2007-03-30

Government Orders
Hon. Gordon O'Connor:  moved that Bill C-52, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007, be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Ms. Diane Ablonczy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, l am very pleased today to be able to present the budget implementation bill at second reading.
 This year's budget is historic.
 It is historic because it accomplishes so much to ensure that Canada remains strong today and becomes even better tomorrow.
That is because Canada's new government has an economic plan for Canada, a plan that will create greater opportunities for Canadians to fulfill their dreams of a good job, a world class education for their children, a home of their own, and a retirement that they can count on.
To that end, budget 2007 follows through on our plan with key investments in Canada's future.
 This year's budget invests in Canadians, preserves and protects our environment, and improves the quality of our health care system for all.
 Budget 2007 also restores fiscal balance by working with provinces and territories to deliver sustainable services for Canadians and their families.
The budget creates competitive advantages for a stronger economy for Canada, an economy that will put us on a solid track for tomorrow. It does this by reducing Canada's debt and lowering the taxes of hard-working families.
Budget 2007 also ensures that multinational corporations pay their fair share of taxes.
It helps Canadian businesses compete globally by making unprecedented investments in the infrastructure that connects our nation.
Budget 2007 does much more.
 It makes our communities safer and more secure.
 It supports the men and women of the armed forces, including our veterans, and it brings new hope to people beyond our borders through more effective international aid.
As the Minister of Finance said when he introduced budget 2007 in this chamber, “it is time to unleash Canada's full potential”, and unleash our potential it does.
Budget 2007 aims to create a Canada that we will be proud to pass on to our children, with a standard of living and quality of life second to none.
 The measures contained in this bill before the House today reflect those goals. I would now like to take a few minutes to illustrate.
 Bill C-52 contains some of the key initiatives taken by Canada's new government to make Canada a better place in which to live and do business. Legislation to implement the remaining budget 2007 measures will be introduced in a later bill.
First is tax relief. Our government has heard it from Canadians from all across this great country of ours: we pay too much in tax.
 Budget 2007 builds on the previous action in last year's budget by reducing personal income taxes to encourage people to work, save and invest. It also helps businesses succeed, through lower taxes to spur innovation and growth.
Those of us with children know that raising a family can be a challenge. With higher costs of living, housing and energy, it is not easy.
 That is why in budget 2007 Canada's new government makes life more affordable for hard-working families by creating a working families tax plan.
 The government understands that no two Canadian families are exactly alike. Each has its own circumstances and needs.
Budget 2006 introduced the universal child care benefit, which provides $100 per month for each child under age six to help parents choose the child care option that best suits their family's needs, whether that means formal care, informal care through neighbours or relatives, or a parent staying at home.
 This benefit provides more than $2.4 billion each year to one and a half million families and over two million children.
Bill C-52 proposes to provide even more support for families to recognize that raising children involves additional expenses.
Effective January 1, 2007, families will be able to claim a new tax credit for each child under 18. The new child tax credit proposed in this bill will benefit about three million taxpayers. This measure takes up to 180,000 low income Canadians off the tax rolls and provides more than 90% of taxpaying families with the maximum benefit of $310 per child.
Currently, taxpayers who have low income spouses or single taxpayers who support dependents such as a child or elderly parent receive a tax free amount of up to $7,581 in 2007. The tax relief for the supporting person is reduced as the spouse's or dependent's net income increases and is fully phased out once it reaches $8,340.
Bill C-52 will increase the credits for low income spouses and dependents of single individuals. This measure will provide up to $209 in additional tax relief so that single earner families will receive the same tax relief as that already provided through the basic personal amount to two earner families. The new child tax credit and increases to the spousal and dependent amounts will provide significant personal income tax relief to families.
Bill C-52 also enacts the tax fairness plan, which delivers over $1 billion in additional tax savings for Canadian pensioners and seniors. This plan, introduced last fall and committed to in budget 2007, proposes to increase the age credit amount and allow pension income splitting for pensioners. This builds on the almost $20 billion over two years of tax reductions provided for individuals in budget 2006 and will significantly enhance the incentives to save and invest for family retirement security.
Canada's new government delivers on its commitment from our economic plan, Advantage Canada, to dedicate all interest savings from federal debt reduction each year to ongoing personal income tax reductions. This is our government's tax back guarantee. It will ensure that Canadians benefit directly from federal debt reduction. 
To ensure that happens, as the federal government pays down national debt it will be required to use the interest savings to cut personal income taxes for hard-working Canadians. Bill C-52 proposes to set out the tax back guarantee in legislation.
Budget 2007 takes historic action to restore fiscal balance in Canada.
 A restored fiscal balance will ensure that provinces and territories have the means to build and provide things that matter to Canadians. When the provinces and territories invest in health care, post-secondary education, modern infrastructure, child care and social services, everybody wins and all of Canada is stronger.
 Budget 2007 invests an additional $39 billion over the next seven years and puts all major fiscal arrangements on a long term, principles-based track to 2013-14. Bill C-52 implements a number of key fiscal balance measures. 
It renews and strengthens the equalization and territorial formula financing programs, which will be providing $2.1 billion more in the next two years to eligible provinces and the three territories. It improves the fairness of the Canada social transfer and the Canada health transfer by legislating an equal per capita cash support for these transfers as they are renewed.
It also renews and strengthens the Canada social transfer by making new and growing investments in support of post-secondary education, children and social programs. The restoration of fiscal balance will allow governments to go forward and focus on building a stronger and more prosperous Canada.
It is our responsibility as Canadians to protect our environment. It is only through a healthier environment that Canadians can create the quality of life and the standard of living to which we all aspire.
That is why budget 2007 invests $4.5 billion to clean our air and water, reduce greenhouse gases and combat climate change, as well as protect our natural environment.
Bill C-52 proposes to enact one of the important environmental measures from this year's budget, a new Canada ecotrust for clean air and climate change, announced by the Prime Minister on February 12, 2007.
Climate change and air pollution affect all Canadians. That is why our response must be national in its scope.
 The new Canada ecotrust for clean air and climate change will provide support to those provinces and territories that identify major projects which will result in real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants. Moreover, the provincial and territorial initiatives supported by the ecotrust will complement industrial regulations and existing federal initiatives.
 Projects could include provincial and territorial technology and infrastructure development, such as carbon sequestration and clean coal and electricity transmission, which will lead to a significant decrease in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.
 Under Bill C-52, the government will invest over $1.5 billion in the trust.
Few among us would disagree that the Canadian health care system is one of the things that makes Canada the modern, compassionate and prosperous country that it is.
 Budget 2007 takes action to improve our health care system by helping reduce wait times, preventing diseases like cancer of the cervix, and modernizing Canada's health system.
Bill C-52 provides funding for the development of patient wait time guarantees, which will be used to assist the provinces and territories as they move forward with the implementation of guarantees.
 Specifically, to support jurisdictions that made commitments to patient wait time guarantees prior to the end of March 2007, Bill C-52 proposes to set aside up to $612 million, well over half a billion dollars, to be used to help accelerate the implementation of patient wait time guarantees.
There will be $500 million allocated on an equal per capita basis and funding for eligible provinces and territories will be paid into a third party trust. Through the trust, those eligible provinces and territories will also be provided with base funding of $10 million per province and $4 million per territory to move forward with patient wait time guarantees.
We know that immunization is considered a very cost effective means of preventing illness and provides long term savings to the health care system. When effective new vaccines become available, it is in the best interest of Canadian families to receive them as quickly as possible. 
Cancer of the cervix is the second most common cancer in Canadian women aged 20 to 44, after breast cancer. In July 2006 the government approved a vaccine for use by young girls and women that prevents the majority of this type of cancer, providing protection against the two types of human papillomavirus, or HPV, that are responsible for approximately 70% of cancers of the cervix in Canada.
The government will provide funding to the provinces and territories to support the launch of a national program for the HPV vaccine that will focus on protecting women and girls from cancer of the cervix. Bill C-52 proposes to put $300 million, a third of a billion dollars, into a third party trust in 2007-08 for the benefit of provinces and territories, allocated on a per capita basis.
Canada's new government understands that a strong system of higher education is a crucial source of ideas and innovation, creative energy that our economy needs to foster national prosperity. We know that having a post-secondary education contributes to the well-being of Canadians and that of their communities.
 The government is also aware that parents across this country are struggling with the costs of post-secondary education. We are helping parents save for their children's education by strengthening the RESP program, and we have invested more in post-secondary education.
Bill C-52 proposes to increase the Canada social transfer by $800 million per year starting in 2008-09 for provinces and territories with the objective of strengthening the quality and competitiveness of Canada's post-secondary education system. As a result, CST funding for post-secondary education will increase by 40% to $3.2 billion in 2008-09.
Just as importantly, this support will continue to grow over time as a result of the annual 3% escalator that is part of the renewed CST. This increased and earmarked transfer of funding meets the government's commitment to deliver a new approach to funding support for post-secondary education by ensuring long term predictable support for provinces and territories, and greater transparency and accountability to Canadians.
In summing, what does Bill C-52 mean to Canadians? For one thing, it means lower taxes. Canada's new government followed through on its commitment to cut taxes for Canadians and going forward we will continue to look at new ways to reduce the tax burden on hard-working Canadians.
Bill C-52 also proposes funding to ensure that our major fiscal arrangement with the provinces and territories are on a sound and principled track for the future. This bill proposes initiatives that will help improve the operation of our education and health care system.
In short, Bill C-52 will deliver significant benefits to Canadians, benefits that help secure a strong future for Canada. I would therefore encourage all members of the House to support this budget implementation bill.
Hon. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would call this a salt and pepper budget. It increases government spending by $10 billion. It takes an ever greater percentage, ratio, of federal spending to the GDP than we have seen in some time. It advocates very little money for research and development for the future of our country and for secondary education. The list could go on.
I know in terms of what was presented today, we do not see a lot of money allocated for so-called tax relief to those people most in need, the people with low incomes.
We have seen here this week a challenge to our party on the budget. We noticed that the Bloc was able to support it, but I know the people who talk about the people who are most in need in this country are not getting a lot of tax relief. 
The tax relief is mainly for those earning a lot of money. It certainly does not help out the working poor. I would like to hear more from the parliamentary secretary on a budget that has no vision, no direction, and no great programs to educate people. It sees an additional tax revenue, additional spending, and not good control of our federal money.
[Interjection]
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, the member ought to read the budget. If he were to actually study the figures, he would see that from 2005-06, when our government came to office, to 2008-09 spending growth would average 4.1%, almost a full percentage point below the projected rate of economic growth in that period. That is substantially below the rate of growth under the Liberals, when the average spending was over 8% per year and in the final years of their mandate was 15%. We have brought that down to 4.1%.
Setting aside the cost to restore fiscal balance, which was a one-time cost which we promised in the election, tax cuts established since budget 2006 are more than twice as much as spending measures in the budget. I know that the member will be happy about that and that his concern has been well met.
With respect to low income Canadians, we have done so much for low income Canadians, again something that the member either missed or chooses to ignore because he is following his leader's directive to go out and trash the budget for partisan purposes instead of giving the facts to Canadians.
 In fact, we have a new working income tax benefit for the working poor. He knows that. We have a new $2,000 child tax credit for the poorest Canadians. He knows that. We have reduced the GST, which is the only tax that lowest income Canadians pay. He is aware of that.
This past budget and this budget takes three-quarters of a million Canadians completely off the tax rolls because they will be paying less tax under our measure. He is aware of that as well.
I would suggest that the facts do not square with the trumped up concerns that the member tries to bring forward. This is a good budget for Canada. It is a good budget for Canadians. It is a good budget for every Canadian.
Mr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has been fighting a long time to have the fiscal imbalance corrected. We have decided to support this budget because it starts to address fiscal imbalance.
We are well aware that this is a minority government budget, and that this government would never have begun to do anything for Quebeckers if there were not 50 Bloc Québécois members and a minority government. However, there is still a lot of work left to do, partly because the fiscal imbalance cannot be fixed without a tax solution. What we have here is a monetary solution.
I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary a question on equalization. It was completely arbitrarily decided that non-renewable natural resources would be excluded from the calculation and the inclusion rate set at 50% and even 0% in some cases. This is completely arbitrary and is designed to favour some provinces over others.
I would like the parliamentary secretary to explain why they made this decision. For example, why were aerospace revenues not excluded? It would be a good idea to exclude these revenues, 60% of which happen to be in Quebec. Why are hydroelectricity revenues not excluded, which would also help Quebec? Out of the entire tax base, why was the only tax revenue excluded one that just happens to be something that puts Quebec at a disadvantage in the equalization calculation?
[Interjection]
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, we certainly appreciate the Bloc's support for this good budget. I suspect if the Bloc had not been willing to support the budget, one of the other parties might have found it in their hearts to do so.
However, with respect to equalization, I remind the member of a few things. The new equalization formula, which brings the equalization program for have not provinces back onto a principled, certain and long term track, was actually the work of an independent third party panel. This panel was set up by the former Liberal government. It was run by experts in this field, well respected people, and they came up with this formula, which I believe most objective people believe to be extremely fair, extremely principled, and extremely balanced for Canadians.
For a member from Quebec to complain that somehow this was not good for this province probably would not find a lot of support in the rest of Canada, and I might suggest that the Bloc itself acknowledges that this new formula is very good for the province of Quebec.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are very good at telling us to read the budget. I did read the budget. I read it twice. There are so many things missing, but with the shortness of time I will concentrate on one issue.
When the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill was in opposition, she was a terrific critic for her party, going after the Liberals, and rightfully so, on many faults they had. When she and her party were in opposition she was very well known for saying that when a motion passes this House of Commons, this should reflect the government's ideology and what it should be doing because the will of Parliament has spoken.
Not only did the Conservatives ignore the veterans' first motion in the budget, helping VIPs, widows and injured soldiers, for example, but they completely omitted autism. Autism did not even get a mention in the budget, even though it was passed with Conservative support in a motion by the hon. member for Fredericton. 
I have a simple question. With a $14.2 billion surplus, could the Conservatives not find it in their hearts, one, to have included autism in the budget to help those families and children across the country; and two, why did the government ignore a motion passed by this House of Commons?
[Interjection]
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, the member knows that the government does have a very strong advocate for autism. One of our own members has a young child who has this difficulty and the government is moving on this front.
I find it very interesting that we have a budget that provides $39 billion in new funding for health care, education and infrastructure, $4.5 billion to clean up Canada's air and water, a $2,000 tax credit for every child under 18, a working income tax benefit, a tax fairness plan to reduce taxes for seniors and on and on, and the only thing the member can find to criticize is that somehow there was not a specific announcement about a specific condition that the government is already addressing.
I think that is a ringing endorsement for the budget which is so good for Canada and all Canadians.
Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the parliamentary secretary for her very eloquent summary of budget 2007. I am getting extremely positive feedback from my constituents in Kitchener—Conestoga, specifically as it relates to the support for working families.
It is clear that by removing 180,000 people from our tax rolls, we have listened to ordinary Canadians. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could confirm that with the measures in this budget and 2006 that we have actually directed 75% of our tax relief to those who are earning $75,000 or less.
[Interjection]
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, this is a fact and figure that is in the budget which some members who are trashing the budget on the orders of their leader must have read. They say they have read the budget, but somehow missed the fact that the budget is targeted largely to lower income Canadians, middle class Canadians, and hard-working Canadians who pay their taxes and look after their families. This is the focus of our budget.
Parties who are not supporting the budget need to explain to their own constituents why a new working income tax benefit for the working poor is not worthy of their support and why a new $2,000 child tax credit should not be supported. Why are they not supporting $16 billion in new infrastructure funding? Why are they not supporting a 40% increase in support for post-secondary education and on and on.
Members of the House who are trying to trash the budget for partisan purposes should have to explain that to their own constituents and to Canadians.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate today on the government's second budget released on March 19. On behalf of the constituents of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing in northern Ontario, I would like to offer a few opinions.
First, I would like to point out that among the various instruments that governments have to tell voters, tell the public what it is they are about, what it is they plan to do for a country, the two main instruments are throne speeches, which we see typically every two years, and budgets, which we see every year usually in February or March. 
In the span of 100 years, we would see 100 budgets from different governments. That underlines how important budgets are. Not only do they set a course, or they are supposed to set a course, but they are also supposed to provide the government's vision for the months and years ahead. They are supposed to tell Canadians how the current government of the day wishes to continue building the nation.
Quite frankly, as important as budgets are, I believe the government has missed a very serious opportunity to add its piece to the grand and important puzzle which is the building of this nation. I am not going to say that it lacks an agenda but indeed, it lacks a vision. 
What I find most interesting in the budget is what the budget does to fulfill what I consider to be the hidden agenda of the government, which is to actually weaken the central government of this country. In so doing, it limits the capacity of the central government to create programs of national concern, whether they are in the economic domain, the social domain or the environmental domain. When one weakens the central government's ability to lead, to draw in the provinces and territories on national initiatives, one in fact weakens Canada.
There have been numerous surveys over the years which have indicated over and over again that of all levels of government, the public trusts most the federal government, its national government. The public sees in its national government the best tools, the best ability, the strength to keep our country together for all citizens from coast to coast to coast, regardless of where they live, whether they live in rural areas like my area in northern Ontario or in urban areas like downtown Winnipeg, Vancouver, Toronto and so on. Fundamentally Canadians are generous. They want to share this nation with each other and with those who come from foreign shores to join us and to live in Canada. That generosity means that Canadians want, as much as is reasonable, that programs and initiatives be for everybody.
Let me give an example of the government's attempts to weaken the central government. I have to reach back to last year's budget. This budget is a continuation, in my view, of that central theme of a hidden agenda to weaken a central government. There was an announcement last year, and we were expecting to hear more about it but for some hidden reason we did not hear part two, but last year there was an announcement that the government would cut the GST by 1% and eventually by another 1%. This was against the advice of virtually every economist in the country. We have to trust our professionals. They said that giving away between $5 billion and $6 billion on a 1% GST cut would only weaken forever the central government, because we cannot get that percentage back. 
Think back to governments that tried to increase taxes. We cannot get that percentage back. That $5.5 billion that was lost in the first 1% GST cut is $5.5 billion that is not available for the government to invest in health care, in municipal infrastructure, in the Kelowna accord which, incidentally, would have cost about $5 billion. One year of that 1% GST cut would have funded the Kelowna accord. We are talking about 1% every year ongoing, every year indefinitely.
It is interesting that the government in this budget did not mention what was going to happen to the second 1%. It may be that the government finally listened to the advice it received last year, or it just felt that it would prefer to do that in a majority government.
I do not think Canadians are going to be easily fooled. Frankly, I do not recall meeting any constituents in my large riding who said, “Wow, that 1% GST cut really was a great benefit to me and my family”. In fact, the opposite is the case. When I asked them, virtually every one of them said that they did not notice that 1%. I pointed out that a wealthy person who bought a $100,000 boat would receive $1,000 in GST relief and that wealthy person would notice it. My constituents replied, “Of course they would notice it, but I am an average Canadian and I am not buying a $100,000 boat”. 
In fact, the average Canadian family would have to consume taxable goods for years and years to achieve that $1,000 in GST relief that the wealthy person would enjoy when buying that expensive boat. To me, what the budget really does is it promotes further the hidden agenda.
Let me speak to some of the concerns in northern Ontario in my riding. I will start with forestry and I will continue with concerns for my aboriginal constituents and aboriginal Canadians from coast to coast. 
In the forestry sector, communities such as White River, Smooth Rock Falls, Chapleau, Espanola, Nairn, Opasatika, Hearst, Kapuskasing, and the list is far too long, are experiencing tremendous layoffs and cutbacks. Much of the layoffs and cutbacks are in the softwood sector. There are key industries that have suffered in the pulp and paper sector in my area as well.
There is no mention in the budget of what should be done to deal with a sector of our economy which is extremely significant not only in direct jobs and what it does for our single resource communities, but the incredible spinoffs as well. A tremendous price is being paid by families in these communities and the communities themselves as well. Those communities see the loss of their capacity to keep their schools open and in fact, to maintain their basic infrastructure because people have to leave those communities if they can. 
At the very least I would call on the government to bring together all stakeholders, community leaders, unions and companies, all those who have a stake in the forestry sector. The government should bring them together in a national forestry summit so that our best minds and our best efforts can be focused on that one issue to see if something can be done for the long term of this country.
Quite frankly, when we consider what the softwood lumber deal has done to communities in my riding, I looked for measures in this budget that would have assisted them. The day before the agreement went into effect, the import tax in the U.S. was some 10 point something per cent, roughly 10.5%, but the day after the agreement was signed, it shot up to something like 15% because the U.S. import tariff was replaced by an export tax.
It will take me a long time to understand how that is good for our industry. I understand it is the Canadian government that has had to advance the duties from the U.S. back to Canadian companies, because the U.S. actually has not repaid those funds, to the best of my knowledge.
I will move on to my aboriginal constituents on Manitoulin Island and on the north shore of Lake Huron and the Chapleau and Wawa areas and up at Constance Lake near Hearst.
When the aboriginal leadership in my region and all Canadians saw their premiers, the prime minister and the senior aboriginal leadership of this country sign the Kelowna accord in November 2005, they saw the parties come together to sign a historic agreement. Funding for that agreement was put in place immediately thereafter. The money was booked, as our then finance minister confirmed and has confirmed numerous times. 
For some reason the Conservative government has repeatedly refused to acknowledge the validity of that agreement. As recently as last week the government voted at third reading not to support the private member's bill of my colleague the member for LaSalle—Émard, which further calls upon the government to honour the Kelowna accord.
Our aboriginal Canadians, our first nations leadership, have been severely disappointed by what they have seen from the government when it comes to measures to understand and appreciate the great heritage, the great history, the great culture that our first nations bring to this country. They are disappointed that as a nation we have still not adequately dealt with the needs of our first nations communities and people when it comes to education, health, water, and those supports that are necessary to live in a modern society. After all, it is our aboriginal youth we will count on considerably in the years ahead as the labour shortage in this country continues to increase.
I recall before the last election that our then leader and prime minister, the member for LaSalle--Émard, made a commitment to students to pay up to $3,000 per year toward tuition fees. That was a significant offer to Canadian families. Then the election came along and we can debate whether that should have happened. However, I look at this budget and there is nothing for undergraduate students. There is a bit of money for post-grads and that is great, but it only assists about 4,000 students. 
I go back to my comment about the hidden agenda and the fact that this budget has no vision. There is no overarching view of what the future of this country will be like. It is a hodgepodge of small measures designed to attract individual demographic groups within the larger society. I do not begrudge that there are certain small measures that are important to some people in the budget, and that is great for them, but even they would agree that the government should have a vision with its budget. It should have an overarching idea of where the country is going.
When we were in office great progress was being made with respect to research and development and post-secondary education. We were making sure that our best minds could do research and network with the best minds around the world. It seems that we are now taking backward steps. We must take care of the fundamentals of education. If I could speak to each of my colleagues here one on one, I doubt anyone would disagree that education is the basis of all that we do not only in our personal lives, but as a nation.
I was very disappointed to see the lack of any grand vision when it came to education and productivity for this nation. We are competing in a world that is advancing rapidly. It is our duty to make sure every day that not only individual Canadians but our nation together keeps up and demonstrates the leadership that Canada has become known for around the world.
There are about 55 small communities in my large riding of 110,000 square kilometres. The leadership of these small communities, mayors, reeves, chiefs, are all struggling to maintain the basic infrastructure of their communities. 
I know the budget mentioned a short term commitment to share the gas tax with municipalities, unlike the leader of my own party who said that commitment will be an indefinite commitment. Some off my colleagues who have been here since 1993 will remember that when the previous Liberal government brought out a municipal-provincial-federal infrastructure program there was tremendous resistance from the then Reform Party and later Alliance Party. In fact, MPs from those parties would not even participate in local ceremonies to launch infrastructure projects. They were dead set against infrastructure.
I know the Conservative Party is the current metamorphosis of the original Reform and Alliance Parties, but the genes of the Reform and Alliance Parties are still present and we still see a lack of real commitment to local governments. 
When the Liberal government was first elected in 1993, one of the first commitments we made was to help local governments improve roads, sewer and water systems and so on because we understood that there was an infrastructure deficit in the country at the local level and that the federal government had to take its share.
It is not only local infrastructure. Where is the grand vision when it comes to those nation building projects that Canada needs to address? If there is one that stands out among others, it is the whole issue of climate change. If there is a national project, indeed, an international project, that requires our very best efforts, it is climate change. 
I am very pleased that my colleagues in this party and the opposition parties have been able to craft a renewed Bill C-30 which I believe will move the standards quite considerably when it comes to Canada's responsibilities in the world with respect to climate change.
I will now talk about northern Ontario in general. Northern Ontario, like other regional rural parts of the country, is experiencing a population loss. It is not difficult to explain. Families are not as big as they used to be. Our population growth, and happily so, is made up of fine new Canadians who come from all parts of the world to our country. At the same time, it is important to remember that it is from the rural areas from which Canada was first built. If we forget where we came from, we will soon forget where we are going.
It is very important that the present government and any future government, whether it is my party or another, take measures to ensure the strength and vitality of rural Canada, whether it is through immigration measures or supporting programs like FedNor. As much as the government might say one thing about FedNor, one thing we know for sure is that there was a cut in the total funding for FedNor. 
FedNor, by the way, for those who are not aware, is the federal economic development agency for northern Ontario, an agency which we were very happy, through the years 1993 to 2006, to support and to in fact increase and grow the funding and supports for.
FedNor needs to be further supported. We need to increase the funding for FedNor, as we need to do for the other regional economic development programs in the Atlantic, west Quebec and so on. I referred to the genetic predisposition against municipal infrastructure support from the federal government. That also exists when it comes to economic development. If anyone has old copies of the Reform and Alliance platform documents, it is explicit that they do not support regional economic development programs. 
One cannot change one's genes. Some may try but they cannot do it. Either the government owns up to what it really believes about economic development or it can keep trying to fool the country for another little while.
I will conclude by saying that I still have constituents in my riding, some of the older ones, who refer to the Diefenbaker times and the fact that it has usually been Conservative governments that have put us into deficit. 
When we came to office in 1993, we had to deal with a huge $42 billion deficit and, with the help of Canadians, that deficit was slain which put the country in the enviable position of having surpluses that could then be invested in health care, infrastructure, education and so on.
My constituents may not for the most part really think tax cuts are the most important thing that we should be doing. I am not against appropriate tax cuts targeted to the poor and middle income Canadians but these shotgun blast tax cuts, like we have with the GST, do not really do anything positive. With that kind of an attitude and the $10 billion in new spending in the last budget, which one of my colleagues mentioned, I am really worried that we will be going back into deficits. It will only take some kind of calamity to cause that unfortunate time to reappear. It would not be any surprise to see this happen under--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I work together on the veterans affairs committee and he knows very well, as he has been a long time member of this chamber, that when the Conservatives were in opposition they always mentioned the fact that when motions are passed by the House that should express the will of government in its financial statements and in everything else.
The hon. member knows very well that we passed a motion in the House recently that would assist widows, widowers and veterans themselves. In a couple of cases, the VIP, which he knows was promised to Joyce Carter, a lady from St. Peter's, Cape Breton, in a letter written on behalf of the then opposition leader, saying that if the Conservatives formed a government they would immediately bring in the VIP for all widows and widowers of veterans, regardless of the time of death.
That was almost 16 months ago now and we are still waiting. If the government is going to deliberately mislead widows of veterans, who else is it going to mislead in the country? It has easily mislead Atlantic Canada on the accords, for example. It is quite despicable that the leader of our country, in previous opposition times, can have a letter which deliberately misleads a widow of a veteran.
The budget did not even mention the VIP for widows of veterans, even though it was a motion passed in the House. 
Does my hon. colleague, who is also on the veterans affairs committee, not find it despicable that a government, with a $14.2 billion surplus, cannot find a couple of hundred million dollars out of that, less than 2% of the total budget, to assist all widows and widowers of veterans who helped serve our country so greatly in its time of need?
[Interjection]
Brent St. Denis: Mr. Speaker, both my colleague from Nova Scotia and I are vice-chairs of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Indeed, the motion to which he referred was passed in the House. It was a motion that really underlined the current government's promise made during the election.
I almost wish I could have Premier Danny Williams of Newfoundland and Labrador in my place right now to maybe answer his question about things said during elections and things being done now. If I could not have him in my place, maybe I could have somebody representing the modest income families that had their life savings in income trusts. I guess the list could go on.
It is indeed unfortunate, as my colleague said, that the budget did not mention one word about the VIP for widows of veterans.
The member does great work on the committee and he is one of the House's finest advocates for veterans. I concur with him. I think it is, I will choose my words carefully, extremely unfortunate that that campaign commitment has not been kept.
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I noted that when the member made his intervention he said that the government does not have a plan. I guess he missed the fall update when the government brought out its advantage Canada economic plan for a strong future for Canada, to give Canada a tax advantage, a fiscal advantage, an infrastructure advantage, a knowledge advantage and an advantage in less red tape for our businesses.
The member also criticized the GST but one of his own members, the member for Halton, said that the GST would actually put more money into the pockets of low income Canadians.
I sometimes wonder how members opposite can look themselves in the mirror when they blindly follow orders from their leader to trash a budget that is so good for Canada, that follows a clear economic plan and that will build a strong future for our country. How can they look themselves in the mirror and follow those kinds of orders?

Statements By Members
Battle of Vimy RidgeMr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on April 9, students from my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound will be among the 10,000 people attending the 90th anniversary ceremonies of the battle at Vimy Ridge.
Students from Meaford and Chesley high schools and OSCVI and West Hill high schools in Owen Sound have been researching soldiers from the area who fought in the war. While in Vimy they will be visiting the graves of those soldiers. 
While at the ceremony they will hear a song called Vimy, written and performed by an internationally renowned local band called Tanglefoot. Steve and Rob Ritchie, the writers of the song, like myself, were raised in the small farming community of Clavering, Ontario. They are thrilled to be playing their song in recognition of our country's greatest military achievement.
I have no doubt that the students from these four schools and Tanglefoot will be great ambassadors for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and, indeed, Canada as they attend this historic event.
May we never forget the sacrifices of our soldiers.
Lana HamiltonMr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today with deep sorrow to mark the passing of one of the West Island of Montreal's most wonderful and engaging citizens. 
When Lana de Liamchin Hamilton passed away in early March of this year, I, like all those who knew her, felt a mixture of sadness and humble admiration for a woman whose tenacity and generosity of spirit continually inspired others to meet the challenges of life head on. 
When Lana was diagnosed with cancer over six years ago, she was given only six months to live. However, succumbing to such depressing news just was not Lana's style. Over the next six years she delighted in proving the doctors wrong. Even amid the most difficult moments of her illness, she was a relentless force of kindness and youthful vitality.
Of all the things we will remember about Lana, of all the things we will miss, it is her tenacity and boundless faith that will leave the greatest absence in our hearts. However, we are all immeasurably better for having known her. In the years to come, our memories of Lana's warmth and determination will continue to live on.
Grands Prix du tourisme québécoisMr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a number of agencies in the Saguenay were rewarded on March 24 at the 22nd regional Grands Prix du tourisme québécois awards. The regional winners who received honours include: the Festival International des Rythmes du Monde; the Saguenay Musée du Fjord; Parc Aventures Cap Jaseux; Auberge des Battures in Saguenay; the Domaine du Lac Ha ! Ha!; and Promotion Saguenay. These recipients won a prize for their distinction in tourism in their respective categories. 
I want to acknowledge in particular the contribution of Cindy Gagnon from the Auberge de la Grande-Baie in Saguenay, who was honoured in the “young tourism talent” category.
I salute the excellence of the artisans from the riding of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord and the 41 finalists from the entire Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area, who attract thousands of tourists every year and who are part of our regional heritage.
Carmel BélangerMr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, New Democrats across the country are mourning the death of Carmel Bélanger.
For more than a quarter century, Carmel was the centre of NDP activity, first as an assistant to former leader Ed Broadbent and later as the heart and soul of the NDP's national office in Ottawa. I worked with her for five of those years.
As administrative secretary, Carmel ensured that the whirlwind of NDP activity, council meetings, national conventions at all levels brought effective results.
Carmel served four federal leaders of our party. She was cheerful even in the most intense and stressful situations, always joyful and always calm. Carmel brought her wit and humour into play to defuse tension. She was family.
Our thoughts and prayers go out to her family, her husband Shawn and their son Kyle, who were by her side on Wednesday when she passed away at the young age of 49.
New Democrats will continue her hard work for social democracy and social justice in Canada. She will be sorely missed.
World Aquatic ChampionshipsMr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to congratulate Brent Hayden of Mission, British Columbia for his history making first place finish in the men's 100 metre freestyle at the World Aquatic Championships in Melbourne, Australia.
Yesterday Brent made history. It has been 21 years since a Canadian placed gold at the World Aquatic Championships. His hard fought 48.43 second two-lap sprint broke his own Canadians record, one of four Canadian records broken at the world championships. His victory yesterday was also the world championships' first ever dead heat for gold. Brent, together with the defending world champion, touched the wall in a dramatic, synchronized first place finish.
Canadian athletes are reaching the top of international podiums. Our amateur athletes are champions, and with the continued support of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, they will shine at the Beijing Summer Games in 2008.
I ask the House to join me in congratulating Brent Hayden on an amazing gold finish and on making sports history on the world stage.
Canadian Cancer SocietyMr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, April 1 marks the beginning of two major annual fundraising campaigns for the Canadian Cancer Society: the Residential Campaign and Daffodil Month.
Volunteers across the country will be knocking on the doors of Canadians, inviting them to participate in the fight against cancer. An estimated 153,000 new cases of cancer and 70,000 deaths from cancer occurred in Canada during 2006. 
On the basis of current incidence rates, 38% of Canadian women and 44% of men will develop cancer during their lifetimes. On the basis of current mortality rates, one out of every four Canadians will die from cancer. These figures are astonishing and should sound the alarm for Canadians to join the fight against this major killer. 
Thanks to the generosity of donors and the work of volunteers like Linda Paternostro, Vince Lombardi and Rina Camarra in York Centre and York South—Weston, the Canadian Cancer Society is actively preventing cancer and working toward a cure.
With the help and generosity of Canadians, we can make cancer history.
Official LanguagesMrs. Sylvie Boucher (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week, the Government of Canada brought down an historic budget that addresses, in particular, the needs expressed by official language minority communities.
The Minister of Finance, showing his unequivocal support, increased the funding for linguistic duality and official language minority communities for the next two years by $30 million. This new funding comes in addition to the envelopes already budgeted.
This additional funding has been allocated for after- school and cultural activities and for community centres, and will help enhance the benefits related to linguistic duality for children, such as exchanges and programs.
This good news was received warmly by our partners in the official language minority communities, such as the FCFA. That is what it means to have a modern and dynamic vision of Canada's Francophonie and official languages. That is our true Canada.
Quebec Meals on Wheels WeekMs. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, March 18 to 24 marked the second annual Meals on Wheels Week in Quebec, and this year's theme was “Du coeur au ventre depuis plus de 40 ans”, or “Food from the heart, for over 40 years”.
This event serves to raise awareness about the meals on wheels program and the very important role it plays in the lives of seniors. Every day, across Quebec, hundreds of volunteers, a vast majority of whom are older women, give freely of their time to prepare hot meals and deliver them to the homes of people with disabilities, or who are going through a period of mourning, difficulty or distress.
A number of activities were held throughout the week to highlight the dedication of these volunteers. Activities included meal deliveries by local celebrities, free community meals, musical performances and an open house.
I would like to congratulate the Meals on Wheels organization in Laval and the 10 meals on wheels volunteers in the Laval area for their invaluable work and passionate commitment.
Battle of Vimy RidgeMr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on April 9, Canadians will commemorate the 90th anniversary of the battle of Vimy Ridge. 
I rise today to salute the students of Ottawa—Orléans and the 5,000 students from across Canada travelling to France next week.
Together, they will remember Canada's victory, which was the successful capture of Vimy Ridge, in a struggle for peace, liberty and hope.
Each student has prepared a personal tribute to honour one of our fallen soldiers. Most victims were close in age to the student doing the research and for some, even relatives. For all, it has been a very moving experience.
We are proud of our brave soldiers and of the young Canadians who will follow in the footsteps of the 3,598 who died on Vimy Ridge, where Canada earned its face in the world stage as a nation.
European UnionMr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on March 27, 1957, six countries signed the Treaty of Rome, beginning what we call now the European Union.
After centuries of conflict and competition between the great nations of Europe, the Treaty of Rome marked a commitment by European people to work together for their mutual benefit and that of the rest of the world. From those humble beginnings in 1957, the European Union now has 27 member states, 500 million citizens, a unified currency, shared cultural programs, unified agricultural policies and the list goes on.
I am pleased to offer to the member states of the European Union, as well as those who worked so hard to create it, the sincerest congratulations of this House for 50 years of peace, increased prosperity and historic cooperation.
Human RightsMr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw the attention of the House to a disturbing development in the Social Republic of Vietnam where an innocent man is about to face prosecution for exercising his basic religious and political freedoms. 
Father Nguyen Van Ly, a Vietnamese Roman Catholic priest, was previously sentenced to more than a decade in prison for giving candid testimony to a subcommittee of the United States Congress on the dire human rights situation in Vietnam. Later this month he will again stand in the dock on yet more fabricated charges.
The situation for political reformers and dissidents in Vietnam is dire, with opponents of the regime being routinely rounded up, imprisoned and denied the basic right of due process. Religious minorities are being persecuted for their beliefs. Father Ly is the latest victim of this. 
I call upon the Vietnamese government to allow independent foreign observers to monitor Father Ly's trial and to allow Father Ly to choose his own attorney.
The government in Saigon needs to respect fundamental freedoms. Canada's new government will always stand on the side of human rights and freedoms, and it will do so proudly.
Ransom MyersPeter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness I bring to the attention of the House the loss of one of Canada's greatest world renowned advocates for biodiversity and conservation of ocean life. Dr. Ransom Myers recently passed away of cancer at the age of 54. He is survived by his wife, Rita and five children.
Dr. Myers was born in the United States, but came to Canada. He became instantly known as an advocate for conservation and all aquatic life in the oceans, not just off Canada's coast but around the world.
He sounded the alarm with other scientists about the upcoming cod collapse prior to 1992. He has raised alarms on all kinds of species throughout the entire world. His work will carry on, although his voice now remains silent.
On behalf of all of us in the House of Commons, we extend our sincere condolences to the family, to all his friends, to everybody at Dalhousie University and to the thousands of students whose lives he touched.
Dr. Ransom Myers was indeed a wonderful and kind human being.
Grands Prix du Tourisme de l'OutaouaisMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, I was delighted to participate in the 22nd annual Grands Prix du Tourisme de l'Outaouais gala.
I would like to congratulate the evening's honorees: the Keskinada Loppet, the Théâtre des Quatre Soeurs, the Wakefield Mill Inn and Spa, Les Suites Victoria, À l'Orée du Moulin, the Cabines de la Chute, Parc Leslie Campground, the Penstock restaurant at the Wakefield Mill Inn and Spa, the Clos Baillie Vineyard, the Gatineau Hot Air Balloon Festival, the Canadian Ski Marathon, the Forêt de l'Aigle Management Corporation, Le Nordik-Nature Spa, Khewa, Réservation Outaouais, Annie Spooner at the Casino du Lac-Leamy Sound of Light, Renaude Poirier of Laflèche Adventure, Marie-Blanche Spearson at the Auberge Restaurant Viceroy and Pierre Normandin, who received the 2007 personality of the year award. 
My sincere congratulations to these people, who will represent the Outaouais at the Grands Prix du tourisme québécois gala on May 4. 
Annette Paiement BrassardMr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on March 7, Annette Paiement Brassard of Gatineau celebrated her 100th birthday. Mrs. Paiement Brassard was born to a large family and, with her late husband Alfred Brassard, founded her own family of three children, Suzanne, Denise and Claude.
In addition to being an exemplary mother, she worked at the Canadian International Paper mill cafeteria in Gatineau, as well as at the Pogan, Bryson and Rapide Farmer factories in the Outaouais. Mrs. Paiement Brassard was active in her community as a member of St. Vincent de Paul and the Daughters of Isabella and as a founding member of the Anneau d'or club.
Mrs. Paiement Brassard is very good at cards, an experienced gardener, and an excellent cook known for her succulent strawberry jam. She is much appreciated by her family members and the residents of the Champlain seniors' home in Gatineau. 
The Bloc Québécois and I wish her a happy 100th birthday.
Hockey Night in CanadaMr. Todd Russell (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week Canadians got great news, in particular, those Canadians who love two great national institutions, hockey and the CBC.
On Monday the National Hockey League announced that it renewed its relationship with Canada's national television network, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The deal will keep Hockey Night in Canada on the air through to 2014, and I, for one, along with many others, am thrilled. 
For 56 years, Canadians from coast to coast to coast have tuned into the CBC to watch the greatest game on earth. It goes beyond sports. It is part of our culture. It is part of who we are.
On behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House, let me congratulate the NHL, the CBC and hockey fans everywhere. Hockey Night in Canada is alive and well and where it belongs, on the CBC.
The BudgetMr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader was complaining again yesterday about our 2007 budget.
Let us look at just some of what he claims is unfair: $39 billion in new funding for health, education and infrastructure to restore the fiscal balance; $4.5 billion to clean up Canada's air and water, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change; cutting taxes for 3 million families with a new $2,000 tax credit for every child under 18; a working income tax benefit to help 1.2 million people over the welfare wall; a tax fairness plan that reduces taxes for seniors by more than $1 billion every year; and $1 billion for the Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor initiative.
Our budget cuts taxes for working families, pays down the nation's debt, and invests in the priorities of Canadians. That is much better than fair. That is simply awesome.

Oral Questions
Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceHon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when asked about the serious allegations concerning the RCMP pension fund, the Minister of Public Safety simply stated that he will appoint an investigator, and this comes after having done nothing for four months. There is nothing, absolutely nothing in yesterday's comments by the minister to reassure Canadians that he is finally taking the accusations seriously. He said nothing about the legal framework for the investigation or about the powers of the investigator to question witnesses.
Faced with such a serious situation, why is the minister improvising? The process he has put in place lacks credibility.
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this government is concerned about the allegations made before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts regarding the poor management and abuses of the RCMP pension fund. That is why our government is taking immediate action to shed light on the matter. Public investigations will complement our understanding.
Canada's new government wants answers now. Canadians deserve nothing less.
Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. It was the Auditor General who raised the alarm about the situation within the RCMP in her November 2006 report.
As is always the case, the minister would have received a briefing by the Auditor General before the release of her report. That means the public safety minister has known since November.
Why the cover-up? Why did the  public safety minister do nothing until he was forced to finally act?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, this is actually a little amusing coming from the Liberal Party. It was actually back in April 2004 when the member for Crowfoot, a Conservative, asked that this matter be investigated and said:
 My question is for the Minister of Public Safety. Are the Ottawa police investigating the commissioner's conduct as well as the misappropriation of funds? 
To which the deputy prime minister and minister of public safety at the time, who was a Liberal, said:
 Mr. Speaker, let me reassure everyone in the House that there is no conduct on the part of the commissioner that needs to be investigated. 
If there was a cover-up, if there was a delay, it came from the Liberal side obviously.
Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, the cover-up started in November under the Conservative government. Let us be clear here.
The allegations we are now hearing were detailed in a report by the Auditor General. Traditionally, the Auditor General meets with the Minister of Public Safety to provide him with the details. At the time, she stated that she did not have all the facts to substantiate all the allegations made.
Why is it that, when the minister was told directly—
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has the floor.
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the allegations cover abuses committed between 2000 and 2005. The former Liberal government was incapable of dealing with it but we will take things in hand.
In fact, it is kind of funny. I was listening to the radio today and I heard a Liberal complaining that perhaps we are taking action too fast, we are going to get answers too quickly and, gosh, guess what, it might happen before or during an election that the truth comes out. It was thought that was a bad thing for the Liberals.
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been witness to shocking testimony from RCMP officials, not just about misuse of pension funds but allegations of corruption and cover-up, intimidation and obstruction of justice, fraud and breach of trust, investigations sidelined and investigators punished.
The Minister of Public Safety was advised of this four months ago. Why did it not set off alarm bells at the time? Why now only a limited investigation? Why no independent judicial commission of inquiry to finally get at the truth in the transparent and accountable fashion that the new government always speaks about?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I think there were six questions and four declarations. I will try in 35 seconds to address them.
We want to get to the answers right away. We do not want to wait. The RCMP has the right to know and the people of Canada have a right to know.
We should also be aware that RCMP Chief Superintendent Fraser Macaulay, who testified and was one of those people who bravely brought forward the information just a couple days ago that we are acting on immediately, unlike the Liberals, said that he was pleased that an independent investigator will look into the allegations and believed that interim RCMP Commissioner Bev Busson was taking the matter seriously as well. He felt satisfied the matter will be independently investigated.
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that he wants to get at the answers right away. How does he get at the answers when he does not set up an independent judicial commission of inquiry? How does he get at the answers when there are no compellable powers? How does he get at the answers when he cannot subpoena witnesses or subpoena evidence?
If he wants to get at the answers then he has to set up an independent commission of inquiry to leave no stones unturned and to get at the truth, as we did when we set up commissions of inquiry both in Arar and with respect to Gomery.
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, the last time the Liberals set up an inquiry like this, it took years to get the answers. We want the answers right away and we can get them.
If the investigator finds that he is not getting the answers and that he needs more power, that will be given to him immediately.
My question is: When that member who just indignantly raised these questions, why when he was justice minister, did he do nothing on this file?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Deputy Speaker: I know it would have been too much to have asked the House to give up yelling and screaming for Lent, but there is only one day left before the Easter break. Perhaps we could just give it up for this one question period.
The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.
National DefenceMs. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to a recent annual report from the Pentagon, the C-130J aircraft, which the government is planning to purchase to replace its Hercules fleet, would be ineffective for operations in dangerous environments, and in some extreme weather conditions, the aircraft would not even be able to airdrop soldiers or materials.
Why is the government so bent on purchasing an aircraft that a number of reports claim is unreliable and poorly adapted to the missions for which it is intended?
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, as members know, our government is committed to rebuilding the armed forces. One of those rebuilds is the tactical air fleet. 
The C-130J has been selected and it is being used by five countries at the moment. In fact, the United States is increasing its purchases of C-130Js. We believe it will meet the military's requirements.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, this aircraft's problems are so numerous that the Pentagon even looked into dropping it because none of the 50 aircraft it had acquired between 1996 and 2004 were able to enter combat zones.
How can the government justify spending $4.9 billion for an aircraft that, according to experts, cannot do its job?
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, the new secretary of defence in the United States in fact has decided to acquire more C-130Js. The Americans are increasing their fleet because they have faith in the aircraft.
Aerospace IndustryThierry St-Cyr: Mr. Speaker, the government's entire approach to procurement is quite flawed. First it was submarines taking on water, then it was military planes unable to perform the tasks they were intended to do, and now it is untendered contracts, like the contract awarded to Boeing without requiring over 55% in economic spinoffs for Quebec.
Does the government not think it is high time to review its procurement policy?
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the announced defence procurements will ensure that Canadian troops have the equipment they need to do their job at home or abroad.
The industrial benefits from these procurements will ensure a dollar spent on procurement will be a dollar spent right here in Canada. 
Canada's new government will not tell contractors whom to work with. Contractors have many competent Canadian R and D companies to choose from.
Thierry St-Cyr: Mr. Speaker, an American expert who appeared before the Standing Committee on National Defence argued that governments are entitled to impose conditions on suppliers as far as regional spinoffs are concerned. Canada is getting ready to sign aerospace military contracts to the tune of $9.6 billion in the next few years.
Will the government meet the expectations of the Quebec Aerospace Association, which wants more than 55% of the spinoffs from the aerospace military contracts to go to Quebec?
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, faulty submarines, ancient helicopters and Hercs, and rented transport planes are not good long term options. For too long we have lived off the good graces and the hand-me-downs of our allies. There comes a time when one has to step up to one's commitments and responsibilities. Only in times of crisis, with the world watching, did that occur in the last government.
 This government is standing up for our forces and giving them the tools they need to do their jobs, the jobs we ask of them, and I am proud that I am part of a government that recognizes this.
Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceMr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Safety and national security. The rank and file officers of the RCMP deserve a full airing of problems at the top of the force and into the misuse of their hard-earned pension funds. 
The least the government should do is call a full commission of inquiry under the Inquiries Act. Why has the minister chosen a closed door process with no parliamentary accountability? Why?
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have indicated clearly that the full report will be fully public. It will be delivered to me and to the Treasury Board president publicly so that everybody will see what goes on.
We want to find out immediately what took place. A full public inquiry, which we have not said an absolute no to, would take possibly a number of years to get the answers that members need to get so quickly and so desperately. I have also indicated that if the person who heads up this particular investigation runs into any problems--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh.
Joe Comartin: I do not think the minister gets it, Mr. Speaker. The reputation of the RCMP has to be rehabilitated. It is not going to be when one institutes a process that will not allow one to subpoena witnesses. The process will not offer protection to the witnesses from civil suits or the Privacy Act. It is not going to be held in public and it will not report directly to Parliament. It will go through the hands of the minister.
The former Liberal government messed this one up really badly. Why is this government going down the same road?
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, my friend is on the exact point I have made: the former Liberal government did mess up these situations very badly.
 We want to get to the truth.
Officers came forward, with great courage, to allege some very serious things. We can get answers to that from the RCMP because the commissioner has also agreed with me that all officers will be required to come forward and testify. If the investigator runs into anybody who is trying to put up roadblocks, we will make sure that all the necessary powers, even though it will take longer, will be provided.
The BudgetMr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan are all calling this budget a betrayal. Nova Scotia is threatening legal action. The Conservative premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is urging Canadians to support any party except the federal Conservatives.
The federal-provincial harmony predicted by the finance minister has gone up in flames. Why has the government presented a divisive budget of betrayal that rewards so few and severely punishes so many more?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as is so often the case with member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, nothing could be further from the truth. This budget was extremely good news for Atlantic Canada. It creates an ability now for the governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to do so much more with the additional money that has been given to them.
As well, there is the option that they have with respect to embracing the Atlantic accord now or in fact taking more money. As I have said many times in this place, they can take more money, which is good for the province, or even more, which is provided by this budget.
 That is all good news. I do not understand why the member from Nova Scotia, as he did in the previous case, is advocating for less money for his province.
Michael Savage: Mr. Speaker, there is a lot the minister does not understand.
In the last federal election, Conservatives misled Canadians when they said they would “stand up for Canada”. Today Canadians are urging their Conservative MPs to stand up indeed, to stand up for those who send them here on Monday morning with a message, not those who send them home on Friday night with talking points. 
They are saying to stand up for the Atlantic accord, stand up for honesty and stand up for keeping promises and a brighter future. They are saying to stand up now or sit down when the next federal election is called. When will the government start listening and honouring its commitments?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Conservative caucus and Conservative cabinet stand up every day for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, in fact so much so that we have been able to deliver so much more.
The misrepresentations and mistruths that constantly come from the lips of the member opposite will do nothing for the people of his province. He should be trying to embrace these new programs, work with his constituency and work with this government to try to deliver more of these programs effectively, rather than the ineffective Scrooge-like approach that was taken by his government.
IndustryHon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on February 23 in a speech in New York, the industry minister indicated that he supports loosening foreign ownership restrictions on Canadian telcos.
Will the minister complete his promised thorough review of foreign ownership restrictions before he sells out Canadian telcos to barbarians at the gate?
 Will the minister assure Canadians that our foreign ownership policy will be made in Canada by Canadian legislators and not on Wall Street by U.S. investors?
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, we are considering a range of possibilities with regard to Canada's foreign investment policy. Canada needs to be a modern and efficient trading nation for our future prosperity. The aim is to maximize the benefits of foreign investment for Canadians while protecting national interests.
 Advantage Canada highlights our priority to foster a competitive environment that helps businesses strive for excellence. A modern approach to foreign investment will help position Canada as the destination of choice for investment and business in the future.
The BudgetScott Brison: Mr. Speaker, Nancy Hughes Anthony, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said this about the budget:
 We don't see any broad-based tax relief...The government promised that they were going to make Canada more competitive and control spending and...they broke that promise.... 
When will the government introduce major tax reform to build competitiveness for the next generation instead of tiny tax tinkering designed to buy votes in the next election?
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, only a Liberal under orders from his leader to trash the budget could call $37.8 billion in tax relief for Canadians over this and the next two years “tiny tinkering”. In fact, Canadians know that under this government they are finally going to get the tax relief that they deserve and need and that will help them and their families save and invest for the future: $37 billion-plus in tax relief.
Agriculture and Agri-foodMs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Ontario-Quebec Grain Farmers' Coalition has developed some solutions to address the farm income crisis, such as funding provincial companion programs, thereby allowing some regional flexibility in order to meet the specific and unique needs of producers from various regions. For the past four years, the government has spent $1 billion a year on special programs for specific needs.
Why does the government not put part of that money into companion programs, as called for by the Ontario-Quebec Grain Farmers' Coalition?
Hon. Christian Paradis (Secretary of State (Agriculture), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that the government announced no less than $400 million, which will be paid to Canadian farmers to help them face the increasing costs of production. That is something tangible. We are pleased that the Bloc supports us on this, so that our farmers can receive their cheque as soon as possible.
Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, Laurent Pellerin, the president of the UPA, said, "In order to offset the effects of the American Farm Bill, there is no question that the federal government must provide the funding needed for companion programs, which would apply based on the needs of various regions". 
Why does the minister insist on taking a one size fits all approach, when the current risk management programs are inadequate?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. We have to start at the root of the problem. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, in concert with the Minister of International Trade, called for WTO negotiations specifically to put an end to Farm Bill subsidies, which are creating market distortions. In addition to that, we are replacing the CAIS with programs that are much better suited and much more acceptable to farmers. Furthermore, $2 billion was announced in budget 2007, specifically to give grain farmers new opportunities in the area of ethanol. This was very welcome news.
Transport CanadaMs. Louise Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government claims it has nothing to hide. The Minister of Transport makes nice speeches about transparency, but his department is obstructing the Auditor General's work by demanding that all of the information she receives be filtered beforehand. This directive was implemented by a Transport Canada director who, a few weeks ago, tried to intimidate potential witnesses who were about to criticize the airline safety bill. 
Why is the Minister of Transport tolerating actions like these that violate the spirit of the Accountability Act?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our hon. colleague for her question. I can tell the member that I am aware of this information and I can assure her that Transport Canada is complying with all requirements of the Office of the Auditor General.
Louise Thibault: Mr. Speaker, I believe a supplementary question is necessary because the minister did not answer the first one. According to Transport Canada's directive, public servants must confirm with the quality director that the Auditor General's request is valid. 
Can the minister explain the circumstances under which a request by the Auditor General would not be valid and legitimate? Why is the minister trying to gag the Auditor General?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I will say it again to be very clear. We will comply with all of the requirements of the Office of the Auditor General, and I have given instructions for that to happen.
The EnvironmentMr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has now seen the amended version of Bill C-30, which passed in legislative committee just yesterday.
Bill C-30 will be reported to the House later today. My question is simple and straightforward. Will the minister abide by the will of the committee, the will of this House, and move to adopt the clean air and climate change act as soon as possible?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the bill that will be reported back later today is certainly one that we are prepared to read, to have our lawyers look at and to have discussions on with my colleagues.
I am concerned with respect to certain language that has been written into the bill. One of the member's own caucus colleagues said, “We're so far behind now” in meeting our Kyoto commitments “that catch-up is impossible, without shutting the country down”. This is not a quote from 10 years ago. This is a quote from about eight weeks ago from the Liberal member for Halton. Maybe the member can tell us whether he agrees with it.
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, the retrofitted clean air act includes a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. It has targets. It has timelines. It has a clear framework for action. It brings Canada to the forefront of international trading, it ensures investments in clean technologies right here at home, and it outlaws hot air.
Will the minister get the job done and pass the clean air act in the House before the end of April?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, this government has a comprehensive plan to fight climate change, and we are actually doing action, not just talking. The member's own deputy leader said his leader just did not get the job done, and this is a member who this week voted against a budget containing substantial funding to help fight climate change.
Let us look at what one of my good friends said about the budget and some of the announcements contained in it. He said that the environmental announcements contained in the budget were “a great day for hard-working Ontario families”.
 Does the hon. member know which friend of mine said that? Dalton McGuinty.
Mr. Pablo Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for weeks the Prime Minister has been saying that he will soon announce his so-called made in Canada plan for greenhouse gas emissions, including all of the targets, but Canadians are still waiting, and waiting, and waiting.
Even more disturbing is the fact that the government kept its plan secret and refused to include it as part of the rewrite of Bill C-30. Why has the Prime Minister shown Parliament so much contempt? Does he think the work of the committee is beneath him?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the hard work of all members of the committee who considered Bill C-30 at this stage, before it even had been debated in the House.
We are moving forward with a comprehensive climate change action plan. We have come forward with initiatives for the first time to provide funding for the provinces in our ecotrust announcement. That is something the Liberals voted against. We came forward with some strong initiatives on eco-transportation. The Liberals voted against it.
We came forward with substantial investments in our budget, with $4.5 billion of new funding for the first time for a comprehensive plan to fight climate change, and the Liberal Party has voted against it again.
Pablo Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, just because he is speaking does not mean that he has something to say.
The Prime Minister fought all attempts by both Houses to take concrete action on climate change. He refuses to make any announcements about his plan for tackling global warming. Why? Because he does not have one. In fact, the actions of the Prime Minister are nothing more than a sad show and his ministers are just puppets.
This government is incapable of even establishing one objective. It is incapable of doing anything. On this very day, why not adopt and support its own bill—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of the Environment has the floor.
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite must be rather concerned because, after his own private member's bill cleared the House of Commons, his own leader usurped him presenting his sixth plan for climate change.
We have been rolling out initiatives to fight climate change, part components of our major plan. I was pleased to be in Quebec to announce funding to help the Quebec government implement its plan to fight climate change. I was also pleased to be in Toronto where we announced funding for Ontario.
I want to tell the member what the Ontario premier said. He said, “Today's announcement is good news for Ontario's economy and the environment and a great example”--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park.
Federal Accountability ActMr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians have a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent. 
Last December, the government passed a Federal Accountability Act which included changes to the Access to Information Act that make government more open. Canadians were glad to hear that some of these changes will take effect on April 1. 
Would the President of the Treasury Board now tell the House when crown corporations will also become transparent to Canadians?
Hon. Vic Toews (President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell the House that on September 1, the Access to Information Act will apply to all crown corporations, including Canada Post and the CBC.
When it comes down to this, it is Canadians' money they are spending and it is only right that Canadians know how it is being used.
I would also like to note that we are bringing into force the Public Service Disclosure Protection Act on April 15. People who see problems in government need to know that they can speak up. Today's announcement means that whistleblowers can honestly and openly report government wrongdoing without fear of reprisal.
Electoral ReformMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, many people are raising questions about the so-called consultation process on electoral reform. The minister stood in the House and said that these consultations were designed to avoid special interest groups and involve a cross-section of Canadians.
Those were nice words but this week we learned that special interest groups were in fact being contacted to participate in the consultations. This is not the open process promised. It is just another broken promise.
What action will the minister take to repair the damage to the process so that it is genuinely open, transparent and fair?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, this was an unacceptable situation. The subcontractor, whose work was in question, was not authorized and has been terminated.
The consultations will continue. We have a panel in place that will ensure that the methodology is acceptable. I look forward to receiving the report in the summer.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but that is just not good enough. Democratic reform is about ensuring that every vote Canadians cast is actually fair.
We also have learned that the Frontier Centre has links on its website to stories about how democratic reform is “a fad”, and people like Brian Crowley, on its board, recently appointed to the Department of Finance and a regular donor to the Conservative Party.
One should not need to be a Conservative Party donor to participate in discussions about how to reform our democratic system. 
Will the government cease and desist this tainted process and start over again with a new, non-partisan citizens consultation process?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, this is an entirely independent process and there is absolutely no ideological litmus test. I know the New Democratic Party would like one because they already know the answer. They have a particular prescription they want Canadians to adopt. 
We want to hear what Canadians have to say. We have a robust agenda on democratic reform, including limiting Senate terms to eight years instead of the current potential 45 years, and including consulting Canadians so they can actually tell us who they want to see representing them in the Senate.
We invite the NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois to support us in getting this robust agenda on democratic reform through the House of Commons and the Senate.
Government AppointmentsMs. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bernard Shapiro was always a thorn in the side of the ethically challenged Prime Minister. Everyone remembers how the Prime Minister was loath to cooperate with Mr. Shapiro when he investigated the Prime Minister's conduct on the scandalous floor crossing of the Minister of International Trade.
With a growing number of Conservative scandals, will the government commit that it will not name John Reynolds as their new nominee to be the ethics commissioner while he is under investigation?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I heard the hon. member asking a question about the floor crossing of a minister of human resources in the previous government and how that was dealt with by the Ethics Commissioner, but we want to thank the Ethics Commissioner, Mr. Shapiro, for serving as Canada's Ethics Commissioner. The Government of Canada appreciates Mr. Shapiro's contributions and wishes him all the best in his future endeavours. 
The government intends to move as soon as possible to appoint a new ethics commissioner who is fully qualified and we will submit that for consideration by the House of Commons.
Child CareHon. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont delivered a statement to the House that attacked the executive director of the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada. This attack came exactly one week after Monica Lysack appeared before a Commons committee as a witness. The member used his position as a member of Parliament to attack a Canadian citizen after a committee appearance, knowing she would have no opportunity to defend herself against his statement.
Does the member's outrageous attack really represent the government's position on child care?
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government's position is that Canadians know that their new government is spending more on early learning and child care than any other federal government in history.
We have increased child care transfers to provinces and territories to a total of $1.1 billion. We are listening to the real experts, the parents, who asked for choice in child care. We are delivering it and that party is voting against it.
Veterans AffairsBrent St. Denis: Mr. Speaker, Canada's victory at Vimy was not only a symbol of the emergence of our military excellence, it was a defining moment in our history, a milestone in Canada's coming of age. We are proud that the red ensign flag, under which Canadian troops fought and died during the first world war, will be flown at the Vimy Ridge Memorial.
However, beyond this symbolism, what concrete measures will the government take to support our veterans as they celebrate the 90th anniversary of Vimy and what measures will it take to educate all Canadians about this monumental event in our history?
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, our government is very proud of our veterans and of the contributions they made to our country. Members will note that in the upcoming fiscal year, we will be spending half a billion dollars more on veterans than the previous government spent on veterans. We will continue to improve all the care packages we have for the veterans as we go into the future.
Hon. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament who brought to light the insulting policy that took away the danger pay from our wounded soldiers in Afghanistan just because they had to leave the combat area, there is, I think we will all agree, an inequality that must now be addressed.
Will the Minister of Veterans Affairs act to correct the denial of a lifelong pension to our wounded soldiers who cannot return to active duty and will never earn the necessary years of service to get one due to their injuries?
These soldiers gave their all for Canada and now they are facing the daunting challenge of having to find other employment and have very little to fall back on. 
When will the minister act and do the right thing?
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, this government is committed to looking after its veterans. We will look at each case and, if there is injustice, we will correct the injustice.
International CooperationMrs. Vivian Barbot (Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, the Minister of International Cooperation told the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development that both she and her government believe that the objective of international aid is to provide effective aid and not to increase international aid to 0.7% of GDP, a commitment nevertheless made by Canada. 
Can the minister explain why it seems so difficult for her government to increase international aid and at the same time to ensure that it is effective?
Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would once again remind the House, as we have many times, that it is this new Conservative government that is trying to rebuild the depleted official development assistance budget that the Liberals brought us down to.
We used to be, in the former Conservative government, 0.5% of GNI. The former Liberal government took us down into the low twos. We are trying to rebuild that so we can help the other people who need our help in the rest of the world.
Vivian Barbot: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Minister of International Cooperation that it represents a commitment made to the international community. I would also like to remind her that, in its 2006 election platform, the government indicated that it would substantially increase Canadian aid, even up to the OECD average. There are no signs in the last budget that these commitments will be honoured. A promise is a promise.
The needs are great and expectations high. Why is it so difficult for the minister to provide effective aid and at the same time honour commitments made?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for supporting our budget 2007, which in fact, I will remind this House, provided $900 million to get us to where we have committed to. This new Conservative government has committed to doubling aid by 2010-11.
Aboriginal AffairsMs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, aboriginal groups across the country are wondering why the Conservative budget did nothing for aboriginal people and did nothing to replace the Kelowna accord. 
In a letter to the Winnipeg Free Press, the Minister of Indian Affairs threatened the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs if they participate in a national protest. It is deplorable for the minister to threaten their core funding because they disagree with him. 
Does the minister plan to follow through with his threat or was he just embarrassed that there was no new money in the budget for us?
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, program funding is provided so that valuable services can be delivered on the ground in first nations reserves. The minister was distressed by the thought of moneys meant for basic services needed by women and children on reserve being used for illegal blockades and protest activities.
Government dollars are to be spent in an accountable manner but it is obvious that the member opposite does not share this same view. However, that is not surprising coming from the party responsible for that torrid affair now known as the sponsorship scandal.
IranMr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Iran is currently holding 15 British sailors captive claiming that they trespassed in Iranian waters. However, the U.K. has denied that the crew trespassed. The UN Security Council issued the following statement:
 Members of the Security Council support calls, including by the Secretary-General in his 29 March meeting with the Iranian Foreign Minister, for an early resolution of this problem, including the release of the 15 United Kingdom personnel. 
Would the Minister of Foreign Affairs inform this House what our government's position is on this matter?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, as a result of this, tensions have risen in the region. We have called in the Iranian Chargé d'affaires to express Canada's concern over their actions in seizing British sailors in international waters that were clearly defined as Iraqi waters, not Iranian waters. 
We have called for the immediate release of these sailors. We have expressed our support. The Prime Minister was in direct contact with the British, as was I yesterday after the meeting with the Chargé d'affaires. 
We continue to express support for the British at this time and for the international community for Iran to come in line, not only with the release of these soldiers but also with the request from the UN Security Council that it cease and desist with its nuclear ambitions.
Government FundingPeter Julian: Mr. Speaker, the 2009 World Police and Fire Games were awarded to the lower mainland. This is an important way of supporting the work that firefighters and police officers do in the community every day. 
They asked for a small amount of funding and, despite the fact that the federal gave almost $2 million to the Quebec City games, the government said no, not a penny. Nine Conservative MPs will have events for the games held in their ridings, which just shows how useful a Conservative MP is.
 Why is the government refusing to fund the World Police and Fire Games in B.C.?
Mr. Jim Abbott (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, at this time the government is giving serious consideration to that request.
Peter Julian: Actually, Mr. Speaker, it said no, which raises the question as to why B.C. always comes last for the government. 
B.C. is also suffering from the loss of 700 highly skilled aviation maintenance jobs in Vancouver. Air Canada wants to put those jobs in El Salvador.
 B.C. has been badly hit by the softwood sellout. We have seen thousands of jobs lost. In response, the finance minister says that his Canada does not include B.C.
Will the government take action to save these jobs or will B.C. continue to come last for the government?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, in this federal budget we have record spending of infrastructure dollars into the province of British Columbia. We have increased the Asia-Pacific Gateway up to $1 billion which will dramatically benefit British Columbia.
 My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster should be reminded that every Liberal member of Parliament from the province of British Columbia voted for a separatist motion that would have given 60% of all aerospace dollars to the province of Quebec, punishing British Columbia for innovation, punishing British Columbia's economy and it is bad for British Columbia.
We are standing up for British Columbia and this Conservative government always will. We will do so in every facet of the economy and we will be proud to do so.
The BudgetMr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, three of Canada's largest police organizations publicly rebuked the supposed law and order Conservatives. They are angry at another broken Conservative campaign promise.
The Minister of Public Safety has ignored months of calls from these organizations. 
“It seems like the public safety minister forgot to mention it to the finance minister”, said Mr. Cannavino, President of the Canadian Police Association. There also is no money in the government's budget for new police officers on our streets.
Why has the Prime Minister broken his promise to hire 2,500 more police officers?
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, again the Liberals struggle even bringing forward half the truth. 
I believe it was on Wednesday, apparently a letter was sent to me by the three chiefs of the police associations which they immediately made public. It was a letter asking me to meet with them, which I will certainly do. I have done that in the past already, as I have met with my provincial counterparts, the other ministers of public safety and policing, to talk about their ideas on a cost shared formula for the 2,500 more municipal officers that we have committed will be on the streets of our cities during our mandate. It is a promise we are fulfilling. Work is being done. Consultations have started.
Aboriginal AffairsHarold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, aboriginal companies are a dynamic, growing presence in Canada's economy, with more than 27,000 self-employed Canadians of first nations, Métis and Inuit heritage. According to a survey conducted by Statistics Canada, 13% of these businesses have begun to export their goods and services to other countries.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade tell the House how our government is committed to supporting the growth of these companies?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from the riding of Kitchener—Conestoga for that insightful question.
Our government is focused on encouraging all Canadian companies by helping them to find new opportunities around the world. That is why we have just launched a new aboriginal business and international trade website. This website will be an invaluable tool for aboriginal businesses that will help ventures, especially smaller firms, expand into international markets.
It provides targeted export information for a range of sectors where aboriginal industries are making a significant impact, sectors like tourism, cultural--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.
Foreign AffairsMs. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a Commons committee called on Canada to impose stricter legal, social and ecological standards instead of waiting for voluntary compliance. Following the Commons report, an advisory group representing industry, the unions, NGOs and experts is also asking that Canadian mining companies respect the rights of the people in the poor countries in which they are conducting their business.
Canada's record is pitiful, even though, according to this advisory group, it should be the international leader in this area. What is the government waiting for to make sure these standards are respected? 
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, Canada has been a leader in this and so many other areas. This particular issue is one which we have been following closely for some time. We will continue to work with those interested groups, those who express concerns about human rights, particularly as they pertain to the workforce.
I appreciate the hon. member's interest in this particular area and her support for Canada to continue to provide the necessary input and the necessary action to improve the working conditions of those individuals.
Veterans AffairsPeter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Conservative Party that I also have a friend and she is an 81-year-old widow from St. Peter's, Cape Breton. She was promised by the Prime Minister that if the Conservatives ever formed a government they would extend the veterans independence program for widows and widowers immediately, but there was not a word in the budget.
My question for the government is quite simple. Did the Conservatives deliberately mislead an 81-year-old widow who looked after one of our veterans or did they just not get the job done?
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, over 94,000 veterans and caregivers receive the veterans independence program, for which at the moment we are budgeting $270 million, but like every program, we have to do better. We are reviewing the veterans independence program right now to see how we can deliver services better.
SudanHon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hostilities in Darfur have already led to a regional humanitarian crisis. This week the UN has warned that the humanitarian effort in Darfur is in serious danger of collapse.
Could the minister tell us what concrete actions Canada is taking to address this serious crisis?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member raised this serious issue. In fact, word today is that things have deteriorated further.
Canada has thus far contributed $48 million with respect to the combined mission. We are hoping that the government of Sudan and the president will continue to move in the direction of a unified force that will allow UN troops to enter the country to begin the necessary humanitarian work. In the meantime, we support the lift aircraft, that is, fixed wing and helicopters that are there. We are continuing to provide trainers that work in the region. 
Yes, there is much more to do. Will Canada be there with the international community? Will we continue to work toward the alleviation of the suffering of the people of Darfur? Yes, we certainly will. I look forward to working with the hon. member and all members in this House to see that Canada continues that work.
The Deputy Speaker: That brings question period to an end. The hon. member for Mount Royal is rising on a point of order.
Points of OrderIrwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The Minister of Public Safety accused me of doing nothing on the RCMP pension file. 
As the Minister of Public Safety knows, the responsible minister for the RCMP was the minister of public security at the time, just as he is the responsible minister today. As a result of the actions of the responsible minister of public security at the time, two investigations were initiated: an internal RCMP audit and an external investigation. When I was appointed minister of justice, these investigations were already under way. It would have been a breach of my responsibilities as a minister of justice to interfere in any fashion with respect to the ongoing investigation, something that I would expect the Minister of Public Safety would understand.
Where I had authority and responsibility as a minister of justice and minister of the Crown, I did indeed recommend that two independent judicial commissions of inquiry be set up, both in the case of the Gomery commission and in the case of the Arar commission.
All I am asking of the Minister of Public Safety today is to establish such an independent judicial commission of inquiry.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. It sounds to me that the hon. member may or may not have a point. It is a dispute as to the record and as to the facts. I listened and I gave him some time, but I do not think I heard a point of order there, but it was an opportunity for the member--
[Interjection]
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, the public record needs to be corrected--
The Deputy Speaker: The public record is not a matter of point of order, but the Minister of Public Safety on the same specious point of order.
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your generosity of interpretation. I tend to lean with you, but you left it open.
The fact of the matter is the previous minister of public safety is on the record as saying that there were no concerns and there was nothing to look at.
When there are allegations of wrongdoing, that they were aware of at the time, apparently, when there are allegations of cover-up, those are--
The Deputy Speaker: It is not a point of order. Both sides have had a chance to put their view on the record.

Routine Proceedings
Inquiry in relation to Member for Calgary EastThe Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to section 28 of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, it is my duty to present to the House the report of the Ethics Commissioner on an inquiry in relation to the hon. member for Calgary East, and I so do that.
International Youth ProgramPeter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 4(2) of the User Fees Act, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the proposal to implement fees worldwide to foreign youth participating in the international youth program.
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to three petitions.
Committees of the HouseStockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government response to the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on the Canadian firearms program, in accordance with House of Commons Standing Order 109. 
This response outlines those measures that the government has already implemented in response to the committee's recommendations and those further steps that will be taken to implement the recommendations to the fullest extent possible.
On behalf of the Government of Canada, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the House of Commons public accounts committee for its work with respect to the Canadian firearms program. We will continue to work toward implementing the committee's recommendations.
2010 Olympic Games and Paralympic GamesStockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to subsection 20(5) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, it is my pleasure to table, in both official languages, the 2010 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games security cost-sharing memorandum of agreement.
This agreement clearly shows that the Government of Canada is proudly working with the Government of British Columbia to have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police provide policing and security during the 2010 winter games.
The provision of policing and security for the games is one of the Government of Canada's commitments for the peaceful holding of the games. Under this agreement, the Government of Canada and the province of B.C. will share the costs of RCMP security planning and operations directly related to the 2010 Winter Games.
Committees of the HouseMr. Rob Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a response to the sixth report in the House of Commons of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights subcommittee on solicitation laws.
Settlement of International Investment Disputes ActHon. Jay Hill:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-53, An Act to implement the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention).
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Committees of the HouseMr. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to present, in both official languages, the first report of the legislative committee on Bill C-30.
In accordance with its order of reference on Monday, December 4, 2006, your committee has considered Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act (Canada's Clean Air Act) and agreed, on Thursday, March 29, to report it with amendments.
I do that today with thanks to members, especially support staff, who allowed us to do what the media and many others said could not be done, and that was to get it here on time.
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 40th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the guidelines to access to committee meetings by the electronic media. The committee recommends that these broadcasting guidelines be made permanent. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 40th report later this day.
I also have the honour to present, in both official languages the 41st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees of the House. If the House gives it consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 41st report later this day.
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on International Trade on the subject of Canada's trade policy. I note that the report only contains recommendations. The background text will be presented at a later time.
 Pursuant to Standing Order 109 a government response is requested.
Dan McTeague: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the chair of our committee, the member for Edmonton—Leduc, I am pleased to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in relation to its study on the deregulation of telecoms.
The committee recommends that the Minister of Industry withdraw the order varying Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15 and table in Parliament a comprehensive package of policy, statutory and regulatory reforms to modernize the telecommunications services industry.
Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 40th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the guidelines for access to committee meetings by the electronic media presented to the House earlier this day now be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to move the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker:  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
[Interjection]
Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 41st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concerning the membership of committees of the House presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker:  Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker:  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker:  I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to)
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among all parties and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
 That, in relation to its study on the Agricultural Policy Framework, 10 members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food be authorized to travel to Penticton, British Columbia; Olds, Alberta; Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; and Gimli, Manitoba, from April 15 to 19, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. 

The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I think you would also find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
 That, in relation to its study of the Agricultural Policy Framework, 10 members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food be authorized to travel to Truro, Nova Scotia; Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island; Fredericton, New Brunswick; Quebec City, Quebec; and Stratford, Ontario, from April 22 to 26, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. 

The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
PetitionsMr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
The first petition is on log exports from Vancouver Island, British Columbia. There are about 10 pages of signatures.
The petitioners call for a tariff on log exports. This is the result of the lumber export duty that is currently in place under current market conditions. It has resulted in incentives for logs to be exported from British Columbia, particularly Vancouver Island. There are large tracts of private land holdings that are federally regulated. This means logs are being exported rather than processed locally. Currently, there are about one million acres of private forest land on central Vancouver Island and 70% of those logs are destined for export.
 The petitioners call upon the government to implement a tariff on logs exported from private lands to level the playing field and ensure the Canadian mills, as well as secondary industries, have equal opportunity. They also call upon the government to work with the province of British Columbia to implement a similar tariff on logs exported from Crown land.
James Lunney: Mr. Speaker, my second petition has to do with GST on natural health products. 
The petitioners note that the weight of modern scientific evidence confirms the mitigation and prevention of many diseases and disorders through the judicious use of natural health products. Canadians support the use of natural health products to promote health and wellness. They note that improved access to natural health products would allow Canadians to better manage their own health and relieve pressure on the Canadian health system.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to provide Canadians with greater access to natural health products by removing the GST on them and enacting Bill C-404, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (natural health products).
Ms. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to present a petition in the House signed by at least 1,000 young people and organizations from across Quebec, who are calling for the return and improvement of the summer career placement program. 
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am presenting a petition from approximately 100 of my constituents and other residents of the city of Windsor and the County of Essex.
The petitioners call upon the government to support the minimum wage bill that has been presented to the House as a private member's bill by the member for Parkdale—High Park, known as Bill C-375. They note in the petition that by raising the minimum wage, which was done away with by a former Liberal government, it would have the effect of moving at least an individual above the poverty line at that rate of pay. 
I submit it on that basis and thank them for having presented it.
Mario Silva: Mr. Speaker, I stand again to introduce a petition signed by many concerned Canadians. It asks for the government to grant sanctuary for U.S. soldiers refusing to participate in the war in Iraq.
Canada should not punish U.S. war objectors for exercising their conscience in refusing to fight. We must continue our historical role as place of refuge for those opposing militarism policies. I should not need to remind the House that a majority of Canadians continue to be against the war in Iraq and the government was against supporting the war.
I will continue to raise this in this manner until the minister gives sanctuary to these men and women of great moral courage.
Mario Silva: Mr. Speaker, I also have petitions that call upon Parliament to reinstate funding for literacy programs cut by the Conservative government and to undertake a national literacy strategy to ensure that all Canadians have the opportunity to achieve this vital skill.
Mario Silva: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have a series of petitions signed by people across the country that call upon Parliament to immediately halt the deportation of undocumented workers and to find a humane and logical solution to their situation and that undocumented workers build homes and lives with their families in Canada, including many who work and have Canadian born children and would be unfairly burdened by the deportation of their parents.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 164, 179 and 183. 
Hon. Keith Martin:  Why has the statement of requirements to place the fixed wing search-and-rescue (SAR), the Buffalo, been changed to increase the minimum flight speed to 140 knots which is higher than the speed needed for the SAR mission activities?
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, the fixed wing search and rescue statement of operational requirement is in development and has not been finalized. As such, it would be premature to discuss the specific contents of the document. However, it should be noted that requirements are not drafted to support a particular platform or aircraft. Rather, they are developed in response to the operational needs identified by the Canadian Forces.
Mr. Alex Atamanenko: With respect to programs and spending administered by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) within the riding of British Columbia Southern Interior: (a) what were the projected and actual spending amounts of CMHC in 2006; (b) what is the projected budget for 2007; (c) how many CMHC-funded housing units for singles and families currently exist; and (d) how many CMHC-funded housing units for singles and families are planned for the remainder of 2007?
Hon. Monte Solberg (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with respect to programs and spending administered by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC, within the riding of British Columbia Southern Interior:
Social housing: In 2006, CMHC provided funding to 837 units in the riding of British Columbia Southern Interior, committed under various programs administered by CMHC, which provides housing for singles and families. Of this total, there are 353 units benefiting from a preferential interest rate and some of these units are also benefiting from a forgivable capital contribution grant equivalent to 10% of the original project cost. The remaining 484 units received annual funding of $740,144 in 2006. The planned subsidy for 2006 was $722,359. 
The administration of these 837 units was transferred to the province on January 15, 2007 under a social housing agreement, SHA, with the province of British Columbia signed in 2006. CMHC annual funding contained in the Canada-B.C. SHA is currently some $140 million. British Columbia also received in 2006 a one-time lump sum amount of $24 million for risks associated with future inflation, changes in interest rates and loan losses. The amount of subsidy available in 2007 is governed by the agreements between CMHC and the various sponsor groups as assumed by the British Columbia Housing Management Corporation pursuant to the SHA. 
There may be additional units located in the riding that received on-going federal assistance under various federal-provincial programs already administered by the province of British Columbia prior to last summer’s signing of an SHA which are not included in the above unit counts. The province has the lead role for these units and does not report subsidies by project to CMHC. For the first nine months of the year the province had claimed federal funding of some $75 million on these programs, covering some 27,000 units across the province. These units are also covered by the SHA. Effective October 1, 2006, funding for these units is being provided through the annual funding of $140 million contained in the SHA. 
Renovation programs: On December 19, 2006, the Government of Canada announced a $256 million, two-year extension of CMHC’s housing renovation and adaptation programs, effective April 1, 2007. The funding will help improve the quality of housing for an additional 38,000 low-income households in all regions of Canada. For 2006/2007, British Columbia’s allocation for these housing renovation programs is approximately $16.2 million.
Under federal renovation programs in the riding of British Columbia Southern Interior, some $613,600 has been committed for 83 units in 2006. CMHC is unable to provide a forecast of how many units and dollars will be committed in 2007, since this will depend on the number of applications approved.
Affordable housing initiative/Canada-B.C. affordable housing program agreement: Under the $1 billion affordable housing initiative, AHI, over $130 million has been allocated to British Columbia. As of December 31, 2006, 4,432 affordable housing units had been committed or announced in British Columbia, representing federal funding of $126.4 million. The province of British Columbia and others are matching federal AHI investments. 
British Columbia Housing (B.C. Housing) administers the Canada-British-Columbia affordable housing program agreement. According to information provided by B.C. Housing, no commitments were made under this program in the riding of British Columbia Southern Interior in 2006. B.C. Housing is not required to provide forecasts of units planned by riding to CMHC, but it does report on projects approved during the year.
Housing Trusts: The 2006 budget provides for a one time investment of $1.4 billion towards helping Canadians find safe, adequate, and affordable housing in all provinces and territories. This investment is being made through three housing trusts with provinces and territories to invest in affordable housing. This includes an affordable housing trust of $800 million, a northern housing trust of $300 million and a trust for off reserve aboriginal housing of $300 million. Funding for these housing trusts, which was confirmed on September 25, 2006, will be allocated over three years. B.C.'s share of this funding is $156.9 million.
Mr. Dennis Bevington:  With regard to the Deh Cho First Nations, how will the government honour its commitments under the Interim Measures Agreement and the Settlement Agreement, particularly Article 13?
Hon. Jim Prentice (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as a party to the Dehcho process negotiations, this government continues to work closely and in earnest with the Dehcho First Nations and the Government of the Northwest Territories on the federal offer we tabled on May 30, 2006. Canada’s land and governance proposal, which is based on a land selection model, has the settlement of the Dehcho’s comprehensive claim in the NWT as its primary objective. It is this government’s hope that the Dehcho First Nations will provide their negotiators with a mandate to respond to Canada’s offer so that all parties can move towards a final agreement that will replace all interim measures. 
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed,

Government Orders
Budget Implementation Act, 2007[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-52, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): When we last discussed Bill C-52, there were five minutes left for questions and comments for the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. He is ready to respond to a question from the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. 
The hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.
Brent St. Denis: Mr. Speaker, just before we broke for today's question period, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance made reference to the fall update of the government when I correctly alleged that the budget of some weeks ago was not a budget with any vision. It was without an overarching plan for the country. Quite frankly, it would not be very difficult to take the fall update to find much of an echo of that in the budget of March 19.
In fact, will read a quote, which our leader used in his speech, from the Caledon Institute. It states:
 —the worst part of the Budget is what [it lacks]....No measures to reduce child poverty, no early childhood education or meaningful national child care, no plans to address real infrastructure needs now, no commitment to tackle the abysmal reality of Aboriginal life in Canada, and no housing program. 
Our leader goes on to say, “The budget is short-sighted and the government has the responsibility to ask where do we want Canada to be in 10 years and how do we get there?” 
That is what budgets are about along with throne speeches. They are supposed to help Canadians understand how government will go from now to some time in the future. This budget fails to do that.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I look through the budget, the government claims to be reducing taxes. Acknowledging that the government appears to be cherry-picking through Canadian society and has in a few areas extended tax benefits through the tax system, those are apparent and appear to be tax benefits to people who already have some substance or wealth. 
There is nothing wrong with benefiting taxpayers, but the government, although it is saying it is reducing taxes, does not appear to have reduced taxation for the most vulnerable in Canadian society. It has not reduced taxes, at least that I can see, in the budget for the poor, for the single, for the single senior, for the childless. It has missed all these very important categories in our social spectrum.
Therefore, I rather regard the government's attempt to extend tax cuts to the friendliest group as kind of a cynical approach to politics and tax policy.
Could the hon. member respond to my perception that the budget is quite unfair to the poorest and most vulnerable in our society?
[Interjection]
Brent St. Denis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my colleague's question. In fact, the first thought that comes to mind is that I understand better, because of this budget, why the word “progressive” was dropped from the Conservative Party's name. When we look at the tax measures proposed, we can see that in fact they are absolutely non-progressive.
As for a progressive tax rate, generally we have consumption taxes, income taxes, capital taxes and so on. What we want our tax system to be is progressive, meaning that the greater the capacity of an income tax payer to pay, the greater the opportunity for governments to share the wealth of the nation.
My colleague is quite right. The poorest among us and middle income Canadians have failed to benefit from any real tax relief whatsoever in this budget.
Harold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, how can the member say that there is so little support in the budget for the working families of our country when it is clear that 75% of the tax breaks given in the 2006 and 2007 budgets are earmarked for those who are earning less than $75,000 a year?
[Interjection]
Brent St. Denis: Mr. Speaker, what my colleague across the way has to remember is that when we remove the billions of dollars for early childhood education and day care programs from the provinces and when we remove the supports for aboriginal communities through the Kelowna accord, the net result is a net loss for low income and middle income Canadians.
Thierry St-Cyr: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has decided to support this budget. It is easy to see that this is a minority government budget.
There never would have been a start toward correcting the fiscal imbalance if this Conservative government had had a majority. Without the work of the Bloc Québécois, Quebec never would have gotten the gains it recently obtained and will obtain in the future, if there had not been 50 Bloc Québécois MPs in this House.
Furthermore, I am not the only one to say so. We have often heard government ministers say this in the House. The Minister of Transport said he needed the Bloc Québécois' help. The Minister of Finance and other ministers also asked us to support this budget.
Since our decision to support it, the Prime Minister and a number of ministers have thanked the Bloc Québécois for its support. This shows, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the Bloc Québécois does constructive work in this House and that it allows Quebec to advance and make real progress.
In my opinion, this is a clear message to Quebeckers. If Quebeckers continue to support the Bloc Québécois and send as many Bloc members as possible to represent them in the House of Commons, they can be sure that Quebec will have a strong position and a voice to defend them that will not give in to blackmail and will always be loyal to Quebec.
We have made many gains. A number of them were the result of lengthy battles that are starting to pay off. I am talking about the fiscal imbalance or rather the start of the process of correcting the fiscal imbalance. I will come back to that later, but obviously that is what comes to mind first. Nonetheless, that is not all. Quebec received $328 million from the Canada ecotrust, which will allow Quebec to meet its Kyoto protocol obligations and reduce greenhouse gases. This is something else the Bloc Québécois has long been asking for. We pushed really hard for this. We questioned the government about it in the House.
I also know that my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development worked very hard on it. At meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance I often questioned the government. We showed that this amount of money was needed by the Government of Quebec to achieve the Kyoto protocol objectives. Even though the government was opposed outright to this protocol and did not hesitate to subject Canada to the ridicule of the international community by reneging on commitments made, the Bloc Québécois exerted enough pressure to have this government listen to reason and allocate this amount to Quebec for the environment.
It should be noted that the amount allocated in the budget was announced beforehand, when the Bloc Québécois, during one of its opposition days, was debating a motion calling on the government to take action. That proves that our work is effective.
In addition, the $200 million allocated for the reconstruction of Afghanistan was largely due to the efforts of the Bloc Québécois, who asked that the Afghanistan mission be rebalanced. You will recall that the Bloc Québécois voted against extending the mission in Afghanistan, among other things because the government was asking for a blank cheque. This government did not answer questions and did not know the criteria for the success of the mission. It still does not know them and has not answered the questions. It does not have a comprehensive plan and it does not know where it is going in this matter. 
The government asked us, in just a few hours, to fast-track the debate and give it carte blanche to extend the mission in Afghanistan, which we, the members of the Bloc Québécois, all opposed. Nevertheless, with the support of many Liberals, the mission was extended. Parliament gave the Conservative government carte blanche.
This tells me that it would have taken only two or three more Bloc members to avoid giving this blank cheque to the government, this permission to do nearly anything in Afghanistan. Once again, this perfectly illustrates the importance of sending a maximum number of Bloc members to Ottawa.
As we all know, this is not the first time that Quebeckers have lost a vote in this House. That said, although we lost that vote in the House, we nevertheless retained our hard-hitting approach and we continue to work to ensure a balanced mission, at the very least, specifically, to see that perhaps a little less money is allocated for the military aspect and more is spent on humanitarian aid. In Afghanistan, the solution depends largely on the humanitarian aspect. Once people have acceptable living conditions, there is a good chance that matters of security will be more easily resolved and conflicts will diminish.
Work has been done on this aspect. We have fought and we have kept saying that this had to be a balanced mission. A great deal of work has been accomplished, the results of which can be seen in the budget. This idea, long advocated by the Bloc Québécois, comes out in the budget presented by the minister. Thus, Afghanistan will receive a little more humanitarian aid. We are very proud of that.
I would now like to talk about the GST visitor rebate. Once again, this accomplishment comes largely thanks to the Bloc Québécois, although the opposition parties were against this measure. In short, the Conservative government's original proposition consisted of doing away with all GST rebates to visitors, tourists who come to Canada and then return to the U.S. At present, and until the legislation is passed, tourists who spend money in Canada—on things such as accommodations or goods purchased and taken back to the U.S.—can be reimbursed for a portion of their expenses.
This is reasonable, because we must definitely regard tourism as an export industry. We export our image, our culture and our landscape outside our borders. We ask people from other countries to come to Canada, but in fact, it is really an export industry.
Of course, there is no other export industry anywhere— in almost all countries that have a consumer tax—for all practical purposes, nowhere are exports taxed. That is completely counter-productive. Even though the GST rebate for foreign visitors was originally implemented by the Conservatives when they brought in the GST, they wanted to change things later and abolish the measure. We know that that would have been disastrous for the tourism industry. The government argued that only 3% of travellers claimed the rebate. The problem—and this is often the problem with the Conservatives, unfortunately—is that they cannot count.
I took the time to delve a little deeper into the numbers. I admit to being somewhat conditioned by my profession. Before I was elected to this House a year and two months ago, I was an engineer and among other things, I did a lot of data analysis for my former employer. 
Let us say that I was not taken in by the 3% figure. It is important to understand that people often travel in groups of two, three, four, five or more, and they travel as a family. A family of four that makes a lot of purchases during a trip does not submit four claims. When they get to the customs post, they submit one refund claim. That increases the figure significantly. If you multiply that figure by 2.5 or 3 people on average—we do not have an exact number—you get almost 10%.
The other thing to keep in mind is the money this represents. If you take visitors who come for the day and tourists who come for more than 24 hours, the ratio is about the same. For all practical purposes, it adds up to the same number of tourists: 17,470,000 versus 18,690,000. However, visitors who stay for several days—that is, more than one day—spend three times more than those who stay for just one day. In my opinion, for our listeners—I do not know how many there are—I do not think it is a huge revelation to point out that people who stay for more than a day spend more than those who stay for a day.
Obviously, those who stay less than a day usually do not have accommodation expenses, which are often the biggest expenses: a hotel room, renting an apartment or something like that. People who come for less than a day, who do not even spend $100 in Canada, are obviously not going to claim a rebate at the end of their stay. To say that the system is not working, that the program is useless because people are not claiming these refunds, if we include day visitors, then these figures go down.
We have to look at this in terms of money. For frequent travellers, people who come and spend a lot of money in our economy, how many of them are going to claim the rebate and what sort of commercial advantage does this represent? In committee I asked the government representative to tell us, relative to the total amount of money people are entitled to claim, how many people file a claim? I am not talking about the number of visitors. We do not even know if all the visitors are entitled to claim the rebate or if they all have an amount to claim. Of the total amount that can be claimed, how much money is claimed? No one was able to give me an answer. This shows that the government has no idea whether this program is effective or not. And yet it has come to the conclusion that the program should be eliminated. That is a shame and it worries the tourism industry greatly.
Another aspect that has been underestimated here is the commercial or marketing effect this will have. Just because people do not claim their refund does not mean that they did not take it into consideration when choosing their vacation destination. People who work in marketing, who work for example with mail-in rebates, would be able to explain this phenomenon. There are more and more products purchased that sell at full price, and that come with a sheet to fill out to receive a mail-in rebate in 6 to 8 weeks.
Anyone who works in marketing will tell you that a large proportion—it varies from one product to another—of people choose to purchase product X, Y or Z, because there was a mail-in rebate, but never send it in. But measuring the effectiveness of these mail-in rebates based on the number of people who send them in is not what counts. What counts is how many people made the purchase because there was a mail-in rebate. We can see that this is the ideal situation. Someone purchases the product because of the mail-in rebate, but never uses it. That is the ideal situation. It is the same thing in the case before us.
Say that people decide to travel here because they hope to claim a 6% GST refund, and that they never do so. Personally, I think this is a great thing for the government. We attract these people and they do not even use it. So we can see that the government did not know where it was going on this.
We have put a lot of pressure, and I think that the government realizes it was going to make a big mistake. It has backtracked a little. From now on, it will reimburse GST paid during conferences or tours. However, it will not reimburse individual travellers who are not part of a tour. This makes me think that the government realized it was going to make a big mistake. So it decided to make a small mistake rather than a big one. It is a mistake nonetheless. But, we succeeded in making them backtrack and limiting the impact.
The Bloc Québécois has made progress on one of its longstanding demands: GST refunds for school boards. The Liberals never pushed this issue. At the time, the Liberals never followed through, despite court decisions ordering them to refund GST to school boards. It is in the budget. 
For its next challenge, I would like to see the government abolish the GST on books. Culture and education are important. In Quebec, books are now exempt from the provincial sales tax. The federal government must do the same regarding the GST. 
A little earlier, I said I would talk about the fiscal imbalance again. I realize I must do so quickly. The Bloc Québécois has been fighting against the fiscal imbalance for quite some time. We are the members who raised this question in the House. This has been the work of the sovereignists for a very long time. We even had to explain to the Conservatives what the fiscal imbalance was, since they knew absolutely nothing about it. Apparently, they still do not fully understand the concept. The fact that the Minister of Finance said that the issue is resolved is proof that the Conservatives do not understand the fiscal imbalance. How can the fiscal imbalance issue be resolved when no fiscal action was taken?
When the Séguin commission met, its members introduced the concept of the fiscal imbalance. They chose to name the problem. They did not open a dictionary and choose words at random with their eyes closed. These words were not pulled out of a hat. There is a reason it is called “fiscal” and there is a reason it is called an “imbalance”: because it is a fiscal problem and it is an imbalance. The solution to the fiscal imbalance is to restore the balance by way of a fiscal solution. That seems obvious to me. 
We will have to keep repeating this to the Conservative government because it does not seem to have understood. The Liberals, for their part, have always denied the existence of this problem. In its next budget, the government will have to transfer tax points or tax fields like the GST—which would be the simplest solution—to the governments of Quebec and the provinces so they can benefit from stable, predictable revenues that will not change from budget to budget or from government to government. For example, Quebec's recent gains could be completely erased in the next budget or if there is an election and the government becomes a majority government, or if the Liberals return to power. We will always be at the mercy of the central government's vagaries. To Quebeckers, that is the price of dependency, budgetary dependency, which is a logical result of political dependency.
 I would like to end by talking about equalization. I have just a few seconds left, so I will be brief.
Unfortunately, the government decided to exclude half of non-renewable resource revenues from this budget. This measure unfairly penalizes Quebec. Why did they not exclude revenues from the aerospace industry or hydroelectricity? It just so happens that that would have benefited Quebec. The Bloc never asked for these exclusions because it has never asked for an arbitrary advantage. I do not see why other provinces should be given an arbitrary advantage.
This is unfortunate. We will continue to fight for this.
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Ottawa Centre.
It is with great pleasure that I rise on the budget debate this afternoon. I know that all governments have to make choices. Choices are made easier when there is access to finances that can be used. If we did not have access to finances, then we would have to make tough decisions in that regard.
This particular budget is severely lacking in what were considered as promises and indications made by the Conservatives when they were in opposition and now when they are in government.
We have seen various reversals of positions. Some people call them broken promises. Some call them deceptions, deliberately or indirectly, but the reality is that there have been major reversal decisions without much consultation with the public.
We can take the reversal on the income trusts as an example. Although we believe in the end that it had to happen, these trusts should never have been set up in the way that they were in the first place. Governments knew full well that these major tax concerns would be affecting the government in some way.
I personally believe that the government should not have made that promise before the campaign. People would then have been very careful with their tax dollars.
What I find most offensive about this particular budget is that the Conservatives have a $14.2 billion surplus, more than they anticipated. When they were in opposition, they repeatedly criticized the Liberal Party for excessive surplus budgets by saying it is coming from employers and employees in the country.
With that kind of money, $14.2 billion, regardless of how it was achieved, we would think the government would be able to help some of the most vulnerable people in our society, some of the most bravest in our society. 
We moved in this House a veterans first motion. Elements of that motion were the veterans independence program for widows and widowers; raising the pension allowance from 50% to 66%; getting rid of what is called the gold digger clause, so regardless of when a person remarries there would not be any discrimination after age 60; and that a person's second spouse at the time of his or her death would be entitled to that person's pension benefit.
There was to be an end to the clawback at age 65 for those who have become disabled, the clawing back of the CPP pension and then the disability pension. There was also the SISIP program. Two DND ombudsmen said it was unfair and it needed to be rectified. The House of Commons moved a motion stating that.
Many people across the country had repeatedly asked the previous Liberal government to deal with this issue. It failed. Now the current Conservative government is failing on the issue of protecting our veterans and those who have become injured within our military service and their families.
For less than 2% of the total surplus of the budget, the government could have dealt with the SISIP issue once and for all. The $290 million estimated price tag would have once and for all fixed the financial situation, so that these thousands of injured soldiers and their families would have financial relief and be able to move on with their lives.
One would think that with a $14.2 billion surplus the Conservatives would somehow find $290 million to fix the problem once and for all. What was the answer? No. It was not even in the budget. What a shame.
On the VIP, the now Prime Minister gave assurances to a woman in Cape Breton named Joyce Carter that if his party formed the government the VIP would indeed be extended immediately to all widows and widowers, regardless of the time of death of the veteran. Sixteen months later what do we see in the budget? Nothing.
This House also moved a motion on autism which the Conservative Party supported. We have asked that the government immediately reconvene a meeting with the provinces and the stakeholders to discuss the best way to move this issue forward. We know it is going to take financial and human resources to assist the provinces and territories in the delivery of care and treatment for families with children dealing with autism.
We thought that after the motion passed in the House, even with the support from the Conservatives, that it would be mentioned in the budget. Not a word.
There were also aspects on the fishery concerns. When the Conservatives were in opposition, they wrote letters to Danny Williams saying they would immediately invoke custodial management on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. There is nothing.
We also had promises on equalization, promises that the offshore accords for Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia would not be touched. Again, there is a complete reversal of position.
Here is the reality with a surplus of $14.2 billion. People in our income bracket, those making well over $100,000, are doing quite well now. The reality is that I do not need a tax cut. Those people who need help with taxes are the low income earners and the pensioners, those in the lower middle class. MPs and senators do not need a tax cut.
The reality is that at the same time we need to reinvest to help those people who are disabled or widowed or who are struggling to get through their day to day lives with the excessive costs of health care, et cetera. They are being ignored by this budget.
What is most offensive is that these assurances were given by the Conservatives when they were in opposition. They said that if they ever formed a government, they would clean up 13 years of Liberal inaction and move forward on these issues. 
We hear them time and time again saying to stand up and support the troops. I congratulate them for doing it. I am glad to see that everybody in this House does, but I question the Conservatives when it comes to supporting the troops when they have to take their uniforms off, when they become disabled and have to leave the military, or when they become old and aged veterans, or when they pass on and their families are left behind and their spouses are looking for help.
I have over 20 world war and Korean veterans in the area of the Halifax Regional Municipality, HRM. Every single one of them has one thing in common with the others: they were denied hearing aids.
 They were denied hearing aids because of the fact that a lot of them did not have a hearing test when they left the war in 1946 or 1947. They were young and they got on with their lives, but now their hearing is really suffering. They have been told by audiologists that there is a connection between what happened in their wartime service and their loss of hearing now, but DVA says they did not have a test in the beginning so they do not qualify.
With a $14.2 billion surplus, one would think that DVA and the government would honour the words that the Minister of Veterans Affairs said in opposition and has said in government, which were that we should always give the benefit of the doubt to the veteran. He said that repeatedly.
I ask this government, the cabinet and the DVA to honour the commitment in those words of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and give the benefit of the doubt to these aged veterans so they can have some comfort in the remainder of their lives. With a $14.2 billion surplus, if they cannot do it now, when are they going to do it? These are not young men and women any more.
Our injured soldiers deserve better.
Children with autism deserve better.
These are just some of the elements, in a short 10 minute speech, that I am able to talk about a bit. There are so many more deficiencies with this budget.
Again, when we have the finances at our fingertips to really help people in this country from coast to coast to coast, why did the Conservatives ignore them? Why was the government so callously arrogant in its approach to this budget, thinking that these people would not notice?
These are people who served our country. They deserve better. We have the opportunity to do it. We should have done it, but they missed out. It is not good enough to stand in the House and say, “We are working on it and we will get around to it”. That is what was said when they were in opposition. That is what they are saying in government.
The government needs to move much, much faster on this issue, because if we do not, an awful lot of these brave men and women will pass on because of their ages, and they will not have received the help they required.
That is not how they should end the rest of their lives. They should know that the government and this House of Commons, regardless of political party, cares about what they have done. The reality is that it should have been in the budget and it was not.
It is not too late. The Conservatives can turn around right now, stand up in the House and say very clearly that they made a mistake, that it was an omission and they will put it back in.
For children with autism to be told by the government that there is no help for them because it is not in the budget is unacceptable. That is why, along with many other reasons, we in the NDP cannot and will not support the budget. 
Dan McTeague: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to give you greetings before the end of Lent. On this last day before our two-week break, I would like to wish you and the entire House a happy Easter.
My question is for the member who just spoke.
The hon. member is extremely passionate and he knows about some of the work that I have done in a previous time with respect to the program known as VIP. I received a lot of support in my riding from a number of legions as well as from Dominion Command and Ontario Command.
I want to ask the hon. member a question because we had a chance to talk about this very briefly. Does the hon. member have a comment with respect to the pension issue? As the hon. member knows, a wounded soldier receives a certain amount of money after three years, depending on the nature of the injury. 
It is not by accident the defence minister is behind me. We were having a very good discussion on another matter, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you.
I want to ask the hon. member if he has any comments that might help the wounded soldier in the long term, and on what would happen under the previous programs. The new veterans charter began with my party when we were in power, but clearly the number of complaints and concerns that have been raised are significant.
 While the budget was very silent on this, I think that for the future, in order to instruct, Parliament has to proceed with this issue on this the 90th anniversary of Canada's contribution in the Battle of Vimy Ridge, which created or gave impetus to this country. Could the hon. member tell us his thoughts? What are his thoughts with respect to ensuring that our wounded soldiers, long term, not only receive the care that they do, but also that they receive a pension?
 Over a period of time, that pension could be as much as an average of about $1.2 million to $1.4 million in the life of a soldier, versus a lump sum payment of just $250,000. Although it might seem great up front, the reality is that in the long term we may be able to do more for our wounded soldiers. I would like the hon. member's comment.
[Interjection]
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question. Let us say that an individual signs up for the military and two and a half years later is severely injured and has to leave the military because he can no longer serve. What happens to that individual? That is a very good question.
That is why the new veterans charter has been described by all parties as a living document. When individual cases of this nature come into play, it is up to government and the departments of DND and DVA to work together to consolidate their resources to make sure that not only do the individual and that individual's family have the immediate treatment they require, but that they have the opportunity to move forward.
However, in the unlikely event that they can never work again, either through physical or mental challenges they may have suffered as a result of their injuries, we as a government should be as compassionate as possible to ensure that their needs and the needs of their families are met extremely well.
Hon. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore for his thoughtful comments on the budget. The member has a reputation for bringing members from all parties together to discuss a range of issues from time to time. It is a very good initiative to bring people from all parties in the House together so we can share our common concerns and interests.
I have a question for the member. We know that budgets respond to the priorities of the government. One of the things that saddened me was the fact that there were so many people excluded from this budget, such as our aboriginal Canadians when the Kelowna accord was not funded. These people are in desperate need of housing and education. They have simple needs, like clean water. 
Also not funded were the child care agreements that the Liberal government had negotiated with something like eight provinces to establish child care spaces in those provinces. These are the people who need our help, the women who work outside the home, and men in some cases, and who need to look after their children. They need to find child care spaces.
I wonder if the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore would comment on that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore is asked to make a short comment because the clock has run out.
[Interjection]
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, the meetings the member talks about are our shipbuilding and marine conference meetings and we are hopeful they will go ahead.
The reality is that the member is correct. The Conservatives' $100 a day so-called day care plan is blowing up in their faces, because I am getting calls from people who are asking, “Since when did this become taxable?” Now they are having to claim that as income. The government did not create one day care space. Businesses were supposed to create all these day care spaces. It did not happen. 
As for first nations people, the neglect of this budget--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Resuming debate, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House to speak on a document that is as important as our budget. I want to start with some of what I think is actually positive about this budget and some of what we fought hard for in opposition, both with the previous government and with the present government.
Not to alarm anyone, I will have a critique on some of the things that I find puzzling and am concerned about in terms of this budget. Sadly, they outweigh the positive things I see in this budget.
Among the things I see as important and that we in the NDP fought for is that we are looking at money for reduced wait times. I think there is a consensus in this country that this needed to be done. There also was some budget money put toward e-health technologies.
We fought for the expansion of the transit pass credit to weekly passes. That is going to be addressed. As well, there is the incentive to buy green cars, which I will come back to in a minute. 
Another positive thing is the move to conserve land like the Great Bear park and boreal forest.
 That is about it. After that, we have negatives. Sadly, there is a long list.
 There was no national housing strategy. There was no national transit strategy.
There was nothing on employment insurance reform. There was no establishment of the $10 minimum wage to deal with the prosperity gap. There was no poverty reduction strategy. There was no plan to end student debt. There was no cancellation in regard to the corporate taxes. 
There was nothing for pharmacare, home care, long term care, or improved access to health care for aboriginal people. There was nothing for coordinated training for medical professionals. There was nothing about catastrophic drugs for the Atlantic region.
There was no significant new money for aboriginals.
There was only a quarter of the money we wanted and needed in child care and there was no real vision for child care. There was nothing on autism, as my colleague mentioned.
There was no ban on bulk water exports. 
There was nothing new for the pine beetle.
There was nothing for seniors. There was no increase in OAS. There was no action on the veterans first motion.
There was nothing on forestry, nothing for ACOA, and nothing for western diversification.
That is quite a long list. I want to point to a couple of things in the budget. I did read it carefully. It is important to look at the budget from last year. I looked at page 33 of the budget, which talks about corporate profits. We see from the graph by Statistics Canada that corporate profits were at an historic high, with a 14.2% increase in corporate profits.
This year it is in a similar vein. We see an increase in corporate profits. Some would say that is a good thing because it shows a healthy economy. I do not disagree with that, but the problem we in the NDP have with it is where those corporate profits are going and where they are being spent.
 They are not being spent in reinvestment. They are not being spent on retooling. Sadly, there is only a small smidgen of action in the budget about making sure there is some money for the manufacturing base so it can put money back into plants and into capital, but it is not directed enough.
In fact, what we have is more corporate tax cuts, because they were there before and they continue. Sadly, this budget does not address the prosperity gap. It does not address the kitchen table economics that we speak of. It does not address the need for more investment in people and the need to make sure that corporations invest in retooling, which is so desperately needed.
There is another thing I want to mention. On page 218 of this year's budget, the government talks about the initiatives around foreign credential recognition. It states:
 This initiative, along with the improvements to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, will increase the number of individuals wanting to come to Canada. Budget 2007 provides $33.6 million over the next two years to ensure that those who come to Canada through these avenues have the valid documentation and meet Canada's health and security requirements. 
I am not sure if the Conservatives have been talking to people who have come to this country recently, but this is not the problem.
 If they are spending money on this initiative and not dealing with foreign credential recognition and real employment for people in the professions, then they have wasted time and taxpayers' money, because the issue is not about trying to get valid documentation to meet the health and security requirements. In fact, that is part of the problem.
I will give an example. I had three town halls before the Christmas holiday. They showed that for people from all walks of life who are foreign trained professionals, doctors, engineers, people in the medical profession, pharmacists, et cetera, the main problem for them is Canadian experience, foreign credential recognition and employment. Sadly, in this budget there is nothing to help them. 
There is nothing in the budget that says there are opportunities right here in the public service or to coordinate job opportunities. The government promised to deal with the issue of foreign credential recognition in the budget but it did not. All there is now is a referral desk. That is not what anyone envisaged in terms of what needs to happen on foreign credential recognition and employment for those who so desperately need it.
I also wanted to touch on those who are falling behind, those who need child care, those who need housing and those who are disabled, who cannot take advantage of tax cuts. The budget is a little bit for everyone but in the end there is nothing for anyone in many respects. The budget contains little tax credit boutique programs, which the Conservatives readily critiqued when they were in opposition. The Conservatives are helping the people they think are their target voters, let us make no doubt about that.
In fact, before the budget was presented, the Prime Minister went on the road and made 21 announcements on new initiatives. He did it in campaign style. He is trying to win a majority but he is leaving people behind. The prosperity gap grows and the people who need the help are not being helped by the budget. 
I will read some comments that I have received from constituents who have told me their stories and what is happening to them:
 I am a disabled person; paying high rent. I can barely make ends meet. I have applied for subsidized housing in 2003, and was told I have to wait “8 yrs”. 
 It will eight years before the application is considered. Try living on $979 a month, with a rent of $600 and phone bills for emergency purposes. This person is not going to be helped by the budget. These are the people we need to help. Another person who wrote to me recently is a little better off, but is looking at taking out a $60,000 loan to afford child care in downtown Ottawa:
 I am securing middle class but cannot afford child care! Help! 
There is nothing in the budget that will help that person. They are real people, ordinary Canadians, everyday people we are here to represent. They have been forgotten, the disabled, aboriginal people and those who are in the middle class who are trying to secure a middle class way of life and cannot and who are having to take out a loan for child care. It is a disgrace. It is wrong. That is why I will not be able to support the budget, why my party will not be able to support the budget.
If we had some vision in the country we would not be putting all of our eggs into one tax cut basket, or corporate tax cuts, which has happened in previous years. We would invest in Canadians.
During the Quebec election campaign we saw the handover of money from the federal government, no strings attached, to let the province spend where it will. It made our federal government look like an ATM machine where the provinces can take out money at their will, but where does it go? It does not go to services. In the case of Quebec. It will go to a tax cut.
Exactly what Quebeckers wanted was better services. I think the story of the Quebec election was that there was a population that demanded services and got nothing in return but another broken promise. They will see that the federal government will not take a leadership role and provide real investment, show real leadership and make sure that the dollars that are sent to provinces are spent on child care, housing, dealing with clean water and other issues.
It is an opportunity missed. Last year the title of the budget was “Focusing on Priorities” and this year it is “Aspire”. Sadly, what we have is a missed opportunity, little aspiration and definitely no vision.
Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a correction to some of the mistruths the member is projecting.
Our new government recognizes autism spectrum disorder. It is an important concern and we are committed to working with our partners, provinces, territories and other stakeholders on this issue.
The federal government supports research on ASD through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. It has invested nearly $50 million since 2000. It is a sponsor of the ASD stakeholder symposium in 2007. These are just a few examples. 
The institute is beginning to explore the establishment of a research chair focusing on effective treatment. It has launched a consultative process on the feasibility of developing an ASD surveillance program. It has a dedicated page on the Health Canada website. The Health Policy Branch of Health Canada has been designated as an ASD lead.
The member is quite concerned about what the provinces might do with the money and he specifically mentioned Quebec. He should look at the rest of Canada. His counterparts in Saskatchewan have no respect for any of these issues. We have lost children with autism to Alberta because Saskatchewan would not educate or help the parents and families. 
I would suggest that the member maybe look a bit deeper. He will find out that it is Alberta specifically and Ontario that lead in helping parents with an autistic child. Saskatchewan has abandoned these children. Saskatchewan has an NDP government. That province will be one of the beneficiaries of the really good agreement that has just been promoted through budget 2007.
The provincial NDP government in Saskatchewan has just announced its budget and there is nothing in it for farmers and agriculture, which is the backbone of that province. Our health minister could not get Saskatchewan on board with respect to wait times. Our Indian affairs minister could not get the province on board with respect to education for aboriginals.
Why does the member think that I do not like to see some of this money going to Saskatchewan? I want what is fair and what is equitable. However, I want a premier too who will spend it where it is needed.
[Interjection]
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I think there was a question there somewhere. 
I will address the autism issue. I heard the member mention websites, processes, and special projects being set up. I can take that member to communities where people are remortgaging their homes because they are trying to afford a way to deal with their children's future. 
 It is not good enough to talk about plans and websites. We know what we can do about autism. We can stand up and deliver. Sadly, this Conservative budget did not. It is plain and simple.
On the issue of provinces, let me be very clear. The government had a surplus of $14.2 billion. There was no debate in terms of what we should do with that surplus. Our party said we should have a debate so we know where the money is going and not just decide to fob it off on programs, or tax cuts in the case of Quebec, as I mentioned, without any strings attached. 
We need to start talking about national standards. If I were raising an autistic child in Ontario and I go to Saskatchewan or Alberta, I should not have to worry about whether or not that province has the capability to deal with my autistic child. If I were to send my children to university in Quebec, I should not have to worry about whether or not they were born there so they can have an affordable education. That is the reality and that is the reality that the Conservative government does not understand.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I take note of the fact that this is a good news budget. There is more good news all the time from this government. I am very pleased that there are a sufficient number of members in this House who recognize it is a budget worth supporting. They are doing that and looking past some of the misinformation that is being put out by different individuals across the country, misinformation that unfortunately does not communicate properly what this budget does achieve and what we are doing on behalf of Canadian people.
I am so seriously supportive of this budget that I would like to move:
 That this question be now put. 

[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  No.
Ken Epp:  Yes, I can do that.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  No.
Ken Epp:  It is not unanimous. Mr. Speaker, I am afraid you did not hear this. I moved, seconded by the member for Blackstrap, that this question be now put.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member for Hull--Aylmer is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the member wanted the question to be put.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Mr. Epp, seconded by Mrs. Yelich, moved that this question be now put.
[Interjection]
Ken Epp: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps for the edification of other members, some of whom have not been here quite as long as I have, this is a motion that simply precludes the putting of further amendments to the motion. That is what happens, and now we simply resume debate and carry on and hopefully we will get to 1:30 p.m. and we will go to private members' business. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): I am calling for debate on this question. Debate. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Etobicoke North.
Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the budget because I found it to be totally lacking in vision and direction. It has a number of little things here and there for various groups, but when we look at it substantively, we realize that it lacks direction and vision and leaves out large segments of our society.
One aspect I find particularly disturbing, although there were a couple I mentioned earlier in a question and comment period, is the fact that aboriginal people are left out in the cold again. After the Liberal government negotiated in Kelowna a very strategic accord which would help aboriginal people with housing, education and water and the Conservatives callously ignored that.
They also callously ignored the child care agreements that the Liberal government had meticulously negotiated with the provinces. They would have provided real child care spaces for people who needed them. The $200 a month allowance per child just does not do it. It does not create any child care spaces.
The other aspect I find very disturbing is this. If we are to compete in a global economy, an economy that includes emerging economies like India, China and Brazil, there is nothing in this budget to encourage that. In fact, we take steps backward.
When the Liberal government came into power, it had to deal with a $42 billion deficit that it inherited from the Conservatives. When we got it under control, within a very short time, the Liberals started to reinvest in R and D and put chairs in universities, which was very well received. We also established the Canada Foundation for Innovation, founded the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and provided overheads to the universities. 
Guess what happened? Researchers came back to Canada because they were very pleased with the research environment here. What does that lead to? That leads to invention, innovation and entrepreneurship. That is what we need in the country if we are to create the value added jobs of the future.
What has the government done? It has taken a few steps back. Now we are hearing from researchers that they are going to leave Canada because the research environment is not very conducive to the kind of work they want to do. That is a tragedy after the Liberals built that platform. It could have been built on further. There is an amount in the budget for research, but with other steps the government has taken, it is really moving backward.
There were many other flaws in the budget. I watched the Minister of Finance stand in this place and present the budget. He made a statement along the lines that the problems and disputes with the provinces and territories were gone forever. Not knowing what steps would follow, anyone on this side of the House would have known that to make a statement like this was naive in the extreme. I think he was living in fantasy land. We learned very quickly afterward that many provinces in this country disputed the Minister of Finance's claim that disputes with the provinces and territories were over.
In fact, all colleagues from Atlantic Canada on this side of the House know from the detail in the budget that Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and other provinces have been shafted. My western colleagues also know that full well. They had a good deal under the Liberal government and the Conservative government took it away and left those provinces swinging.
There are other aspects that I find terribly disturbing. The Government of Canada, under the Conservative government, tried to buy off the province of Quebec with increases in transfers. Another $700 million in equalization was handed to Quebec. The ink was barely dry on the cheque when the premier of Quebec said that he would cut taxes by an equivalent amount. I find that shocking. 
 I know that technically and legally the province can do what it wants with equalization. However, members of Parliament have heard the provinces and territories complain about the fact that they cannot properly fund health care, education and social programs and that they need more transfers from the federal government. We transferred an additional $41 billion in our last mandate in addition to other amounts we had increased.
 The province of Quebec, complaining that it needed money for health care and education, got the additional equalization, and then wanted to cut taxes. It did not work. Even though I am sympathetic, and I know my colleagues on this side of the House and perhaps on the other side of the House are sympathetic as well to the federalist cause, we wanted to see the Liberal government trounce the separatists, which it did. However, I think it was a sad commentary and it showed really that Quebeckers could not be bought.
What it tells us is that in the next round of discussions with the provinces and territories, we will hear their bleats and their complains as very hollow when we know that one of the largest provinces in the country took the equalization and cut taxes.
It is also a sad commentary that the province of Quebec, one of the key provinces in terms of population and economic activity, is a have not province. Of the total equalization that is paid out by the federal government, some $12 billion, roughly $7 billion goes to the province of Quebec. I have argued in the House and other places that it is because of the policies of the separatists that Quebec is a have not province.
The other sad reality of the budget bill is that it tries to implement the provisions with respect to the income trusts. A promise was made by the then leader of the Conservative Party that he would not tax income trusts. Many people in my riding of Etobicoke North and other ridings across Canada, based on that assurance when the Conservatives came into power, put their money into income trusts. Guess what? The Conservative Party reneged on that.
Whether we agree that something had to be done with income trusts, and I for one think we had to make some adjustments, the adjustments could have been made in a much fairer way for those people who were already exposed and who ended up losing about $25 billion to $30 billion. The government has done nothing about that in this budget. Nor has it done so in the budget implementation act.
There are a couple of provisions in the budget that I support. One is the pension income splitting. It is helpful to seniors that they can split income. It in some sense partly addresses some concerns of the citizens in my riding, middle income seniors, who have saved all their lives, put money into pensions and they find that their old age security, notwithstanding their best plans, is taxed back in some cases. It starts to get taxed back at around $55,000. Therefore, pension income splitting does not address that fully, but it is a good initiative.
The other sad reality is the budget reflects some of the priorities of the government, one of them being the fact it will arm the guards at the border of Canada. We heard at the committee that it would cost about $1 billion over 10 years to arm the border guards. That does not include the reclassification of the border guards who will become public safety officers. The number I have is about $15,000 per year in added salary. The $1 billion are to train and equip them with guns.
The RCMP advised us that the deterrence effect would be minimal. In fairness to it, it said that no one knew for sure, but it felt the deterrence effect would be minimal.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper. 

Private Members' Business
Income Tax ActMr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC):  moved that Bill C-294, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (sports and recreation programs), be read the third time and passed. 
Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of the House at this stage because the bill has the unanimous support of all 308 members of Parliament in this esteemed chamber. 
I think the members understand the specific purpose of the bill but I will quickly go over it again. It is intended to help young people under the age of 21 in amateur sports programs and the organizations that support them by exempting up to $300 of room and board or lodging costs per month from the Income Tax Act. 
If the bill is passed, the direct beneficiaries of this measure will be the young people in amateur sports and the organizations that support them. 
What is near and dear to my heart and what motivated me to present this bill are the junior A hockey programs in Canada. We have about 140 junior A teams in small cities and towns and in remote and rural areas across Canada that will be the direct beneficiaries of this amendment to the Income Tax Act. It will reduce the cost of their operation probably in the area of $4,000 or $5,000 a year, which in this town might appear to be chump change, but to the organizations that are trying to keep junior A hockey teams viable in their small towns and communities this is significant. It will go a long way to making their hockey operation viable.
Hockey is our national sport. I talked with Mr. Tretiak the other day, the famous Russian hockey coach. He even realized the great goaltenders that came from Saskatchewan, Glenn Hall, Johnny Bower and many others. He learned many of his techniques and skills by studying their methods of playing in goal. We have a rich history of hockey in Saskatchewan and the junior A hockey program is very much a part of that.
I want to acknowledge some of the people who should be acknowledged on this bill. The real champion of this bill and who took the bull by the horns was Roy Bailey, a good friend of mine and a former colleague in this House in the 37th Parliament. He fought hard to get this injustice sorted out when it occurred. He did not really accomplish that but he laid all the groundwork for it. I am basically finishing the job that Roy started.
I once again want to thank MPs from all parties who contributed to this matter. They have been very good in discussing the matter. When we are talking hockey, I think partisanship disappears and we are all on the same side.
The member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and her staff have been very helpful on this matter. I specifically want to thank the member for the accommodations that were made to expedite this bill.
At report stage the bill received the unanimous support of the House. I do not intend to go over all the merits of the bill. We have done that before. I think the members of the House understand the bill quite well. Not much would be accomplished by going over the benefits of the bill, except that it is a good news story for amateur sport and young people in Canada. This is good public policy. 
The cost of this amendment to the taxpayer would be minimal. I do not think it would amount to more than $700,000 or $800,000 a year, which, in the age of obesity and all the problems we are having with type two diabetes, it is a measure that would encourage people to be active and be healthy, which is something we should all be encouraging.
I will not be using all my allotted time on this matter. I commend the bill to the good judgment of the 308 members of Parliament in the House of Commons. I trust they will continue to do the right thing and push this bill into reality and make it the public policy of this country.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Questions and comments. Debate.
Normally it would be the time to give the hon. member for Prince Albert five minutes to rebut but there is nothing to rebut.
 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.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
 It being 1:36 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, April 16, 2007 at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1). 
The House adjourned at 1:36 p.m.