Debates of March 26th, 2007

The Budget

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the great ironies of Canadian politics is the mythology that Conservatives are better money managers than Liberals. The fact is, and history bears this out, that the opposite is true. All one needs to do is go back and look at history and see the mess that was left to the Liberal government in 1993 after years of overspending and a debtload that was driving Canada into a place that was the equivalent of Argentina. The Finance Minister knows full well what that situation was about.

The tragedy of it all is that in this budget the government has increased spending three times the size of inflation. Is this an intelligent, tactical budget that invested in those things that will make our country more productive in an increasingly competitive world? No. Unfortunately, this is a budget that has at its roots a very cynical approach to use the taxpayers' money to essentially buy votes.

The tactical spending that the government has done is not with a view to improve the lot of all Canadians, but rather with a view to use the budget and the taxpayers' money to win a federal election.

The Times Columnist in my city of Victoria had a very telling cartoon showing the Prime Minister in galoshes, wearing a long overcoat and carrying a fishing rod. On the end of the fishing rod was a man on a hook and on the man's chest it read “Bought and hooked by your money”. In essence, what the cartoonist was saying was that the taxpayers have been bought and hooked by their own money. Unfortunately, that is what has happened.

During this time of surplus there was a great opportunity for the government to invest in those things that would thrust us to the forefront of being one of the great countries of the world. It could have ensured we were productive and had a strong economy and, as a result of that, the taxes to pay for those social programs on which Canadians rely.

The government knows full well that it only needs 40% of the public to vote for it in order to have a majority and surely the budget demonstrated that thinking very clearly. I will describe what the government should have done to have a budget that was fair, equitable and responsible, a budget that was responsible to the taxpayers and one that was in the public service, not in self-interest.

First, the government failed to address the real fiscal imbalance, the imbalance between those who have not and those who have. How on earth can Canadians who are making $9 or $10 an hour survive these days, particularly if they have a family? Does the budget actually address that demographic? Does it address those who are poorest in our society? The answer is a grim no. The government did not address those who are most vulnerable and, in not doing so, it failed in its greatest responsibility, which is to help those who are least privileged in our society.

The government should have reversed the tax increase that it made on the poorest in the 2006 budget. Unbeknownst to most Canadians, until they do their taxes, is that the government raised the taxes on the poor, which is unthinkable. Instead, it dropped the GST. Why? It is because it sounds good. Everybody knows that a cut in a consumption tax is a cut that will not benefit the poorest. It is a cut that will help the richest. The Finance Minister knows this. The cut to the GST was nothing more than a cynical ploy to curry favour with a certain demographic within society because it does not help the poorest. It helps the richest.

It also benefits, in terms of transfers to the provinces, selectively one province. Forty per cent of the money will go to the province of Quebec. Nobody begrudges any province its ability to get moneys from the federal government but all of us in every one of our provinces know full well that every province must be treated fairly. The budget fails that test dismally. Why? I think the people of Quebec know that the government is using their money and the money from Canadians all across this country to bribe the taxpayers in Quebec. That is as simple as it gets. The people in my province of British Columbia know this full well.

Did the government invest in productivity? Did it lower taxes? Did it invest in research and development? No, it did not. Rather, it used the people's money to selectively pander to certain demographics in our society. That is a cynical act and most people know that.

The government promised Canadians that it would invest in child care spaces. Did it do that? No, it did not, and to the exclusion of ensuring that hard-working Canadian families have money in their pockets to take care of their children if they want to take care of them at home. All of us recognize the importance of that. We all want to ensure that families have that ability. The government did not. Canadians from coast to coast to coast, not just in my province of British Columbia, want the opportunity to have child care. They do not want $2 in their pockets as the finance minister has given them. They want the ability and the choice to put their kids into child care. This is not only an option issue, this is an economic issue and a fairness issue. This is about giving people the opportunity to go to school, get skills and elevate their status in life. That is what Canadians want.

Why did the government not lower personal income tax to give Canadians the choice to save, to invest or to spend? Why does the government want to pick winners and losers? Why does it not give hard-working taxpayers the opportunity to keep more money in their pockets?

Why did the minister not simplify the tax system rather than complicating it? He did that in total violation of what his party supposedly stood for which was to simplify the tax system. Why did the Conservatives complicate the tax system? The finance minister can laugh all he wants but he knows full well that this is part of a cynical ploy to win a majority in the next federal election. It is not smart economics and it is not responsible economics. This is not being responsible to the taxpayer and the minister knows that full well.

I have some solutions and I hope the minister listens because he might be able to employ some useful things.

Why does the minister not employ a Canadian low income tax supplement that would give $2,000 to every Canadian making less than $20,000 a year? Why does he not use more tax shifting so Canadians could adopt green technologies? Why does he not fully fund the EnerGuide program? Why does he not fully fund the Pacific Gateway strategy in my province of British Columbia?

Why did his government discard Liberal policies and then reinvigorate them under a different name in a watered down version, call them its own and then claim it was doing something good for Canadians? The fact is that part of the government's ploy is to remove policies that were made by the previous government, water them down, make them weaker than they were and then call them their own. That is an abysmal, an abominable and pathetic ploy from a person who is supposed to be a servant of the public.

Had the government been smart, it would have seen that the policies were good and it would have resurrected them. If the government wanted to make them better, then it should have, but, for heaven's sake, it should not have been so disingenuous as to remove good policies in the best interests of Canadian taxpayers, water them down, call them its own and say that it was doing a good thing. The Conservatives are not doing a good thing and taxpayers should know this.

Why did the government not work with the provinces to develop a national strategy for health care workers? We do not have that and it is something we need. A smart thing for the minister to do would have been to work with his counterpart, the Minister of Health, and do this.

Why did he not provide more training spaces for immigrants who have come here to improve their skills and trade? Why did he not announce that he wants to reduce barriers to east-west trade in our country? Why did he not do something intelligent like that? Why did he not reduce federal gas taxes? We did that. Gas taxes are sky high right now and they are going up. The Minister of Finance should have decreased that.

I can give the minister all kinds of solutions. Many members on this side would be happy to provide him with umpteen numbers of constructive solutions. We are happy to work with him--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my hon. colleague and I completely disagree with a couple of issues that he raised. I will only make a couple of comments because I do not suppose asking a question would do much good.

He made mention that the consumption tax was absolutely the worst possible thing for low income Canadians and those most in need because it only benefits the rich. I would invite the hon. member to come to my province of Saskatchewan and talk to some the agricultural producers who, because of the income crisis for the last several years, have not had enough money to pay income tax.

They say that a reduction in income tax means nothing but that a reduction in the consumption tax means a great deal. I think we would find that a number of lower income Canadians share that view.

Second, I have a comment on his statement about this budget doing nothing for a national child care program or early learning and development. I would point out to him that today, in my province of Saskatchewan, the provincial NDP government announced, as a direct result of our budget, that it will create 500 new day care spaces.

Those two comments completely illustrate why the member really does not have a handle on the budget. Perhaps he should read it more carefully.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me read into the hon. member's statement a couple of questions.

The first question was on consumption tax versus income tax. The hon. member is quite right, tax credits for people who make the lowest amount of money are not worthwhile, but those individuals also do not benefit from a reduction in GST because they are using all of their meagre moneys to pay for rent and food, both of which are excluded from GST.

What the government should have done, which goes back to my original plea to the government, was to lower taxes on the poor so they could have more money in their pockets to pay for the basic needs that they cannot pay for now. That is the essence for his constituents and mine, and for everybody else in the House. The government did not do that and that is the failure.

A consumption tax benefits the rich because, by its very nature, it actually benefits those who are spending. The more one spends, the more one benefits. For the demographic the member is talking about, the poorest, they are not buying new cars or buying boats. Those people will not benefit from a consumption tax.

On child care, my province lost $480 million because of the government's mismanagement and, as a result of that, my constituents are not getting the child care they were promised.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to winners and losers in his speech and that is actually a pretty good direction to take my question. Under this budget there are an awful of winners, as there were in budget 2006.

However, let us talk about some of the losers when the opposition was in power. The military was a big loser. I know that is a significant economic engine in the member's riding. Hospitals and health care were certainly big losers after the budget of 1995. Post-secondary education was a big loser.

In this budget we see a 40% increase in post-secondary funding, which speaks to improving our overall competitiveness. We see a continued commitment by the government to rebuild the armed forces, which is a significant commitment by this government. We also see an ongoing commitment to reduce taxes each and every year with the interest savings due to our repayment of the debt, which also speaks to overall broad based tax reductions.

I would love to hear what the member has to say.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are far too many mythologies in the member's comments to be able to go through all of them but I will go through two.

The first one is on the military. When we were in government we actually had the biggest increase in spending on the military in more than 30 years. We appointed the current CDS, General Hillier, to engage in the reformation of our military. We probably cut too much in the 1990s but as a direct result of the mess that the Conservatives left us with, a huge debt and deficit that was driving our country into the ground, it prevented us from making the investments into the forces that were required. When we were government in 2004, we recognized that and started to pour more money into the Canadian forces. The money went up geometrically for our Canadian Forces and it was the right thing to do. We wish it had been more but we put in the biggest change in 30 years.

We also started the veterans charter, which was the biggest change in care for our veterans in 40 years. In terms of tax reductions, we lowered the tax on the--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Surrey North.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from the Western Arctic.

I stand here today committed to equality and opportunity, as I hope everybody would be, for all Canadians, for fairness in the accessibility of programs, services and opportunities no matter where they live in Canada, whether it is in Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador, Espanola, Ontario, or Creston, British Columbia. Accessibility, fairness and equality to the services and supports and programs that people need no matter where they live is the Canadian way. That is not the Canadian federal budget we have seen from the Prime Minister and the Conservative government. The budget does little, if anything, to bring about equality and fairness.

People who live in Surrey North are not on the whole better off. In fact, many are further behind. On average, Surrey North has the lowest family income of any of the Surrey ridings. This budget does little to improve their quality of life overall. People are working longer hours with less to show for it and the prosperity gap continues to grow. Eight billion dollars in corporate tax cuts may put food on the boardroom table, but it will not help put food on the kitchen tables of people who live in Surrey North.

We all know that lack of money for nutritious food means that our health care costs will rise dramatically because people who cannot eat nutritious food become ill much more quickly and use our health care system with more frequency.

People are working harder and their money is not going as far.

The one thing people mention more and more to me is that nowhere in this budget is the cost of drugs. Those people missed the opportunity completely. The cost of out-of-pocket expenses on drugs has risen 9% a year since the year 2000. That is a 63% out-of-pocket expense increase for drugs.

People have to make choices in the riding that I represent between filling a prescription and feeding their family, whether it is Kraft Dinner and fruit or Kraft Dinner and maybe try to fill the prescription. That is not fairness and equality. That us not levelling the playing field where all Canadians are equal.

What about workers? I want to talk for a minute on forestry. There was nothing in this budget for the tragedy we have had in British Columbia around the pine beetle and the destruction of forests. One might ask, why is an urban MP talking about forests? Many forest workers live in my riding. They worked in the mills that used to be open on the Fraser River. Where is the investment for those workers? It is not there.

Then there is the foreign credential referral office. I talk to a lot of people with foreign credentials. Not one of them has ever said to me, “I need to be referred to somewhere. I don't know where to be referred to”. What they do not need is referrals. What they do need is timely assessment of their skills and academics and then they need a way into the education system so they can upgrade when necessary.

Not only are we see a prosperity gap, but we are seeing a huge skill gap.

We have the taxi host program in B.C. for taxi drivers. About 25% of the participants in the program are physicians. They take the taxi host program so they can drive taxis. We see the same thing with nurses. We are going to need 135,000 new nurses in this country in 20 years' time? Where is the joint planning that could have been committed to, a national leadership for the government?

I want to mention aboriginal funding. Urban aboriginal peopled received no extra dollars from the budget. I have a wonderful organization called Kla-how-eya in Surrey North. It provides a huge range of mentoring, education and health services to urban aboriginal people. What was in the budget for it? Absolutely nothing. The organization does an extraordinary job. It keeps young people mentored with elders. Sometimes it manages to keep young people in the school system, out of jail. Surely it is worth supporting the aboriginal people do that.

For many families in Surrey North, child care is an incredibly important issue. All choices we make about how we raise our children are good choices, as long as they are choices. If people want to stay home and raise their children until they are 20, great. If they can do that, and it is a choice and they can afford it, that is a bonus. It is terrific. However, not everyone can makes those choices.

We have a lot of families where both parents must work outside the home for wages or they are lone parent families and they work outside the home for wages. They do not want to only depend on the public system. They want to work. They want to provide that dignity for their families. People in Surrey North are striving very hard to get those work skills and to have child care so they can do that.

I do not know if any of us can imagine what it is like going to work not knowing if our children are in safe child care. I cannot imagine spending a day at work without knowing if my child is safe. It is unimaginable to me. This has happened as a result of what the Conservative government has done by cutting the child care initiative.

There is no housing strategy for about 100 people in Surrey, not all in the constituency of Surrey North, who live on the streets. There is nothing that says we are going to look at a national housing strategy, not just for people who are homeless, but for people who cannot get into their first home. They cannot afford it. Where is the national housing strategy we used to have, which used to work? It is gone. It is not there. What a wonderful opportunity this would have been and what a missed opportunity to provide safe housing for people.

For many people in Surrey North, their whole focus has been for their sons or daughters to get a post-secondary education. It does not matter whether that is college, university, trade school or whatever it is. Their goal is that their sons or daughters will have a higher education than they had with the hope of having a job that will be self-supporting.

While there is more money for post-secondary education, there is nothing to make tuition affordable. There is nothing that addresses the overwhelming loans that students are carrying. Many students will never be able to get a loan. For many people, they will never be able to break out of that cycle.

I think the people in Surrey North, more than any place else in Surrey, have the same kinds of dreams and visions for their children. They may not have had the same opportunities as people in other parts of Surrey, but they have the same wants, desires, dreams and visions for their children. That is for them to have a better future than they have perhaps had, an education that they know will support their sons and daughters. In this day and age that is hard to predict. They are not planning to be politicians I guess. There is no tenure.

The budget has missed a tremendous opportunity to make a difference for the people in the riding that I represent. While people across the country will benefit from the budget, they will be the few. The gap will be larger than it has ever been. The haves will have more. The people who already do not have will have less.

People tell me when I go to their doors that they cannot continue to raise their children, hold down a job and look after their aging parents who are living with them or they run to their home every day because there is no home care for them.

What a wonderful opportunity to take leadership around home care, to take a national perspective. There are so many national leadership opportunities missing, national leadership around the management and planning for health and human resources, as another member spoke to earlier, an opportunity to take leadership around post-secondary education as it relates to the ability of students to access it.

For the people of Surrey North I am saddened and disappointed and for most they will simply be—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Cambridge.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here most of the day and I have listened to the debate. I do not want to say that the hon. member has not read the budget, but she presents a number of misleading facts, exaggerating certain things.

The concern I have is this. Does the member actually feel that it is the right thing to do to vote against the budget for what it does not have rather than vote for the budget for what it does have? There is everything in this budget from money to stop human trafficking to a 40% increase for students. There is money for farmers, for firefighters, for children and for a cancer vaccine for women. There is even closing loopholes for the NDP so-called fat cat corporations.

Frankly, the member should stand, apologize to her community and say that she will vote for the budget because of what is in it and that she will work hard to fill the gaps for what she thinks is not in it. It does not make sense to me to hear the NDP stand all the time and say they are not voting for it because something is not in it. Orange juice is not in the budget, but I will not vote against it because it is not in the budget.

She should vote for the budget. It is a good budget.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I found those comments to be incredibly facile. The people in Surrey North elected me to represent the issues they have brought forward as issues important in their lives. That is what I have done today.

There are missed opportunities. There are very few opportunities in this budget for the people who I represent. When people come to me and say, “I can't find child care, what happened to the national child care strategy”, I have to tell them there is no child care, or there are no new child care spaces. I tell them that the plan the government had before did not work, that is has a new one and it hopes it might work now, but it is not sure.

When people tell me they have to make a choice between something their child needs for school and filling a prescription for someone else in the family, that is what they need, that is what they mean, that is what they say to me, that is what is important to me and that is what is not in the budget.

My job is to look at that budget and to stand here and reflect the vision of Surrey North, which is what I am doing.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member who just asked the question said to vote for what was in the budget rather than what was not in it. One of the things in the budget that the cowardly finance minister did not mention in his budget speech—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am not sure calling a finance minister cowardly is parliamentary, so I would caution the hon. member.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what the finance minister did not include in the budget speech was the fact that he broke his promise and decided to tax income trusts. A whole bunch of seniors, who had put away a nest egg for themselves, or those nearing retirement, had about $25 billion worth of wealth in their income trusts taken away.

There is an example the member could use to suggest that the government has not been straight with Canadians and, in fact, has an ulterior motive. Maybe the member would like to comment on what the minister did to seniors and their nest egg for their retirement years.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to talk about what this budget did for seniors, and it was not very much. We debated and passed a seniors charter in the House and I do not see anything in this budget for seniors. I do not see any pharmacare for seniors, even a beginning. I do not see catastrophic drugs that would help seniors. I do not see home care for seniors. I do not see a transit strategy or a housing strategy for seniors.

As I reviewed the budget, I had quite a bit of difficulty finding things for the seniors who live in my riding.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a week since the hon. member for Whitby—Oshawa brought forth his second federal budget, a plan to spend $237 billion, most of it out of the pockets of ordinary Canadians.

Members of another party in the House have described this second work as a shotgun budget, one that scatters money with no clear plan. The fact that the Liberals do not know who is being helped by the budget shows how much they do not get it.

I can say who is not being helped by the budget. Average Canadians do not get much help. Aboriginal people do not get much help from the budget. Only the wealthy and corporations get significant help from the budget.

The $9 billion corporate tax cut instituted last year continues to provide fatter profits while not requiring reinvestment in the economy. The belief that making the rich richer helps ordinary people is as accurate as the belief that the earth is flat.

In case the finance minister is not aware of it, making the rich richer only makes the poor poorer. If he wants to give large corporations a tax break, he should make it contingent on their investing a portion of their profits back in the economy.

There is only one corporate tax change in the budget that we support. The Conservatives have agreed with the oft stated demand of the NDP to take away the large tax breaks, the accelerated capital cost allowance for oil and gas corporations for the development of the oil sands. Unfortunately, this billion dollar giveaway will not end until 2015. By that time much of the development will be in place at very high oil prices and a very great return.

By taxing to death average Canadians while allowing their corporate friends to pay less and less taxes, the Conservatives, like the Liberals before them, have ended up taking an extra $14 billion from the pockets of hard-working Canadians. They have dedicated $9 billion of that to debt repayment, even though Canada has the lowest national debt of any of the G-7 countries. Our economy continues to produce good numbers resulting in huge government revenues, largely by increasing the tax burden on ordinary Canadians over the last 20 years.

Working Canadians have paid to put the government fiscal house in order. That job is done and the benefits should flow back to average Canadians.

The hon. member for Whitby—Oshawa I am sure would say that the budget does return benefits. I am sure he would point to the approximately $3.1 billion provided to the provinces this year, the so-called fiscal rebalancing. However, did the minister or any of the government members get commitments that this cash gift will result in better programs and services for average Canadians? No, they did not.

We have already seen a Liberal premier promise to make $700 million in tax cuts to buy votes, a cynical move which makes the rich richer but has others crying foul. Imagine a Conservative government that has used the taxes of average Canadians to help a Liberal get elected.

For aboriginal people the budget is nothing but a disappointment. The new spending for aboriginal people in the budget works out to about $14 a person but in reality, even this small amount is somewhat tenuous. For aboriginal housing, the budget rededicates $300 million to the development of a housing market in first nations communities.

To develop a real estate market, one needs to buy and sell land. However, section 20 of the Indian Act says no first nations person is lawfully in possession of land in a reserve. So a real estate market on reserves is a non-starter, of course, unless the government wants to sell off the reserves just like past Conservative governments sold off Métis land. This is where the free market idea of the hon. member for Whitby—Oshawa runs into the hard cold reality of the discriminatory system Canada has imposed upon aboriginal people.

If the government wants to take action on the acute need for housing on reserves, it should be helping with the construction of band owned housing on reserves rather than this fallacy of creating a real estate market. Because Liberals and Conservatives have long turned their backs on aboriginal people, the cost of really improving reserve housing would be far greater than the $300 million that has been allocated. Unfortunately, even this pittance for housing does not help the vast majority of aboriginal people who live off reserves. Where is the housing support for the people who left their reserves or never had one in the first place?

The real truth about aboriginal poverty is it is government created. The budget trumpets that more than $9 billion, many say more than $10 billion, is spent on aboriginal people. However, almost half of that never reaches the first nations, Métis and Inuit at whom it is targeted. If the huge amounts dedicated to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development actually reached aboriginal people, first nations, Métis and Inuit there would not be such a thing as poverty in their communities. In their poverty, aboriginal people of Canada are a renewable resource for the bureaucrats at DIAND.

The Treasury Board has estimated that $600 million is spent on overhead each year at the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. That is not only on aboriginal people. Of course, there is northern development. There is a skyscraper full of DIAND bureaucrats in Yellowknife and hundreds of other people working in other offices.

Devolution is required because in the north we can do better. We can do better with the resources that are being held by northern development for our purposes. We could put those people to better use. We want to see devolution move forward more rapidly than the Conservatives have been able to accomplish in their year and a half in government, and the Liberals for many years before that.

The leadership of the Northwest Territories, Yukon and Nunavut have all said how much this budget helps. To be honest, the new formula funding arrangement is better than the formula imposed by the Liberals. I am glad to see the base amount has been increased and that 1985 numbers are no longer being used as the starting point. Updating this figure is just another thing the Liberals could not find the time to do.

I am glad to see a more fair system is being used for calculation of the formula, unlike the perverse system imposed by past governments, but I am concerned that the new formula still uses population in its calculation. Multiplying the average southern cost of a program or service by a territory's population does not reflect the real cost in the north for that program or service.

The government has also agreed to raise the NWT borrowing limit from $300 million to $500 million, a move that is long overdue and essential in that the existing borrowing limit is strained with utility and mortgage debt, most owed to the Government of Canada. The borrowing limit still does not match up to that of the city of Yellowknife, which can borrow up to 50% of its assessed value.

For northerners there are many things missing in this budget. For starters, there is not one word about Arctic sovereignty being enhanced. Where are all those Conservative promises that were made during the election? Where is all the concern about the sanctity of our Arctic reflected in this budget?

Where is the relief for northerners from the high cost of living? For some time northern politicians have been calling for an increase in the northern residents tax deduction. I and others have said that the deduction needs to be increased by 50%.

In the budget speech the minister stated how the capital gains exemption was in need of an immediate increase because it had not been changed in 20 years. The northern residents tax deduction has not been changed in that long as well, but then only average Canadians wanted this change, not the business elite.

The northern residents tax deduction changed a bit. The change is a cynical, pork-barrelling addition of the southern part of the government whip's riding. It is shameful to say the least. To put that in the budget without doing a whole program is a waste.

The NWT got no action on resource revenue sharing. The resources of the NWT rival those of nations such as South Africa and the United Arab Emirates, but not one cent of the royalties from the resources help the people of the Northwest Territories. For more than a generation Canada has been saying it is willing to hand over control and ownership of these riches. However, the Conservative government, just like those in the past, continues to delay.

The current excuse is that it needs to restart negotiations. Every day Canada delays fulfilment of this promise is another day that millions of dollars, whether from the diamond mines or the oil and gas fields, are lost to the people of the Northwest Territories. The people of the Northwest Territories do not mind hearing mañana when on vacation in Mexico but are tired of hearing it from Ottawa when it comes to the ownership of resources.

What is really worrying about this budget is on page 186 of the budget plan. On that page the Conservative government lays out its plan for negating its commitments under the land claims agreements and to silence the voice of northerners when it comes to environmental assessments and determining how development will occur in the north.

According to the budget a law written to implement the portion of land claims where aboriginal people are granted a say in how their land is used must be changed because the pro-industry Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development feels it is too restrictive to large corporations. It is clear that the minister's purpose is to gut the little protection the aboriginal people and other northerners have under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, making it open season for rampant exploitation.

It is clear from this statement in the budget that the Conservatives will not let anything get in the way of large corporations exploiting the north, even if it means going back on the word of the Crown.

No, this is not a budget for everyone. It is not a budget for hard-working, ordinary Canadians. It is not a budget for aboriginal people, nor is it a budget for the people of the north. It is certainly not a budget I can support.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to give the member a chance to talk more about what is not in the budget for aboriginal people, but before I do, I have to make a comment. He suggested that previous governments could not get the formula the way it is now, but it was the Liberal government that put forward the O'Brien commission that came up with these recommendations, and we are glad the government followed that.

As the member said, the government said it is spending $10 billion on aboriginal people, $1 billion more than before, but it is only a small amount for housing, market housing, Atlantic fisheries, some labour force, and the aboriginal justice strategy, which it should never have cancelled in the first place. On top of that, it cancelled the aboriginal procurement program, the Indian and Inuit non-smoking strategy and the Kelowna accord. It took a lot of money out of the aboriginal language program, from literacy, from the Status of Women, which first nations women used, and the Law Commission of Canada and the court challenges program, which witnesses in committee told us first nations people used.

We would have added the Kelowna accord and $2 million for residential schools. Thank goodness the Conservatives are following up on our agreement.

I would like the member to comment on the statement by the government that it is spending $10 billion, which is more than ever, on aboriginal people.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was first put into the post here, people in the north remembered what he had said when he was a critic of the Liberal government. People in the north thought there was going to be some movement, that some things would be happening. What we have seen has been almost diametrically opposed to what the minister talked about when he was a critic of the previous government.

The statements that have been made in this Parliament in the last while about the $10 billion, and the fact that it is going to aboriginal communities, are statements that I cannot agree with and the facts do not agree with them. The way the funds have been distributed, we are not going to see that $10 billion in the hands of aboriginal people and that is just a simple fact.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask the hon. member a question, I would like to make a quick comment about aboriginal communities. Clearly, under the previous government there were more than 200 unsafe drinking water problems within our aboriginal communities, and for 13 years the Liberals did absolutely nothing. A recent report suggests that now there are less than 100. We still have work to do of course, but we have only had 13 months, so I think we are doing pretty well.

I want to congratulate the member because I did listen to his speech. He was being quite honest when he referred to a number of initiatives in this budget that are better, and that is a fair and honest statement. I thank the member for that. He said that they are not good enough, but that is okay and that is his opinion, despite the fact that I think they are very good.

Despite the fact that he gives the budget an eight out of 10, why is the member going to vote for zero out of 10, when the budget, by his own admission, has a number of good points?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, where I come from in the north, we have a different form of government. It is not as partisan as it is here, but I do understand budgets and what I see in this budget is an attempt to establish support from another party in this Parliament and not from us.

I did not see this budget as being addressed to attracting support from us. This is a minority Parliament. The Conservative government had the opportunity. We had given our position about what we would like to see in the budget to garner our support, and if the Conservatives chose to go with another party's direction in terms of regional development or in terms of some of the other things that we see in the budget, that is their business.

We wanted to see the prosperity gap reduced. What I wanted to see for the north was a clear definition of what devolution and resource revenue sharing are going to mean. We have not seen that. The Conservatives have had plenty of time. Plenty of the work had been done by the Liberal Party as well.

I cannot support the budget because it did not address the issues that we saw as important.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked very well about the plight of the first nations, the Métis and the Inuit.

The Kelowna accord was an historic accord. It said that the leaders of Canada, governments as well as aboriginal leaders, said, “No more. We have to do something”. Maybe the member could confirm something for me. Did the Conservative government actually deny that Kelowna even existed?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, regardless of what the government said about Kelowna, the situation with aboriginal people remains. Quite clearly we identified with the accord the requirement for aboriginal people to have a modest chance of moving forward in this society and achieving a better future. That is what we were offering. It was not a panacea. We are not going to change the course of the poverty in this country with a $5 billion program.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this budget debate today and to support my colleague's fine budget because it takes a number of historic steps, including reducing the tax burden in Canada. A number of hard-working families in my own riding of Parry Sound--Muskoka are going to reap the benefits of this particular budget approach. I want to congratulate my colleague on that.

You do not have to take just my word for it, Mr. Speaker. I know that you are sometimes a little skeptical about what politicians say in this House, but I just happened to be looking at the Parry Sound Beacon Star the other day and will read for members what Andy Blenkarn had to say about this particular budget. Some people remember the name Blenkarn but I am not sure what the relationship is.

This particular Blenkarn owns a marina in my riding. He said about the budget, “I think its a big win for seniors, a win for working families with children and, I think, a win for lower income families”.

That is what I am getting from my constituency. As a matter of fact, that is the kind of thing we are getting throughout this country.

The other thing about the budget is that it restores the fiscal balance between the federal and provincial governments, and that is so important, particularly to Ontario. A lot of focus has been on other provinces, perhaps, but I can tell members that Ontario feels this budget is one that is fair and it is one that recognizes provinces that need a bit of help. It also recognizes the important economic engine that is Ontario.

There are a number of new and important commitments to Canadians in this budget—beginning with our expanded efforts to encourage and enable provinces and territories to develop patient wait times guarantees.

This budget is also about health care. Putting the emphasis on patient wait time guarantees, a more modernized health care system and more excellent research of course will make a difference for patients in Canada.

My hon. friend, the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, with whom I am splitting my time, will also be talking about particular aspects of the budget.

Let me focus on health care. Health care means more information technology. It means making sure that patients are the centre of our health care system. It means providing provinces and territories that are willing to work with the federal government the opportunity to deliver on some very important promises.

On this note, I am very pleased to tell members where I was this morning. I was in Halifax. I am very pleased to say that Halifax has joined patient wait time guarantees for this country. Just today, Premier MacDonald's government has committed to develop a guarantee in cancer radiation therapy. That is for all of Nova Scotia, but it was announced in Halifax. In doing so, Nova Scotia joins the province of Quebec, which has already committed to developing a guarantee for joint replacements and cataract surgeries.

As I said this morning in Halifax, in Canada we now are in the world of patient wait time guarantees, so I ask members to stay tuned, because there will be more announcements in the very near future.

That comes out of a couple of different funds in the budget, one of which is the $612 million patient wait time guarantee trust fund. Of that trust fund, $500 million will be allocated on an equal per capita basis to provinces and territories that can commit to developing guarantees, and then we have a base funding model for each of the provinces and territories, based on $10 million per province and $4 million for each territory.

There is also another component of the budget related to patient wait time guarantees. That is the continued commitment of the government to Canada Health Infoway. Our government is investing an additional $400 million through Canada Health Infoway on top of the $1.2 billion that has been provided in years gone by. That funding will expand the work of developing health information systems. It will support the development and implementation of electronic health records. Quite simply, it will make possible progress on the technologies that are critical to achieving patient wait time guarantees.

There is a third component in budget 2007: a $30 million fund over three years for patient wait time guarantee pilot projects. I want the House to know that in my travels across Canada, and in my discussions with my provincial and territorial counterparts, I have been very impressed with the kinds of innovations going on in our health care system right now. Those innovations are helping us drive the movement toward patient wait time guarantees. The funding of these pilot projects will help us get more of those ideas into action sooner.

As announced this morning in Halifax, Nova Scotia will be getting a total of up to $48 million out of all these funds for health care in Nova Scotia. More provinces will be able to access this kind of funding.

Really, when we look at it, we see that this is about putting patients first, of course, but it is also about ensuring the accountability of our health care system. People in Canada want to see the results from government spending in general, and that is what the budget does, but they also want to see results in health care. This budget does that as well by adding $22 million a year to our support for the Canadian Institute for Health Information, otherwise known as CIHI.

CIHI has been a key contributor in helping to achieve patient wait time guarantees. It has been involved in some of what is perhaps the finicky work in developing those indicators and gathering and sharing information across our country so that all departments can rely on that information when they report to citizens and make public policy decisions respecting health care.

We need more of that. The new money from budget 2007 will enable CIHI to build on its activities related to patient wait times and access to care. It will support work on health data systems coverage and the development of comparable health indicators.

Again, that is just the tip of the iceberg. This budget is known for many things. It is known for helping hard-working families and taxpayers. It is known for continuing to reduce our national debt. It is known for ensuring that we have the environmental resources available to make a huge impact on our environment.

However, it is also a health care budget. When we look at some of the other health care issues included in the budget, we can see why.

First, some of the most important impacts are sometimes from the most simple things that we can do. I will give an example. We are allocating $2 million to the Canadian MedicAlert Foundation. We are happy to accelerate that work to implement the No Child Without program. That program is proving free MedicAlert bracelets to children across Canada who have serious medical conditions.

As the president and CEO of MedicAlert recently stated about our budget, “Today's announcement will make an important difference for children with chronic or potentially serious medical conditions”.

The budget also opens the door for more private donors to help people in need beyond our borders. It does so by providing a tax incentive for companies who take part in international programs that donate life-saving medications to combat diseases such as AIDS and tuberculosis in the developing world. This is a very positive program and it means that Canadian companies, just like Canadian individuals, are showing how they care about the world around them and how we as a country can make a difference in the fight against HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis, malarial diseases and so on.

Another initiative I want to highlight from budget 2007 is a landmark investment in protecting Canadian women from the threat of cervical cancer. That cancer is the second most common form of cancer facing Canadian women between the ages of 20 and 44. It is a form of cancer that now can often be prevented through a newly approved vaccine.

We want to see that vaccine put to work. That is why budget 2007 provides $300 million to support provincial and territorial partners from coast to coast in protecting women and girls from cervical cancer. I have a quote from Dr. Gail Beck, president of the Federation of Medical Women of Canada, who said, “With this new budget, the federal government is showing true leadership with respect to women's health”. That is the position that this government wants to be in for sure.

Let me go on to talk a little about how these initiatives are more than the work of our government. In fact, they build on the record of commitment and cooperation among federal, provincial and territorial governments. The fact is that we are listening to stakeholders across the health care sector.

Of course that involves our provincial and territorial partners, but we have been listening to other stakeholders as well. When the Prime Minister announced the national cancer strategy, for instance, that to me was a very proud day, because that was about a bottom-up approach to fighting cancer in our country. It means that it is not just bureaucrat X-14, politician X or politician Y deciding what is best for cancer. It means that from the bottom up we decide these things together.

I am proud to be part of Canada's new government as Minister of Health, where patients and their loved ones come first.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. I think he will agree with me when I say that the economic conditions in which people live have an impact on their health. I would like to read an excerpt from a press release issued last Friday by the Federation of Paper and Forest Workers. I will read it and then I am anxious to hear the minister's comments.

The federal government missed another opportunity to help the forest industry workers affected by one of the worst crises in its history, criticizes the Federation of Paper and Forest Workers (FTPF-CSN).

The Conservatives...could have used the March 19 budget to establish a program for older worker adjustment (POWA), which has been called for by many groups, including the CSN, to support older workers who have lost their jobs since the beginning of the crisis that is hitting the forest industry and who have no opportunity to retrain.

In the context of his ministerial duties, should the Minister of Health not pressure the government to ensure that these older workers have minimum financial security so that they may maintain the living standards they need to remain healthy?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member.

This budget—the 2007 budget —supports workers across the country who work in all sectors, including forestry, which is a major sector in my riding in northern Ontario.

This budget also contains a number of programs to support workers who work hard in our country and who, from time to time, pay too many taxes and expect more from their government. That was a problem for many workers.

One of the things I do know is that my community, as it tries to make ends meet, wants to know that the government is on its side. This budget does that. It sends a strong signal that we are on the side of hard-working Canadians from coast to coast who want to see some relief, who want to know that the government is there on programs such as MedicAlert or programs where their kids need some extra help, which is why this budget is so important for them.