Debates of May 9th, 2006

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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

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

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

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

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

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

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

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

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

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

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

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

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

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

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

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

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

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

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

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

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

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

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

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

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

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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

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

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

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

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

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

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

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

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

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

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

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

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

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

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

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

A real expert on everything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

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

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

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

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

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

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

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

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

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

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

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

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

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

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

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

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

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

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

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

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

Let us start by looking at fisheries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They have a funny way of fulfilling these promises.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For all these reasons, I cannot support this budget.

[Norman Doyle, Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

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

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

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

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

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

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

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

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

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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