Debates of Feb. 24th, 2005

The Budget

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about the cities. He talked about his grandparents coming to Canada.

In the budget yesterday there was not much for rural Canada. I would like to know what he thinks about the sustainability of agriculture and the cheap food policy that the government has put on Canadian agriculture.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned, my grandparents arrived here as immigrants. They arrived under contract as tobacco pickers. Once they finished their contract, they moved to the cities, eventually to Toronto. There were a great many opportunities. Toronto has grown significantly since those times.

In the budget we have provided $300 million for immigrant settlement to make sure that new immigrants, who will help build Canada's economy, will integrate at a faster pace than they have in the past.

Canada has become an urban country. More and more, people are moving to urban centres. It is for that reason the budget has paid particular attention to cities.

In the last election we talked about a new deal for cities. As I mentioned during my speech, we have kept that promise. We have provided for a GST rebate to cities of $7 billion over 10 years. In fact, we have gone further. In the budget we talked about $5 billion over the next five years to go toward cities. In the first year we have ramped it up from $400 million to $600 million and in the final year it will be $2 billion.

What is interesting is that the funding will continue past those five years so that after a 15 year period, we are talking about $25 billion. That will provide tremendous opportunities for our urban centres, for our cities, to make investments, to make sure that we have the public transportation infrastructure that is required and to make sure that those cities have healthy, liveable environments.

I am very proud of the commitments we have made in this budget.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I come from a part of Ontario that is a short distance from where the hon. member lives, only about two hours away on the shores of Lake Erie in southern Ontario. It is a very rural riding.

In the budget, funds have been provided for economic development in the west, the far north, northern Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada. It seems that only southern Ontario does not get this funding.

With our farms disappearing, I am wondering how the member is proposing that we survive without our farms and without development money?

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course there are challenges in southern Ontario, as there are challenges in every part of Ontario and every part of the country. Fortunately in southern Ontario those challenges are often of a lesser sort than those faced in other parts of the country. It is with that kind of realization that Canada has a process of equalization, to acknowledge the challenges and difficulties that various regions and provinces face.

We have paid a great deal of attention recently to equalization and in cutting a deal with all provinces, all regions of the country when it comes to equalization.

Not everyone is happy at every point in time, but when there are particular issues that hit particular sectors, for instance, BSE which affected Ontario as well, we lived up to our commitments to make sure that when people face challenges, we would help them through those challenges.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to applaud the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance on budget 2005. As the budget speech was so correctly subtitled, budget 2005 was “Delivering on Commitments”.

I would like to take the majority of the time that has been allotted to me to speak on the moneys that were allocated to the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Budget 2005 contains great news for the entire Canadian heritage portfolio. In fact, the Globe and Mail has the named the Department of Canadian Heritage as one of the winners, having received $1.6 billion in funding over five years for a multitude of cultural programs and heritage projects.

The government's commitment to our country's arts and cultural sector should not come as any surprise to anyone in the House. In our election platform, the government acknowledged that “Canadians believe that measuring a country's vitality goes beyond traditional economic yardsticks to include its culture, its heroes, its history and its stories”.

Therefore, the government committed in the election platform that it would undertake inter alia the following: first, to ensure that the policies of key cultural institutions suggest as Telefilm, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Canadian television fund are fully aligned with the objective of providing more successful Canadian programming of all genres; second, to make investments to better protect Canada's heritage sites and National Archives; and third, to provide, through the Canada Council, increased support for Canada's major arts organizations to more effectively enable the latter to export Canadian cultural excellence.

Following the sequence of events, after the election in its first Speech from the Throne, which was delivered on October 5, 2004, the government also noted the important role that culture plays in Canadian communities.

In the section in the Speech from the Throne, entitled “Canada's Cities and Communities”, the government noted the following:

What makes our communities vibrant and creative is the quality of their cultural life. The government will foster cultural institutions and policies that aspire to excellence, reflect a diverse and multicultural society, respond to the new challenges of globalization and the digital economy, and promote diversity of views in cultural expression at home and abroad.

I would respectfully submit that budget 2005 delivered on its commitment to arts and culture.

Yesterday in the budget speech the Minister of Finance again spoke about the arts and culture in reference to the cities and communities. He noted:

Canada's cities and communities are the places where most Canadians live and work, raise their children and want to retire in dignity and security. They are engines of growth, employment and innovation, centres of art, culture and learning.

This reference in the budget to arts and culture was accompanied by the following details, which are outlined on pages 99 to 102 of the budget plan. They are as follows.

First, the budget provides $172 million per year in new funding to provide stability for tomorrow starts today arts and culture initiative for another five years, for a total of $688 million. This brings the total funding for the tomorrow starts today program to $860 million over five years.

Second, the budget provides $5 million per year over five years to enhance the multiculturalism program. The budget plan also notes an investment of $10 million per year over five years to celebrate the Canada program for community based events and activities that offer all Canadians the opportunity to share their pride in their country.

Next, the budget allocates $56 million over the next five years to the implementation of “A Canada For All: Canada's Action Plan Against Racism”.

There is more. The budget allocates $25 million over the next three years for commemorative and educational initiatives to highlight the contribution that ethnocultural groups have made to Canadian society and to help build a better understanding among all Canadians.

Next is something about which I am very pleased. CBC/Radio-Canada will receive $60 million in 2005-06 to help ensure high quality programming. There is more. An amount of $5 million has been allocated for the aboriginal languages initiative.

Last but not least, $4.5 million in 2005-06 has been allocated for the Centre for Research and Information on Canada.

I am also glad to note that the arts community responded almost immediately after the budget speech had been delivered. The Canada Council for the Arts issued a news release noting that the “Federal budget brings good news for the arts”. In particular, the Canada Council for the Arts welcomed $25 million a year for the Canada Council. Speaking on behalf of the Canada Council, its chair, Karen Kain, stated the following:

“This is wonderful news, not only for the Canada Council, but also for the thousands of artists and arts organizations who receive Council funding,” she said. “I think this will allow the arts community to breathe a little easier, and we greatly appreciate the government’s efforts in making this happen”.

Ms. Kain also went on to note the following:

“The number of artists and arts organizations in Canada has increased dramatically over the past two decades, and far too many deserving projects have had to be turned down because of lack of funds,” she said. “We are pleased that the government recognizes the challenges we face, and appreciates the value the arts bring to Canadians and their communities.”

I would also like to point out that today the Canadian Conference of the Arts also specifically applauded the Minister of Finance and congratulated the Minister of Canadian Heritage on the renewal of the tomorrow starts today funding. Speaking on behalf of the CCA, its national director, Jean Malavoy, noted the following:

We are grateful for the extension of tomorrow starts today. We congratulate [the Minister of Canadian Heritage] and her colleagues on this significant step, and we expect that this five year extension represents the foundation on which increased funding for culture can be built.

Indeed, I can speak first-hand of the importance that the arts community attributes to the renewal of the tomorrow starts today's money.

After being given the privilege of being appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage by the Prime Minister in the summer, I began conducting a series of consultations with artistic and cultural organizations in Ontario. The most common themes that were raised during these consultations included the need for stable, multi-year funding, including the immediate renewal of the tomorrow starts today program, the enhancement of the Canada Council and the recognition of the key role that our cultural institutions play in the economic and social well-being of our cities and communities.

However, I would also like to add today that the arts community found perhaps a new ally in its quest to request funding for the arts and the renewal of the tomorrow starts today program. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, at its last annual meeting, passed a resolution calling upon the Government of Canada to renew the tomorrow starts today program.

For those people who do not know, the tomorrow starts today program first came into place in 2001, which was the largest reinvestment in the arts. Again, we see this reinvestment continuing.

I would submit that in general the Liberal government's 2005 budget delivers on all of its key platform commitments, including building the 21st century economy, securing Canada's social foundation, addressing climate change and meeting our global responsibilities.

I am so proud to be a member of the Liberal team. This budget fulfills the commitments made in the Liberal election platform. It also reflects the priorities of my constituents, as evidenced by the results of prebudget consultations which I held in the riding and which I spoke about in our prebudget consultations.

One must always remember that the budget document allows the government to make fiscal choices that reflect the kind of society that we want. I believe that budget 2005 accurately reflects the kind of Canada that not only the people of Parkdale--High Park want, but the people of Canada want.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the people I represent in the riding of Winnipeg Centre are disappointed. They are curious to know why their money has to be rationed out to them in such a miserly way, and I say that in the kindest way I can. They are frustrated by the fact that the budget announced by the finance minister yesterday is sequenced in such a way that no real goodies will arrive until year three, year four or year five of a five year plan.

People in the riding of Winnipeg Centre who called me said that it sounded more like a campaign speech than a budget speech. The minister was promising goodies to people as long as they kept voting Liberal and kept electing Liberal governments. Maybe in the third year, fourth year or fifth year they will start to get some of their hard earned tax dollars back in the form of either program spending or tax cuts. That is our frustration we on this side of the House.

I did not hear my colleague from High Park mention this. The budget speech did not really state much about what would be spent in the next budget year. It referred to what would come down the road, even though there is a minority government. Surely my colleague would agree that most minority governments do not last three or four years and not five years. This same government will probably not be in effect when the goodies start to be released.

Why should we have to wait five years to get what is rightfully ours when we expected it in this budget for this fiscal year?

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the budget does deliver immediate results, and I will use the gas tax as an example.

The member is from Winnipeg which is a large city like Toronto. The budget will increase the amount of the gas tax flowing to municipalities immediately. This builds on the GST rebate which came into effect the moment the Prime Minister became the leader of our party before the election. That money will start to flow right away.

The Manitoba Theatre Centre in Winnipeg is a huge cultural institution which benefits from the tomorrow starts today program for the arts which is provided through the Canada Council. Money has not only flowed to the MTC, but it will continue to flow to it and other organizations so they can plan ahead. This does not just benefit the institutions, but also the individual artists, and that is very important.

Many things will flow immediately from the budget.

One thing that has always been true about the Liberal approach is that we are always careful to balance fiscal responsibility with investing in programs that are important to Canadians. As the member knows, this is the eighth straight year that we have balanced the budget. That is more than any other OECD country. We are leaders in this area, and we are proud of that fact. By balancing our budgets, we are not paying huge amounts of money on debt. The interest alone that we saved is huge, and that money can be reinvested in the priorities of Canadians which are outlined in the budget.

Some things take effect immediately and others take effect over time. I submit this is an indication of fiscal prudence. We are investing in those things that are important to Canadians and that truly affect Canadian values.

The member indicated that minority governments last only one or two years. In the province of Ontario, the minority government of Bill Davis lasted four years. I am optimistic. We will continue to work together in cooperation, as we have, to ensure that we serve Canadians. I look forward to our continued work with the member opposite.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Lanark, ON]

Mr. Speaker, budgets are like a magician's tricks. The government tries to give the appearance of something that is not there. Through the parsing of words and playing with numbers and statistics, the government tries to give the impression that its financial commitments will meet everyone's needs regardless of what it is. The government tries to be all things to all people but it does not work.

Let me say at the beginning that we Conservatives support the growth in regular and reserve manpower, although it is far short of what is required. They are certainly needed by the hardworking military.

The government, as we have learned in the budget, says that it is committed to adding the regular and reserve personnel and have allocated this year and next some $180 million of a total $3 billion, or only 6%. It is obvious that it is not really in a hurry to close the manpower gap, since it is going to stretch out the process as long as it can. It looks as though the military will be asked to spin its wheels waiting for the manpower increase. The government has built a lot of flexibility and can, at will, slide implementation to the side.

Unfortunately, in adding the 5,000 regulars and 3,000 reserves to the military, recruits will have to be processed through the constipated recruiting and training system. Currently about 10,000 regulars are tied up in the system and the normal number should be in the 4,000 to 5,000 range. Many regular recruits are lost in the system for up to 18 months. Similar problems are faced by the reserves who are also processed through the same system.

The Conservative Party also believes that absorbing an increase at only 1,000 per year is not an acceptable goal for the government. What would the government do if there were an international crisis calling for dramatic increases? It is just not acceptable.

In this budget the government is trying to show that it has changed its spots and that it is generally committed to having an effective military force. However, a lot of what it says is simply obscuring the real situation.

The overarching statement in the budget is that the government is putting $12.8 billion of new money into the military in the next five years. This is not true. According to its own figures, the amount is $7 billion. The proposed increase starts this year with $500 million and next year $600 million. However all that Canadians can really count on are a mere $1.1 billion out of the so-called $13 billion.

In subsequent years there are promises of increases in the amount of $1.1 billion, $2.1 billion and $2.7 billion respectively, which may or may not ever happen. By then we will probably be involved in an election or the government will declare that the economy has deteriorated or that its priorities have changed.

In the highly touted increase to the military, $5.8 billion is not new money. It is recycled money. This is a typical government ploy to keep re-announcing projects. For example, we have already had an announcement for the fixed wing search and rescue project. We were told last year that it would cost $1.3 billion and deliver 15 small transport aircraft. These new aircraft are supposed to replace the Buffalo and Hercules which are both very old aircraft. However we now have the fixed wing SAR project listed as a new project. How many times will this project be announced? Instead of re-announcing it, perhaps the minister will take the brakes off the project.

When the first announcement was promulgated, it was predicted that within 18 months a decision would be made. I can tell the House that no such decision has been made. In fact, the department is still trying to determine what it wants. It has not produced a statement of requirements. Until that statement is produced, no progress will be made on this project. Perhaps that is what the government wants to do, make feel good announcements but never acquire the aircraft.

Since I am on the topic of aircraft, there is no mention of airlift in the budget. We certainly do not need a defence review to determine that we need reliable airlift. Everyone who reads newspapers and watches television knows about the government's dithering on the DART. The Liberals long term under financing of the military really hit home with the public during the horrific disaster in Asia.

For years the government touted the disaster assistance response team as something Canada could dispatch within 48 hours. The deployment of the DART to Sri Lanka was delayed two weeks and it had to be done by commercially available Antonov aircraft, rather than our own transport fleet.

The reason is that our current fleet of air transport is very old and over-committed. It does not take a defence review to arrive at this conclusion. On any one day, one-third of the Hercules fleet of 32 aircraft is committed to search and rescue, leaving about 20 to 22 aircraft for airlift tasks. Because of their advanced stage and the need for intense maintenance support, only 50% are available on any one day. In practical terms, this means that only 10 or 11 Hercules are available for national and international tasking.

It is quite obvious that we cannot meet airlift requirements for international ventures but the same problem exists in Canada. Just think of the difficulties the military had last year moving troops around our country, especially into the north. Only last week there was an incident where reservists in the Maritimes could not secure Canadian Forces transport to train in the United States. It is downright embarrassing.

How long will it take for the government to commit to buying airlift? Will we have to wait another 10 years until we see new transport aircraft?

The Liberal government is trying to spin the notion that it is committed to a real revitalization of the military. This is its typical smoke and mirrors. If it had been committed to real revitalization, it would have front end loaded the budget instead of pushing any real increase into the third, fourth and fifth gears, meaning that it will probably not happen. Expectations are raised but the real money will always be beyond reach.

In the first two years there is no funding for new equipment projects. Even the ones announced in the budget get no money. The government continues to use the old line that until it sees the defence review, no commitment to new projects can be made. This is patently untrue.

The government in this budget announced the future acquisition of medium capacity helicopters. Where did this idea come from? The answer is that it came from the defence review document that Parliament has yet to see. If the medium lift helicopters can be identified in the budget, why can airlift and sealift projects not also be identified?

The Prime Minister announced during the election in Gagetown that the forces would be requiring three 28,000 tonne joint support ships. Where is the follow up commitment to these vessels? The government has had staff working on the sealift project for years defining and redefining the requirement. When is the dithering going to stop? Is the government going to walk away from another one of its commitments?

The budget refers to the acquisition of logistic trucks. I am quite pleased to see that the government is making a commitment, except that there is no money for the project in the first two years of the budget. The army certainly needs the new trucks. The old ones are rusting out quickly.

Somewhere between 2008 and 2012, the army logistic lift will be unable to meet its tasks because its 26 year old trucks will be rusted out beyond repair and unsafe. I hope for the sake of the army the department rethinks its old procurement process, otherwise it may be many years before the army sees the new trucks.

Of course, I was surprised again that the minister was able to identify a project without a new defence review being approved. Since the review seems to slide and slide into the future, perhaps he can address other vital needs of the forces within the document. It seems to be a convenient crutch to avoid decision.

The government's budget was not written with clarity in mind. It has been very difficult to determine precisely what is being done in defence. I particularly liked the warning, “the timing and size of DND's cash requirement will depend upon how the military allocates its new funding to its various needs and, in particular, on the timing and the nature of specific projects it initiates”. It seems to say that there is unlimited flexibility in the numbers we have been provided and that they are in reality notional.

The budget numbers and government plan are on Velcro. The only numbers that Canadians can believe is the two year defence commitment averaging $550 million, which will not even start to address the real problems of the military.

The Liberals have never stood by a five year funding plan and they certainly will not do so this time. A real commitment would have been front end loaded. The government has cruelly raised the expectation of the military and down the road it is going to disappoint it. This has been the Liberals' track record for 40 years, through government after government. They promise and promise but they never deliver. They will do and say anything to stay in power. Contrary to the spin, this is not a good budget for defence.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member certainly understands defence issues and appreciates the need for the infusion of capital into our nation's defences.

My question for the hon. member is on the macro effects of yesterday afternoon's budget. When I read the budget I was pleased, as the hon. member will be, that this is the eighth consecutive surplus budget that the government has tabled. Almost $61 million has been paid down on the debt, the debt to GDP ratio has been decreased from approximately 68% to 38%, and millions of jobs have been created.

When I read the document in its entirety, the government seems to have a very firm control on the fiscal and monetary levers of the country, especially with respect to inflation. It has been able to keep inflation in the 1% to 3% band, which drives down interest rates and helps the provinces that borrow money and the companies that borrow money, but, most important, it helps individual families that have mortgages and car loans when interest rates are at historic lows.

After looking at the document in its entirety and looking at it from a macro economic effect, does the hon. member agree with me that the sound financial management shown in yesterday's budget will greatly benefit all Canadians?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Lanark, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, the government does not set the basis for controlling inflation in this country, the Bank of Canada does. The government can claim all it wants that it controls inflation but it is the Bank of Canada that controls inflation by controlling the money supply.

As the member has said, the government has been in surplus for eight years but they are obscene surpluses. It has surpluses because it is taking in far more money than it needs. Last year's surplus was $9.1 billion. I do not know what this year's surplus will be, probably $10 billion or $11 billion. It means that the government is taking money out of the pockets of individuals and companies and accumulating it here in Ottawa so it can be frittered away on various programs to help Liberal ridings.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to ask my colleague a question; he is a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

Does he find it somewhat odd to see this budget spread over five years? For example, it appears that $12 billion has been allocated to National Defence, but ultimately, only $500 million will be provided next year. Eventually, over five years, $12 billion will be invested.

Does the member not believe there is a danger in proceeding this way? For example, a change in government could occur—which we all want—or, in two or three years' time, the Minister of Finance might simply decide to cancel all the wonderful promises contained in this speech, particularly with regard to National Defence.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Lanark, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. I also raised the issue that all we can really believe in the budget is the $1.1 billion, the $500 million and the $600 million. No one can credibly believe in the money that the Liberals are predicting in the third, fourth and fifth years. It will never happen.

We know the history of the Liberal government and all previous Liberal governments. They never go through with five year plans. I would have a heart attack if the Liberals actually added $3 billion to the base line in the defence budget. It will never happen.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the agriculture and agrifood critic for the official opposition, I am honoured to have this opportunity to speak on behalf of producers and farm families across the country, and to respond to the government's 2005 budget.

I am frankly quite dismayed at the continued lack of respect and attention that agricultural producers and hard-working families have received in the 2005 budget. Farmers will get no more cash in their pockets this year from the budget's agricultural programs, or should I say the lack thereof.

Despite Agriculture Canada's forecasts of another year of negative total net income, there are no additional funds for producer income support this year. The $26 million a year in cash advances for livestock producers that was promised is a mere drop in the ocean and it will not even kick in until next year if at all.

The budget has almost $100 million in recycled and reannounced promises. What is even worse is that the money is not even for farmers but for industry. This is money that was not delivered as promised. It is recycled. It is redirected, to use the government's own words. The $80 million of it will now go to managing the removal of specified risk materials and to handling those issues, and $17 million will go to the fabled loan loss reserve program.

I have to wonder which of the government's September promises are not being kept and at whose expense. To highlight the government's lip service to the agricultural community we have recently learned that the agriculture minister's often bragged about $66 million loan loss reserve program is a sham. It does not exist.

The program announced on September 10 of last year was supposed to help stimulate additional slaughterhouse capacity in the country, slaughter capacity that is most desperately needed.

Members of the Canadian Bankers Association testified before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food this week that for all intents and purposes the program does not exist. The admission that the program is non-existent is frankly stunning. It is also an insult to livestock producers so desperately impacted by the BSE crisis.

Yesterday the Minister of Finance announced that $17 million is to be redirected to this non-existent program. The minister is simply offering would-be slaughterhouse investors the sleeves off his vest.

It should be noted that this unprecedented situation has devastated not only cattle farmers but other livestock producers as well. In the absence of any real action from the federal government, all four western provinces have developed a BSE program to compensate producers of elk, deer, bison, sheep and goats.

Other ruminant and cervid producers left high and dry by the minister have demanded and continue to demand action from the government. The 2005 budget would have been an ideal opportunity for the government to show that it has heard the calls of the other ruminant producers. However, their calls once again have fallen on deaf years.

On this occasion, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the agriculture minister this question. When will he ante up and kick in the federal portion of funding for these other ruminant programs already committed to by the western provinces?

With regard to the Canadian agricultural income stabilization or CAIS program, the Liberals seem to be taking a Jekyll and Hyde approach. Just two weeks ago the Liberals voted against our motion to drop the CAIS cash deposit requirement.

The member for Winnipeg South voted against it, as did the Prime Minister, the finance minister, the agriculture minister and his parliamentary secretary. Now in a complete about face they say that they want to get rid of it.

It was the Conservative Party that brought forward the motion. It was the Conservative Party that was pushing for it. The Liberals are now trying to take credit for something that they actually voted against just two weeks ago. We hope they mean that they want to get rid of it this time and we hope, for the sake of our farmers, that they will do something about it and do it soon.

The same day they voted against removing the cash deposit requirement, the same Liberals voted against honouring the commitment they had already made to our agricultural producers. So pardon me if I cynically say that I will believe it when I see it. After all, the Liberals committed $71 million in relief to the tobacco farmers of my area, guaranteed to be delivered by October last year. So far they have failed to honour this commitment as well, so my cynicism is well learned.

With regard to total new funding for agriculture, the budget offers a paltry $130 million. This new money is not for producers either; it is for bureaucrats and consultants. It will not give any farmer the money that many desperately need just to plant this spring. This is shameful. At a time when farmers' realized net income is at an all time low, the government is sending a clear message to producers right across this country that farmers do not matter to this Liberal government. The minister himself confirmed this earlier today when he said that he does not always get what he wants at the cabinet table.

What was desperately needed in the budget was: tax deferrals on 2004 income for producers hit by drought, crashing commodity prices and BSE; tax incentives to increase domestic beef and ruminant slaughter capacity; and the provision of direct loan underwriting for the development of increased slaughter capacity, not to mention crop insurance improvements.

In terms of providing real relief for hardworking families, the steps taken by the Liberals in the budget do not go far enough or occur fast enough to have a significant impact on the well-being of Canadians. The Liberals would rather grow the size of the government than grow the incomes of Canadians. The cost of the bureaucracy has grown 77% since 1997.

Yet, the Liberal tax relief promised in the budget will amount to just $16 this year for low and middle income Canadians. Furthermore, any additional tax relief is back loaded to 2010. This is an outrage. Hard-working families deserve a bigger break than these piddling measures that the Liberal government has promised.

The status quo is not acceptable. With various crisis situations affecting our farmers right across this country at this time, the Canadian agricultural community is in its worst financial position since the years of the Great Depression. Agriculture Canada's own forecast of negative total net income for yet another year confirmed this, but the Liberal budget ignores it. Once again the Liberals seem to be saying that our farmers should just wind down their farms, move into the city, and get real jobs, ones that will allow them to pay more income tax for the Liberal government to squander.

Our farmers deserve more respect than this. Clearly the Liberal government does not value the contributions of hard-working farm families. To put things in context, Ontario corn producers are currently getting less money per tonne for their corn than the city of Toronto is getting per tonne of garbage. That is right, corn is worth more after it has been used than before.

The government must change its priorities. Agriculture is a key economic driver of this country and the security of our food supply depends on farm families who work very hard to provide us with the high quality food that we eat.

Canadians across this country want a safe, secure food supply, and they deserve it. Our farmers want to supply it, but increasingly they are finding it impossible to do so. The government has a responsibility to ensure that farmers receive responsive relief in real time. They do not need phantom funds. They do not need deferred dollars and they do not need the sleeves off of the government's vest.

Farmers across this country need relief and they need it now. The budget has failed to provide it, and for that reason, I will not be supporting it.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the critic from the Conservative Party how proud I am of her and the words she spoke.

The care and the concern for the agricultural community is becoming rather obvious on that side of the House. The Liberals just do not care. If they were to care, we would certainly see something different than what we have seen in this budget. If they were to care, they would be concerned about the number of farmers who are going to be lined up at the banks in a week, or two or three or four, in the hundreds and maybe thousands. Foreclosures are going to happen and farmers are going to have to walk off the land. I do not think they care. That is absolutely shameful.

I cannot support a budget that does not support my farmers. About 75% of my riding are farmers. I refuse to bend an inch on their care and concerns. It is time for the government to fess up. Is it trying to get rid of agriculture like it did the fishing industry? Is it actually trying to get rid of it? Is it trying to put Saskatchewan in a situation where it will be corporate farming that only needs about 15 operators to take care of the whole province? Is that what the government is after? Is it trying to get more and more corporate farming just to get people into the cities, so they can get better paying jobs and pay more taxes so this greedy bunch can get their hands on it?

Just exactly what kind of a strategy does the member believe that the government is playing over there?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his support and kind words, and I have to echo his sentiments.

For a very long time now, we have seen a blatant disregard for our rural communities, particularly the agricultural sector in this country. I come from an agricultural community and we are losing our farms. We are losing the future farmers to the cities because farming is just not viable for them anymore. Their families cannot make a living.

The sad part is that, while those future farmers are leaving, we have no infrastructure in our area to attract jobs that will replace the farm jobs that are being lost. In this budget, every part of this country except southern Ontario, where my farmers are and from where our future farmers are leaving, is going to be getting economic development funds except our region. If that is not forcing our people into the cities, I do not know what is. It is a pretty blatant strategy and I for one will not tolerate it.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I come from a riding that has a lot of farmers who are having great difficulties right now. I would like to direct my question to the hon. member for Haldimand--Norfolk who led this party's charge against the cash deposit requirement on the CAIS program just a couple of weeks ago.

I happen to have sat in on that debate where we saw the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food and his parliamentary secretary fight tooth and nail for a whole day in this House. The member for Haldimand--Norfolk referred to the fact that this deposit requirement was removed in the budget as somewhat of a Jekyll and Hyde hide-and-seek, and why this was buried somewhere in the middle of a 300 page document and not actually discussed here in the budget speech.

Why does she think it was buried in that document and not celebrated as something that in fact is good for farmers?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the government officials spent a full day saying they would not get rid of the CAIS cash deposit requirement, despite the pleas of hundreds of thousands of farmers across this country. I am delighted that this was included in the budget of yesterday. Finally the government is responding to the motion that was passed by the House by an overwhelming majority.

As to why it was not mentioned in the budget, maybe publicly the government does not want to be seen supporting agriculture. Maybe it does not want its Jekyll and Hyde situation to be seen. That is all right as long as it actually delivers on this promise to get rid of the deposit requirement and it is not just weasel words in the budget. If the government will actually remove it in a timely manner before the March 31 deadline, I would sincerely thank it as would hundreds of thousands of farmers across this country.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the remarks by the member for Haldimand—Norfolk as well as the interjections by the member for Wild Rose, both of whom have indicated their deep concerns with this budget, particularly as they pertain to agriculture.

It is certainly a concern that we on this side of the House share, but it does raise the question: why in heaven's name has the leader of their party indicated that he will support this budget and that the Conservatives will support this budget?

We have different stories about what that means. At one time the leader of the Conservative Party says he and his party will support the budget, while on other occasions members are saying they will not allow the government to be defeated on this budget.

Given the member's genuine concerns, I wonder what she intends to do. Will those members be voting with the Liberals on the budget or do they intend to take a walk? Or do they intend to ignore the direction of their leader?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think I need to set the record straight. There has been a lot of speculation and a lot of misquoting in the media recently about the Conservative position and the leader's position. The position is that we will not be supporting this budget but we do not believe that the people of Canada want an election at this point in time.

There are measures in the budget that we have asked for, like dropping the CAIS cash deposit requirement. This is progress. To throw that away would not be a good thing. It would not be responsible government by the opposition.

I thought that I had made it very clear in my closing comments, but since the member is asking what my position will be, let me say as the opposition critic for agriculture and agrifood and on behalf of the farmers and the communities in my riding that depend on farmers, I will not be supporting this budget.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Health; the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton, Youth.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Minister of State (Northern Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have my hon. colleagues here to support me. I could not do this without them.

It is a great pleasure to rise in support of budget 2005. I have witnessed in my tenure of almost 17 years approximately 15 budgets. Of course this budget makes it eight consecutive balanced budgets, the longest run since Confederation.

I am very impressed with the strong fiscal message the government is putting forward. The prudence and contingencies that are built into this budget are basically shock absorbers to meet all the economic tests of time for our country. We live in a very tenuous world, where things happen that we do not anticipate, as has been witnessed lately. These have to be built into the budget.

I am very proud of the Minister of Finance. He has done his country proud. We are very pleased with this budget. It represents a plan to continue and accelerate our government's agenda for promoting meaningful and positive change. We have taken steps to renew the partnership with aboriginal people and with northerners to ensure that they are partners in the prosperity we build. Budget 2005 confirms this but also commits to this in the longer term.

Where I come from, the north is so well positioned in terms of all forms of development, be it social development, political development, economic development or resource development, and the government has honoured the work that has been undertaken over decades by different leadership and community groups and all stakeholders in the north.

We have put into the north $24 million in training to meet the needs of resource development, $14 million for mines training, I believe, and $9.9 million for oil and gas training under the aboriginal skills employment partnership moneys. Out of concern for the environment, we also have earmarked $9 million for protected areas strategy. In the last three years we have also spent $108 million for pipeline development. It is a huge undertaking and it requires that money.

In recent months we have invested $40 million for each of the territories, to the tune of $120 million, for the northern strategy, which is a major strategy for the government. In the last month we have put forward strategic infrastructure money, which is $90 million, for the Northwest Territories, and municipal infrastructure funding of $32 million.

Further to that, because we are right in the throes of looking at the whole pipeline development issue, the needs of the various regions are being met by a fund of $4 million, which was put together collectively by the stakeholders, that is, the federal government, the territorial government and also industry, to negotiate access and benefits agreements. There has to be a sort of clearance of the right of way. I will also mention the crime prevention moneys we have put forward, as well as the money for literacy and for women's groups, and the various other amounts of moneys that have been put forward to assist with different community needs.

We have taken the significant step, as I said, of renewing the relationship. There is increased support for the Canada-aboriginal peoples roundtable which we are undertaking. In this budget we are investing at this time $735 million over the next five years in priorities identified through this process. This is in addition to the $700 million over five years for aboriginal health programs announced in September 2004.

These investments include $345 million over the next five years for first nations early learning and child care, special education and family services and $340 million over the next five years for first nations housing on reserve. Aboriginal languages and culture and the healing foundation are all included in this. This additional investment reinforces our partnership with aboriginal people to strengthen our communities.

It is quite evident that aboriginal people did not get everything they wanted in the budget process, but there is an extra territorial process, if I might put it that way. We have a round table process which will end up in a policy retreat. That speaks to a number of areas, including housing, education, health, economic development, negotiations and accountability. These will probably all eventually roll out into more commitments.

There is concern about the amount of money for the healing foundation. The $40 million that we have put in will give us time to develop, collectively along with the aboriginal people, not presuming on their behalf but collaboratively with them, a self-sustaining healing program for the longer term. It will also allow us the time to work out the process by which the residential school issue will be dealt with. That will be done collaboratively as well.

The current generation of aboriginal children represents a tremendous opportunity for progress, but we have to close the gap in life chances that exist between aboriginal and non-aboriginal children. Budget 2005 will help us close that gap with a commitment of $100 million specifically for aboriginal children from the $5 billion national child care initiative.

I am very happy with the national child care initiative. I have been here for years on both sides of the House, in opposition as well as government, and I am glad it is the government of which I am a member that is initiating this $5 billion national child care initiative. It is much needed, believe me.

The budget also addresses the growing needs of Canada's seniors by increasing the guaranteed income supplement benefits for low income seniors by $2.7 billion over five years. Funding for the new horizons program is also benefiting from an increase of $10 million to $25 million a year to promote voluntary sector activities by and in support of seniors. I think this is very important for seniors.

We often talk about how important it is to preserve culture and promote the arts in Canada. It is truly exciting to see the investment made by budget 2005 in support for our culture and its arts communities in committing an additional $688 million for the Tomorrow Starts Today arts and culture package. That effectively extends the program for a full five years. This brings the total new funding for Tomorrow Starts Today to a total of $860 million over five years. This is very welcome.

I also want to speak on health care support, which is so critical. In my riding and throughout the three territories our needs are unique and challenging, in that access to timely health care services can be limited in the more remote communities of our territories. Recognizing this as part of the 10 year plan to strengthen health care, budget 2005 provides an additional $150 million over five years to the territories to support this need. This will include assistance with medical travel, a territorial health access fund and the establishment of a territorial working group and operational secretariat.

Specifically on aboriginal health, last fall we committed $700 million toward that end for an aboriginal health human resources initiative, the aboriginal diabetes initiative and an aboriginal youth suicide prevention strategy.

Budget 2005 also provides something that was very much sought after and needed by the Inuit, and that is an Inuit secretariat, which will receive $10 million over the next five years.

On December 14, the Prime Minister and territorial leaders released a policy framework laying out the vision, principles and possible goals of a northern strategy. The announcement included, as I have indicated, $120 million in a trust fund for Canada's three aboriginal territories. This is a joint initiative with the Government of Canada. It includes seven pillars in improving the quality of life for northerners.

In addition to the $108 million we got, we have received the balance of that, $150 million over four years, for the pipeline development. Our priority quite clearly now is to get a resource revenue sharing agreement with the federal government, the territorial government, and the aboriginal governments for my territory.

It is critical that we deal with the issue of net fiscal benefits and we will be engaging the Department of Finance, officials and ministers. A lot of work has transpired thus far. We are looking forward to that. Under devolution we want to complete that. We are changing or amending it; we do not have one.

We are very grateful that we have finally dealt with the defence issue with the defence policy we are promoting as a government. The $12.8 billion is much needed. It speaks to the issue of sovereignty and security in the north. It speaks to the issue of search and rescue. These are very important. The $4 billion for the environment speaks loudly to the issue of northern environmental concerns. This speaks to the whole issue of climate change and global warming. It hugely affects the north.

I am very happy with the initiatives we have undertaken. I will probably get a chance to speak to other things as we move along. I would have liked to have said more about the environment, but I am sharing my time with my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the minister talk about some of the things that are in the budget but I think there is a very glaring omission from the budget. It is something that is very important in my constituency of Burnaby—Douglas where there are two major post-secondary institutions, the BCIT and Simon Fraser University.

It is important to families in my riding too that we address issues around education but that is something that has been almost completely ignored. Certainly the situation of post-secondary students has been completely ignored in the budget. There is nothing to address the rising cost of tuition. There is nothing to address student debt. Actually I misspoke myself, Mr. Speaker. It does address student debt, but only if the student dies and then the student loan is forgiven. It is hardly acceptable that something this important to families, students and our country has been ignored by the budget.

Could the hon. member explain to me why something as important as the situation of students and post-secondary education has been completely ignored in the budget?

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows that budgets are unique creatures. They cannot have everything in them but we have a tendency to focus on a number of issues. We do not like to have to pick and choose, but choices have to be made. In this instance we focused on child care and early learning with $5 billion. That is a lot of money.

Also, the hon. member should know that education is a provincial jurisdiction. We do not have control over that. We could not do anything about tuition fees directly. That is the responsibility of the institutions. We do not control that.

The Minister of Finance said on television this morning that there were two areas he would do more work on. One of them is the aboriginal issues and directly, probably the healing foundation and other issues like that, and the other is post-secondary education.

We have made a number of measures in previous budgets to deal with tax incentives and to deal with other provisions for students who are at risk, who go to university and other post-secondary institutions. We have undertaken those. The member should review those. There are some provisions which probably are not enough, but we will work on it along with the Minister of Finance.

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite familiar with the diamond industry in the Northwest Territories. It has been a huge success. She will know that in the budget is an accelerated reduction in the excise tax from 10% effective yesterday down to 8%, and then to be phased out over the next number of years. I would like her to comment on what that should do for the diamond industry in the Northwest Territories.

Also in the budget there was an accelerated capital cost allowance for things like pipelines and energy transfer systems. I know that she is very interested in the Mackenzie pipeline.

I would be interested in her comments on both of those points.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the phasing out of the excise tax on jewellery is very important for my riding. We have three diamond mines. We are major suppliers of diamonds to retailers in the south and around the world. We have made major partnerships with the jeweller Harry Winston. All of the jewellers across Canada are affected. We feel the value added connection to these other parts of the industry. Also, we felt strongly that it should happen. I personally felt the right way and the fiscally responsible way of doing this was through the budget. That is the way it was done. It was phased out.

On the equipment for compression and dealing with the pipeline, I think that is very critical. I think we are pre-emptive. We know that certain undertakings will happen and that we need to be prepared. It will be good news for the industry, good news for the north and good news for Canada.