House of Commons Hansard #34 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC

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

The budget is not just a financial statement; it is at its core a statement about values, principles and priorities. It is not just an accounting exercise but an expression of our identity of who we are and what we aspire to be.

In that context, this budget, while containing a number of commendable features, is disappointing overall in the values it reflects and represents, and in the principles and priorities it espouses. It would not speak, for example, to my constituency which is a kind of rainbow constituency in that regard.

For example, in the matter of tax policy, the income tax for the poor and the vulnerable will go up while the GST, of which we just spoke, which disproportionately benefits the wealthy will go down. This is a tax policy that has not only been uniformly critiqued by most economists in this country but which constitutes an inverse value choice for an equitable tax policy.

In the matter of aboriginal people, the most vulnerable of the vulnerable, the government has not only substantially reduced the $5 billion necessary for their needs but has scrapped the framework agreements including the historic Kelowna accord which is at the core of having an aboriginal justice agenda.

In the matter of women's rights and gender equity which should be a priority for our agenda, a budget should reflect that as a matter of principle of policy. The government appears to have done away with the principle of mainstreaming gender-based analysis throughout the budget. Otherwise the lowest income mothers of young children would not be getting much less the $1,200 because the supplement is clawed back, let alone the other fallout with respect to issues of concern to women such as a central social services assistance, legal aid, anti-violence measures and the plight of aboriginal women.

In the matter of environmental protection which is inextricably bound up with our economy, our health, and indeed our planetary survival, the budget tends to marginalize and minimize the protection of the environment as a matter of principle and priority.

However, I want to focus on two priorities, two value choices in the budget which are wrong-headed as a matter of policy and disturbing as a matter of principle. The first wrong-headed policy choice, which is even suspect as a matter of law, is the commitment to more prisons and more prisoners at a time when crime rates are declining and have been falling for some time.

Indeed, the first expression of this commitment came in the budget speech of finance minister James Flaherty, when he announced that: “We are setting aside funds--

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order, please. I would ask the hon. member for Mount Royal not to refer to members by name but by their title or ministry.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC

Mr. Speaker, I did to refer to him as the finance minister.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I think you did include his name. Just leave it as the finance minister.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC

Correct. The finance minister stated:

We are setting aside funds to expand Canada's correctional facilities to house the expected increase in inmates as a result of changes in sentencing rules.

The budget is unclear as to the funds that are required and indeed it is unusual that one would make a prediction in a budget that one is going to increase the number of prisoners and prisons.

Leaving that aside, the changes in sentencing rules are neither warranted by the facts, falling crime rates, or the evidence, which demonstrates that the proposed and excessive mandatory minimum penalties would neither be effective nor a deterrent.

Indeed, the most comprehensive and recent study that was cited by the justice minister to justify expanded and enhanced mandatory minimums, by the respected authors Thomas Marvell and Carlisle Moody, actually rebuts the government's position. After examining the effects of mandatory minimums and other tough sentence enhancements on gun crimes across the U.S., they concluded that the gun related mandatory minimums do little to reduce crime or gun use. This is a study that has been cited by the minister in support of an evidence based approach with respect to enhanced mandatory minimums.

It is not surprising given the fact of falling crime rates; given the evidence that mandatory minimums are neither a deterrent nor effective; given the fact that they impact disproportionately the most vulnerable of people; and given the enormous cost of housing an inmate, some $90,000 a year. This is an enormous cost which does not even factor in the building of the new correctional facilities that may be required. It is not surprising that Professor Marie-Andrée Bertrand, a distinguished criminologist at the Université de Montréal characterized the sentencing changes as a catastrophe.

She added, “No fewer than 24 new offences will be subject to four years of imprisonment. This is a catastrophe”.

This commitment to enormous expenditures for more prisons and more inmates as a result of sentencing changes is devoid of any evidentary basis. It is a disturbing value choice as a high priority in a budget. It contrasts dramatically with declining investments in university research and equitable access to higher education which prejudices our competitive role in a knowledge based economy.

This is yet another disturbing value choice. This time it is with education as a low priority as compared to enhanced mandatory minimums and non-evidentary based approach as a high priority, even though that education is not only inextricably bound up with the imperatives of a knowledge based economy, but the defining signature of a society's values.

Yet this budget allocates only $250 million over five years to research and development, one-tenth of what the Liberal budget would have allocated, though it is crucial that Canada maintain its momentum of investing in innovation and research.

Indeed, over the last decade Canada has established a package of programs that have allowed universities, hospitals and research institutions, and society as a whole, to attract a large number of the most promising innovators in the world, including Canadians who have come back, repatriated to their homes here because of the attraction of this kind of support for research and education.

As well, when one speaks of investments in higher education and equitable access to post-secondary education, the Liberal budget had included a grant of $6,000 to students over their four years at university, while the Conservative budget is giving students a tax break on textbooks of $80 a year. Again, this is a disturbing value choice with respect to priorities and principles.

This budget does not provide the necessary leadership for the building of an egalitarian, caring and a compassionate society.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member some questions on child care. The Liberals in particular have raised a lot of concerns about the government's plan for child care. Obviously the Liberals do not like it, but we do not like their plan. I have a series of questions for the member with respect to child care.

Why should big government, as opposed to parents, decide what to do with our children? Why can parents not decide what to do with their children? The former Liberal government's plan proposed that there be a bureaucracy to take money from the federal government and give it to the provinces, who then would have another bureaucracy to give money to the municipalities, who then would have another bureaucracy to send money to, generally, public child care. Rarely would it be private child care. Is that not a lot of waste of money that could be used for caring for our children at that early age?

Finally, I do not recall the Liberal plan providing any new spaces. The Conservative plan is going to provide new spaces, but I do not recall the Liberals' plan setting forth any new spaces, certainly since they were elected over 13 years ago, and more particularly with their more recent plan.

The member talks about a number of things, and certainly this is an issue that the former Liberal government has been concerned with, but having listened to all of those concerns, does the member still feel the same way?

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question because it allows me to respond directly on point and to bring forward certain matters that I could not in my principal remarks.

His first question is, why should big government decide what is good for children? I might remind the hon. member that his government and Prime Minister spoke of an open federalism. The agreements that we have with respect to child care were agreements arrived at with the provinces in an open federalism, on behalf of the people and after consultation with the people. This is not big federal government imposing itself. This is the open federalism of which the hon. member's government spoke in terms of the conclusion of agreements with respect to the provinces and territories on behalf of the people.

I will be delighted to stand while the hon. member has left the House, not even wishing to listen to the answer, but when one speaks about the matter of child care spaces, the cancellation of the child care agreements actually took $3.6 billion away from Canadian communities. This funding was to expand early learning and child care options for over 100,000 families. It was to improve access, particularly for low income and rural families and for children with special needs. It was to enhance intervention services for children at risk. It was particularly disturbing of the government to single out aboriginal children for a $25 million cut.

In conclusion, I would say that the Liberal plan was very responsive to governments in an open federalism. It was very responsive to communities. It was very responsive to child care advocates who themselves appraised it. In particular, it was going to provide the combination of early learning and child care with the necessary spaces, with particular sensitivity to low income families and their special needs.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON

Mr. Speaker, we have two current justice bills, Bill C-9 and Bill C-10, that we are going to be dealing with in the next little while here in the House and at committee. How does that tie into the investment in prisons and the member's commitment on the issues of the aboriginals? Where are we going from a financial perspective? Clearly the member is talking about priorities that are very different from what the government has to say.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC

Mr. Speaker, both of the legislative proposals of the Conservatives will impact disproportionately and prejudicially on the aboriginal community. The aboriginal community has been uniform in its protests against these initiatives, because we already have an overrepresentation of aboriginal people in the prisons of this country, in particular a growing overrepresentation of aboriginal women, and the impacts of these two proposals will only result in more aboriginal men and women in prison. That is not the way to address these concerns.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Raymond Chan Liberal Richmond, BC

Mr. Speaker, each time the Conservative Party chanted “more, more, more” during the unveiling of the Conservative budget, we watched the fabric of our great nation unravel. Under Conservative leadership, Canada is moving from a “we” nation to a “me” nation. Instead of investing in the lives of Canadian children, students, families, businesses and seniors, the Conservative government offers small cash allowances and tax breaks and says, “Do it yourself”.

The Conservative budget has failed Canadians on child care, climate change and environmental initiatives, research and development, health care and wait times, tax relief for low and middle income families, and fiscal responsibility of the government to all Canadians.

The federal government's role and responsibility is to manage the country's affairs and to design economic and social policies for the betterment of Canadians now and in the future. Budget 2006, however, is a shameful masquerade of political opportunism that is designed for short term political gain to the long term detriment of the country.

This budget exploits the most vulnerable Canadians by raising the lowest income tax rate and then attempts to buy votes with a 1% reduction in the GST. It is absolutely ridiculous that the government intends to make up lost revenues by increasing the taxes of those who are most in need.

Do members want more poor Conservative planning? The Conservative government has cancelled the early learning and child care agreements with the provinces and replaced them with a taxable monthly allowance. Shame.

The national child care strategy was designed to ensure that all Canadian children were given the same opportunity to succeed in life. This is the type of national strategy that Canadians want, not a nearsighted political tactic designed to buy votes.

The Conservative child care scheme offers families under $3 per day. This is not a solution to the increasing need for affordable child care spaces or the need for a national early childhood education strategy.

As if $20 a week for child care is not bad enough, low income parents will be losing the young child supplement of the Canada child tax benefit. The Conservatives are cutting $1 billion from the CCTB, which was supposed to reach $10 billion next year.

Through the early learning and child care agreements, the previous Liberal government designed and implemented a solution to these growing concerns. It is incredibly sad that instead of using a good policy and dealing with the real issues of child care in Canada, the Conservative government has opted for a band-aid solution and political engineering.

Do members want more poor Conservative planning? The budget fails to address the issue of climate change. The government has eliminated climate change programs and has cancelled Canada's commitment to the Kyoto accord. Shame.

Its transit tax credit is costly and ineffective. It will cost almost $400 million over two years and increase transit use by only 5%. This translates to a cost of $2,000 for each tonne of carbon dioxide saved, which is 10 to 100 times the cost per tonne under our project green plan.

The Liberal Party of Canada believes in investing in the environment and climate change programs, not the elimination of 15 made in Canada climate change programs.

Do members want to hear about more poor Conservative planning? The budget fails to make any significant investments in education and innovation.

Budget 2006 has cancelled more than $3 billion worth of funding on education over the next five years, all of which would have gone directly to improve access to post-secondary education. Shame.

Additionally, the Conservative government has cancelled more than $2 billion in funding over five years to increase support for granting councils, research programs and internships.

The Liberal government had a concrete vision that would have helped put us at the forefront of competitiveness and innovation. This lacklustre and visionless budget contains virtually nothing in this regard.

The Liberal government believed strongly in positioning Canada as a leader in the world by investing in innovation and research, education and increasing Canada's productivity.

For example, for university research, our last fiscal update provided $2.5 billion. The Conservative budget provides $200 million, less than one-tenth of our commitments. For student aid, our plan would have provided up to $6,000 per student for tuition over a four year program. The Conservative plan provides only $80 for textbooks.

The bottom line is that budget 2006 and the Conservative government are simply not committed to a long term investment strategy in education, innovation, research and competitiveness.

Do members want to hear about more poor Conservative planning? The budget fails to address the real needs of seniors.

The Conservative budget continues its policy of buying votes and not dealing with the issues that greatly affect Canadians. The Conservative plan offers a mere $155 per eligible pensioner. There are no measures to allow for RSP income splitting between spouses, income securities or investment in long term care facilities.

By 2021 seniors will form 18% of Canada's population and we need responsive policies, programs and services to support this growing segment of our population. The Liberal government earmarked $1 billion for a national caregiver strategy and a comprehensive national home and community care program.

The simple fact is that the Conservative budget does little to help Canada's seniors, especially those living near or just above the poverty line.

Canada needs a government that plans for a better future. The Conservative government has shown a constant theme through its budget and governance: buy votes, avoid tough issues, and when the press is negative, silence them.

Canada needs a government that will look to the future and tackle tough issues, not one that governs for its own future political gain.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I see several members rising to ask questions. If we can keep questions and responses to a minute each, we can accommodate a few more questioners.

The hon. member for Halton.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Garth Turner Conservative Halton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's comments regarding child care and have a question for him.

In my riding, the federal and provincial governments were to put a program together under the Liberal plan, offering $23.1 million, which in the region of Halton would create 600 child care spaces. That would leave 34,400 children in Halton without any new child care money and 15,000 families with no child care money at all. How can that possibly be a better plan than the current plan, which will give $1,200 per year to every single one of those 15,000 parents in my riding? I ask the member to please explain.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Raymond Chan Liberal Richmond, BC

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked a good question.

The problem is that without those 600 spaces, at least 600 families will not have a space for their children. I understand that this strategy is only the beginning, a down payment on building a national child care system for early learning for all Canadians in the long run. The problem is that providing $1,200 a year, which is less than $3 a day, will not allow anybody in this country to find a child care space. Not only is $3 a day not enough, even if more money was added on to that $3, people would not be able to find a space. In one child care centre in my riding there is a long waiting list. Four hundred families are waiting to get into one child care centre. This is why the Conservative plan fails Canadians.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, people work five days a week, 250 days of the year. That actually works out to $5 a day, not $3 a day, because children do not go to day care seven days a week. Will the member please get his math straight.

Many Canadians live in rural Canada. What benefits did he or his party ever propose for people living on family farms a long way from urban day care?

My next question is quite simple. Given the fact that today a former member of the Government of Canada was found guilty and two other guys are already in jail because his party lost $100 million, what benefit was that to Canadians as they were filling their pockets courtesy of the taxpayer?

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Raymond Chan Liberal Richmond, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that the hon. member only knows of people who work five days a week. In Canada there are people on the poverty line who work for minimum wage and have to work six or seven days a week. The Conservatives are going to ignore all of those people who cannot find any child care spaces. The problem with the Conservative members is that they live high in the upper echelons of this country and never realize the problems facing average citizens who have to provide food for their families.

On the issue of scandals and corruption, I would like to remind the hon. member about a book called On the Take which is about somebody who is a mentor of the current Prime Minister.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would rather not use all of the negatives like some others in the opposition. I would much rather talk about the budget and the positive things we all are trying to do in this House of Commons rather than throw around more falsehoods and all the rest of it.

As a former minister of multiculturalism, when you were dealing with immigrant communities in particular, what were some of the issues that tied into the budget and child care that left an impression on you?

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I would like to remind the hon. member for York West that she must address her comments through the chair and not directly at members.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Raymond Chan Liberal Richmond, BC

Mr. Speaker, the problem facing the immigrant community these days is the issue of wait times for sponsoring their parents, grandparents and other relatives. The former Liberal government provided $70 million to reduce wait times for processing immigrants who wanted to come to Canada. There will now be wait times of up to four years. Reducing the processing time is important. The Conservative government has eliminated that $70 million.

Under the previous government, a one time $2 billion was set aside for immigrants to integrate into Canadian society. This money was to be used for such things as language training. The Conservative government has cut most of that funding, leaving only $300 million. That is definitely not enough.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today on behalf of the New Democratic Party. As many members of the House are well aware, the New Democrats have been unequivocal in opposing the bill. There are many elements to the bill that simply do not address the very pressing needs of Canadians in this day and age.

Canada is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, yet increasingly we see problems with the poverty gap, the huge gap between those who have and those who do not. A recent United Nations report talks about the disparity around any number of issues, including housing, access to legal aid, and so on.

One of the things I specifically would like to address today is the fact that aboriginal and first nations people in this country have not seen their needs met in this most recent budget. In a letter dated May 4, 2006 that was sent to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs laid out a number of issues that they felt the budget failed to address. There are a couple of things that I want to quote from the letter, because it is very important that this information be on record. The letter said:

--the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development made many public commitments to “put wheels on the Kelowna Accord,” and yet, your government has chosen not to uphold the honour of the Crown. Your government has reneged on this historic multi-government agreement, and has proceeded to unilaterally implement its own plan to address our issues without any consultations with us.

The letter goes on to talk about the budget:

Your government has abandoned this Accord and your budget reflects only a fraction of the financial commitments already committed by the Government of Canada to help improve the quality of life for First Nations and Aboriginal Canadians.

Your government has committed to addressing the fiscal imbalance with provinces, yet this budget does nothing to address the fiscal imbalance faced by First Nations governments. Spending on First Nations programs has been capped at 2% for the past ten years, and is far outpaced by rapid population growth and rising costs.

There were some token amounts in the budget that dealt with some of the issues in first nations and aboriginal communities. Yet it was far, far short of the desperate needs that have been identified in report after report that have come before the House in any number of formats.

It goes back to far before the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples which clearly called on the government of the day, which was then the Liberals, to implement a meaningful action plan that actually resulted in some differences in people's lives.

Now there is a Conservative government that is following on the Liberals' heels by failing to recognize that there are some critical issues that must be addressed in first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, as well as dealing with the off reserve and urban aboriginal issues.

The letter talks about the 2% gap. Since 1996, funding from Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been capped at 2%, yet population growth in first nations communities has far outstripped that 2% cap.

In a recent Auditor General's report, the Auditor General talks about the fact that in reviewing the first nations programming, she saw first nations funding increasing at 1.6%, yet population on reserve is growing at a rate of 11.2%. One does not need to be a mathematician to recognize there is a significant gap in the funding for services versus the population growth.

Mr. Speaker, I failed to mentioned that I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver Island North.

In that report, the Auditor General was very critical on a number of fronts, including housing. The Auditor General spoke about the fact that housing is in crisis on reserve. The mouldy housing is of crisis proportion in this country.

The member for Timmins—James Bay has talked about the fact that Kashechewan has been facing problem after problem. In Garden Hill there is an outbreak of tuberculosis and it is partially due to the housing conditions on reserve.

In my own community of Nanaimo—Cowichan we have one of the largest first nations populations on reserve in the province of British Columbia and there are significant housing problems in terms of the mould.

The Auditor General has talked about the failure of the government, and in that case it was the Liberal government's track record, but the failure of the government to adequately address this. It is a matter of shoddy housing construction. It is a matter of overcrowding. It is a matter of an ineffective approach in dealing with this critical issue.

As well, the budget failed to deal with on reserve housing and the crisis around housing. It also failed to deal with some of the very critical health issues on reserve. We are talking about tuberculosis. We are talking about diabetes. There was no mention in the budget for first nations health.

These are concrete, valid reasons to vote against the budget. I am only focusing on first nations. There are many other issues that I cannot begin to touch on in the very short time that is available for me.

In conclusion, it is important that Canadians understand that the NDP did not support this budget, that the budget falls far short of the honour of the Crown to deal with the issues before it in terms of its responsibility toward first nations communities and aboriginal communities in this country. I would urge people to continue to work together to make sure that these matters are addressed.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member. Quite frankly I am concerned as to whether or not the hon. member has actually read the budget because there were significant investments made for first nations Canadians in the budget. Certainly notwithstanding $300 million for off reserve housing, $300 million for northern housing, $450 million to address on reserve concerns, $2.2 billion is going to the residential schools agreement. I am quite shocked that the member does not seem to be aware of these investments.

Does the member have any idea what the base funding is this year for the Department of Indian Affairs? I know how much it is. I am wondering if she does.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member actually listened to what I had to say. I was specifically speaking about on reserve issues. There was not a significant amount of money put in this current budget to deal with on reserve issues.

As well, with regard to the Kelowna accord that was in place, the amount of money that is in the budget falls far short of what was a plan that was developed with broad consultations across this country. It took 18 months to get to the point of that very significant document, which the government has chosen to completely disregard.

I want to assure the member that I also paid very close attention to the budget. The $450 million in the budget over two years falls far short of any of the analysis that has been done on the critical shortage of funding and resources required in first nations communities immediately.

I do not need that member to lecture me on what is available to first nations communities.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for a reasoned and impassioned argument on behalf of our aboriginal peoples.

It is really outrageous that someone would suggest that there is money in a departmental budget. He well knows there are moneys in a variety of budgets to help all Canadians. The reality is that aboriginals are the least among Canadians in so many regards. Anyone who has spent any time on reserve and has seen the conditions there would appreciate that these are areas where extraordinary measures are necessary. I would like to give the member an opportunity to further educate the member about the importance of our aboriginal peoples.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has worked extensively on issues such as fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. That disorder is just one example of a shortfall in working with first nations communities.

There is significant investment required for indigenous children in care which I did not even begin to speak about. This is a human rights issue. Analysis has been done on indigenous children in care on reserve that suggests there is a $109 million shortfall annually in dealing with the matters that are facing people on reserve. Part of this shortfall is a comparison between what the provinces spend and what the federal government actually invests. The government will tell us that it is putting in $25 million; however, $109 million is required to deal with the children in care issues for children in protection.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Nanaimo--Cowichan for sharing her time with me today.

The government had an opportunity in this budget to make a real difference for ordinary Canadians, but it missed that opportunity. Billions of dollars in surplus could have been invested in the kinds of programs and services that would make a real difference for working families.

People of my riding of Vancouver Island North are looking for investments in our communities. Once vibrant forestry and fishing communities are on the brink of becoming ghost towns. There is a real need for something to be done. Those people are having to struggle to maintain their communities through a very difficult time.

More than 20 different first nations bands in the riding are also struggling. They have a proud history in Vancouver Island North, but it is hard to move forward when the very basic things they need, which most of us take for granted such as adequate housing, clean water, roads and bridges to their communities, are either lacking or they are in serious need of repairs. I will come back to some of that in a minute.

First, I want to talk about the things which all Canadians are concerned about, such as our health care system that is need of serious repair. Waiting lists for surgeries and emergency rooms grow. There are not enough trained health care professionals. With the surplus, the government could have addressed some of those issues, an area that the previous Liberal government cut to the very bones over the past 13 years.

The Romanow report, a comprehensive study on what is needed in our health care system, outlines what Canadians are looking for when it comes to solutions. It says that federal funding to the provinces must be increased by at least 25% to begin to address the serious shortages.

The government could have invested in home care for our seniors. Inadequate home care services and funding impacts our most vulnerable family members. With the shortage of hospital beds, funding for home care would also help alleviate wait times in our hospitals. It would provide dignity for our seniors who helped build our country. Once again we are letting them down.

Another major industry in my riding is the forest industry. It has had its share of difficulties over the past two years, including the illegal softwood lumber tariffs and raw log exports. While the budget mentions $400 million Canada-wide for the forest industry, half of that is to address the pine beetle infestation. Raw log exports are killing our north island communities. It is a serious issue and it is one that must be addressed. While it is important to settle our cross-border disputes, it is shameful that there is less money in this budget for Canada's forest industry than we have left on the table in the softwood lumber deal. There was an opportunity to invest in resource communities. With billions of surplus dollars, a fraction of those would have helped these communities to diversify and grow again.

Another serious crisis is in our fishing industry. We have seen almost a collapse of our wild salmon industry. We were looking for some money for salmon enhancement programs and rebuilding the aging infrastructure of our hatcheries. There was nothing in the budget except another tax credit.

North island is concerned about investment in our communities and in our resource industries.

Earlier in my remarks to one of my hon. colleagues, I talked about the deplorable conditions on first nation reserves. I have had several letters from some very young community members from Kingcome Inlet. I would like to read two more excerpts from these children's letters.

Morgan Brittany, an 11 year old in grade five, has lived in Kingcome Inlet for nine years. Her family has lived there for hundreds of years. She writes:

We need your help because there are accidents in the river. We need a road.

We travel on roads every day and we take that for granted. All they are asking for is a road. She continues:

We have to wait for high tide to go down the river. We have to wait for boats too. Sometimes it is very cold and we can die. It is dangerous for babies and elders. I hope you can help us.

Janessa Voyageur is a 10 year old in grade four. She has lived in Kingcome Inlet for one year. Her family has also lived there for hundreds of years. She writes:

We need your help because we always have floods. When it floods, big logs float down the river and if we are sick and it's flooding we can't even get to the airplane. It costs lots of money to get our groceries up the river. Please give us a road so everything can be easy for us.

With a lack of investment in first nations on reserve communities, to which I think the previous colleague spoke, residents of those communities are facing serious issues. They are already remote and we have made them even more remote.

It is important that we address some of these issues and ensure that there is adequate funding for the first nations across Canada and in my riding of Vancouver Island North. They are struggling day by day to live and not be thought of as second class citizens.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006Government Orders

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

It being 5:30 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time. Pursuant to the order made earlier today the motion is deemed withdrawn.

(Motion withdrawn)