a device similar to a device to put prices on a bottle but with a slightly larger imprint and they put a label on a bottle. It is a simple process, it is not costly and it is effective in providing information to people about the nature of the impact of the content in the bottle.
Six years ago the House voted overwhelmingly for a motion by one of my colleagues from Winnipeg North to put warning labels on bottles of alcohol. However, in the intervening years both the Liberal and Conservative governments have ignored the will of Parliament. I find that strange and unsettling. We have to take account when private members' bill and motions come forward and are supported by Parliament as a whole for the good of the people of Canada. We have to follow up on these things.
One private member's initiative, which I respect, was brought forward by a Conservative member. It took the material out of cigarettes that kept them burning after they were put in an ashtray or when it fell out of somebody's hands onto a bed, which caused so many fires and deaths in the country. We got that law and finally after years and years, we changed the system in our country to protect people. It saves lives.
Here we have another private member's bill that pleads with the House and with the government to follow through with things that are good for Canadians. Why are we not going with it? Why are we not making this effort? Why do we have this inertia in the system? Why can we not be more accommodating to the will of Parliament?
On the other side, we could put warning labels about drinking and driving. We could encourage educate people in this regard. We entirely support Mothers Against Drunk Driving, but let us help people understand that drinking and driving is wrong. They can look at the bottle and see, “When you drink this, do not drive, get a cab”. 
What is wrong with those kinds of instructions to society? For those who like their $20 bottles of wine, is it demeaning to see a label on the side of it? Have we wrecked the ambience of the drink by putting a label on the bottle? That is part of what we do.
When we put those rather obscene labels on packages of cigarettes, they were a good indicator. They show people what happens, what the results of the overuse of the tobacco product are. We do not argue about them anymore. They are there. Let us do the same thing with alcohol. Let us recognize that. Let us put the labels on the bottles. Let us do something for Canadians that is useful. Let us not get this caught up in the inertia of Parliament and the special interest groups and all those who stand against the will of the people of our country.
We put warning labels on kites so people do not fly them next to power lines. What a good idea, a little indication to somebody to keep the kite away from the power line. Does that hurt people? No. It is a sensible thing to do.
We put warning labels on coffee cups in case people might burn themselves. My goodness, a burn heals a lot faster than a fetus attacked by alcohol in the womb. A little burn on a leg from a cup of coffee does not match up to a lifetime of misery for a family and for the person who has the particular disease or accident of fetal alcohol syndrome.
I totally support the bill. It works in our territory. I ask the rest of Canada to follow suit.
Mr. Mike Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging my colleague from Mississauga South for his commitment to this effort, which he continues to show in this important issue both in the last Parliament and in this Parliament. I applaud his efforts to raise awareness about the negative consequences of alcohol use in Canada.
I agree that as a society we need to be vigilant in protecting the most vulnerable from damage due to alcohol misuse, and there are no more vulnerable than our unborn children, and those born with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, also known as FASD.
Throughout their lives, they will often be faced with and cope with the effects of prenatal alcohol exposure, and these children can be condemned to lives of missed opportunities and, in essence, outright despair.
 Among the common symptoms of the disability are a range of social and behavioural problems, which put affected individuals at an increased risk of dropping out of school and make them far more likely to be unemployed, victimized, homeless or to end up in prison.
As profound as the impact may be for the affected individuals and their families, the cost of FASD is also steep for society. Canadian taxpayers will spend approximately $1.5 million over the lifetime of each of these individuals in extra health, education, welfare, policing and criminal justice system costs. 
Consider that given the incidence of 9.1 cases of FASD per 1,000 births, there are estimated 280,000 people in Canada currently living with this preventable disability.
As worthy as the goals are, studies have shown to date that alcohol warning labels do not reach or positively impact those most at risk.
 There is very compelling evidence to suggest that alcohol warning labels would not result in a reduction of hazardous alcohol consumption or reach specific populations regarding risk-taking behaviours such as drinking during pregnancy or drinking and driving.
There have been other private members' bills on alcohol warning labels since 1987. For example, prior to Bill C-251 there was Bill C-206.
Bill C-206, like previous bills, was not supported by the House as the evidence presented to it was unequivocal. Warning labels on alcohol beverage containers are not effective in changing the drinking behaviours of at risk or vulnerable populations.
This was the resounding all-party consensus reached at committee hearings on Bill C-206, the predecessor to Bill C-251. While laudable, the objectives behind Bill C-251 are not likely to be achieved through warning labels.
I firmly believe that supporting alcohol warning labels would divert taxpayer dollars away from effective interventions such as prevention, awareness and education, to an approach that lacks real evidence of success.
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight how the Government of Canada is currently working to reduce the negative consequences of alcohol use through proven prevention, education and awareness interventions.
Led by the Public Health Agency of Canada, the federal fetal alcohol spectrum disorder initiative seeks to prevent future births of those affected by alcohol and improve outcomes for individuals and families already affected. 
This work is accomplished in a number of ways. 
First, by raising awareness and educating Canadians and health care and allied professionals about the harms related to FASD and alcohol use during pregnancy.
Second, by developing a strong evidence base to inform decisions by relevant jurisdictions.
Third, by translating knowledge and producing tools to help build capacity within communities across Canada.
This initiative receives funding in the amount of $5 million annually. Of this amount $3.3 million goes to the Public Health Agency while the remaining $1.7 million is given to Health Canada's First Nations and Inuit Health Branch.
We know that addressing FASD is a shared responsibility. I am pleased to report that the Public Health Agency of Canada has assumed a leadership role and is working with its health portfolio partners, other federal departments and agencies, the provinces and territories, first nations, as well as a host of community based partners.
I think real progress has been achieved to date and I would like to take a few minutes to highlight a few of the examples.
In 2005 national guidelines for diagnosing FASD were published following extensive consultation. These guidelines represent a crucial step for developing both capacity to diagnose FASD and standard procedures for FASD diagnosis. 
In the long term it is anticipated that these guidelines will enhance the collection and reporting of incidence and prevalence data across Canada, so that we will have a much better sense of progress to reduce FASD rates in Canada.
 Although we have meaningful estimates on the costs of FASD in Canada, work has begun on the development of a Canadian model for the calculation of the economic impact of FASD. In addition, a call for proposals for the FASD National Strategic Projects Fund was announced in January 2007.
These projects, being funded from this call, will build toward enhanced prevention and diagnosis and, eventually, the availability of incidence data.
Unfortunately, some segments of the Canadian population are more at risk of alcohol-related harm. For example, some first nations people and Inuit are at greater risk of experiencing some form of alcohol-related harm in their daily lives. 
For this reason, Health Canada's First Nations and Inuit Health Branch receives $15 million in annual funding from the Government of Canada's early childhood development strategy to support FASD programs. This amount is in addition to the $1.7 million in funding under the federal FASD initiative.
The sum of this funding, nearly $17 million, is used to reduce the number of FASD births and improve the quality of life for those affected in first nations and Inuit communities.
With this funding, communities are supported to undertake various activities that build awareness, develop targeted interventions to support high-risk women to stop or reduce alcohol use while pregnant, enter collaborative work with communities to address the broader determinants of health, provide education and training for front line workers and health professionals, and facilitate access to earlier diagnosis. Progress has been made in all of these areas.
A recent opinion survey showed that 94% of first nations and 86% of Inuit were aware of FASD, and awareness is a start.
Community asset mapping has helped many communities identify their strengths and develop a plan of action. There are now mentoring programs for at-risk women in 32 first nations communities.
All regions have provided training sessions for front line workers and health professionals. For example, in Quebec, 90% of first nations communities participate in education and training activities related to the prevention of FASD in 2005/2006.
 Community coordinator positions are being established, so that first nations and Inuit communities can increase family access to diagnostic health teams.
And our efforts do not stop there. Since 2000, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research has invested approximately $3.7 million into research around prevention, treatment and diagnosis of FASD.
This action has expanded the knowledge base about the biological mechanisms underlying alcohol's adverse effects on the developing fetus and its long-term health effects.
Clearly, momentum is building across this country to address many of the challenges Bill C-251 proposes to resolve. 
Taken together, these activities represent a comprehensive approach to reduce the risks and tragic consequences of alcohol abuse. As witness after witness told the Standing Committee on Health during examination of Bill C-206, that is exactly what is needed if we are to produce meaningful results.
The evidence presented before the committee at that time demonstrated that fully integrated and concerted prevention, awareness, and education interventions are the most effective ways to address challenges, and that was clearly indicated in the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Health.
In closing, I would like to express again my sincere appreciation for my hon. colleague's commitment to this issue. However, I believe the evidence is clear. Alcohol warning labels will not bring about the results we all wish to achieve. For this reason, I am unable to support this bill. 
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-251 was inspired by a report from the health committee in June 1992 called “Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: The Preventable Tragedy”, in which the committee recommended health warning labels on containers of alcoholic beverages to caution consumers that consumption may impair one's ability to operate machinery and equipment and may harm the fetus during pregnancy.
Members will note that Bill C-251 is only one clause long. I do not know where everybody gets all these intents that it is supposed to have; it is one clause long. It deliberately leaves all the details required for the label to be prescribed by governor in council. That means the precise wording, form, size and label, together with other details necessary to enact the bill, will be provided in regulations of the bill. In other words, it is entirely up to the Minister of Health.
The idea is to put on a warning label and that is it: to caution. Does it achieve its goal? Darn right. Does it solve every alcohol problem? No, but the members are arguing, for some odd reason, that it does not achieve what they want it to achieve rather than whether it achieves what the bill intends to achieve, which is to be a consumer lighthouse cautioning impending danger. That is what it is.
Beverage alcohol is the only consumer product in Canada that can harm us if misused and that does not warn us of that fact. That is the bottom line. 
Each year, alcohol plays a role in thousands of premature deaths, preventable injuries and prenatal brain damage and is associated with increased risk of cirrhosis of the liver, cancer, cardiovascular disease, respiratory diseases, homicide, suicide, motor vehicle, boat and snowmobile crashes, falls, fires, and drownings. Moreover, higher rates of consumption are associated with increased mental illness, increased crime, and reduced worker productivity.
 These translate into human loss of devastating proportions and an economic toll of billions and billions of dollars each year in Canada. It is estimated that alcohol misuse costs Canada approximately $15 billion in health care, law enforcement and lost productivity. 
I can tell members that I know the personal cost of alcohol misuse. Alcohol misuse took away my father at a very young age when his family really needed him. I do not need to have lectures from members about how important it is to deal with alcohol.
The fact is that we have not done anything in the last 12 years. That is why I have been fighting for this for the last 12 years. The members have absolutely no conception of the damage that alcohol has done to Canada over these 12 years. With all of the programs that have been run for the last 12 years, with all these programs that the beverage alcohol industry says it is doing, if we look at the numbers, we will see that the numbers have gone up. 
It is getting worse in Canada, not better. It is time to do something different. It is time to act. Let us see whether parliamentarians are prepared to respond to what Canadians say. Health Canada commissioned the Environics study in 2006 and the parliamentary secretary knows it: 87% of Canadians approved of requiring warning labels; 97% approved of government sponsored advertising; 95% approved of warning messages on alcohol advertising; 85% approved of warning signs in bars and clubs; and 85% approved of warning signs in restaurants.
Canadians are overwhelmingly in support of health warning labels as a caution, just like there is for any other consumer product that can harm us if misused. That is what they are asking for. They are not asking whether or not a label is going to solve every problem related to alcohol. 
Members have to get with it. It is time for Parliament to get with it if we believe that the carnage associated with alcohol misuse is worth looking at. There are 20 countries that already have this. Since the last time I spoke to this in May of this year, five more, South Africa, Ireland, Tasmania, New Zealand, Australia and the U.K., all also have said that they are now going to move forward with health warning labels.
 If 26 countries are prepared to have warning labels on their beverage alcohol containers because of the carnage it causes, why is it that Canada is going to sit back and do nothing? It is not acceptable.
Canadians support it. I am asking parliamentarians to look in their hearts and send the bill to committee to find out why these other countries are doing it and we are not.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  In my opinion the yeas have it.
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 93 a recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, December 12, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
It being 2:14 p.m. this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1)
(The House adjourned at 2:14 p.m.)