Debates of March 27th, 2007

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, if I really called somebody a weasel, I apologize. That was during my more immature days, probably in the heat of debate.

However, let me say to the hon. member that he does not have a clue what he is talking about. He said that the Prime Minister promised that the Atlantic accord would be respected, that it would not be clawed back. That is exactly what happened. The Atlantic accord was protected. There was no clawback.

The Prime Minister made a commitment to every province in this country. Our party made a commitment to every province in this country that if we formed government, and then after we formed government we repeated the commitment, we would be satisfied to take non-renewable resources out of an equalization formula, if they wanted it.

What happened was that most of them did not want it, so the government decided it had to impose a formula, because it is a federal program. Most people understood it would be the O'Brien committee report recommendation that would be implemented, but that would be negative toward our province, because the O'Brien report suggested a cap on the Atlantic accord. We said absolutely positively no cap on the Atlantic accord.

The Atlantic accord is completely and utterly unchanged and will be unchanged until it expires. We have no control over the date. The date was negotiated between the former prime minister and the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.

However, until that accord runs out, the accord will not be clawed back. It will not be capped. The beneficiaries are the people of the great province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl. I find it rather remarkable that he would stand here and defend what his Prime Minister did last week, what the Minister of Finance did, what Premier Danny Williams, the Progressive Conservative premier of Newfoundland has called a betrayal, what the premier of Nova Scotia has called a betrayal, what commentators throughout Atlantic Canada are condemning.

What is most remarkable is that he himself told CBC News last week, “Would I rather see what we clearly committed done? Absolutely, but...if it can't be delivered, you try to deliver the next best”. That is a long way from the words he used a few years ago.

What I really want to know is whether he is planning to run in the next election. He should tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, that is a tremendous question. One thing that surprises and disappoints me is that neither the hon. member nor one of his colleagues, another former minister of fisheries, who are both in the House today, asked me a question about all the money the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is spending, the money that is going to the Coast Guard that the Liberals did not provide when the boats were tied up to the wharf, about the job we did at NAFO to protect our fisheries from overfishing.

I will answer his question by saying that anything I said in the House at any time I will defend. It does not matter if it was last year, the year before, or five years ago, when I was in opposition or in government. Look at anything I said in context and I will defend it. I have no intention of walking away from the people I serve. I ask them to put my record and my involvement when times were good and when times were bad up against anybody's, including that of the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

It was interesting listening to the fisheries minister. It is amazing how people can change their views. He has said in the House and in the media that Premier Danny Williams is wrong, that he is not stating the facts. In a sense he is saying that he is lying, or that he does not understand, that he is not intelligent. I know him to be a very intelligent guy.

The Premier of Nova Scotia is saying exactly what that member said a couple of years ago; that the Atlantic accord has to be above and beyond any other change in programs, any new programs. He said that a decision did not have to be made. He said that premiers do not have to swallow a poisoned pill. The minister now has a different understanding. His mathematics are different.

A change happens in a member when he spends too much time in a Challenger jet. He sees numbers and the facts differently. As a minister, he now understands things in a completely different way than he did when he was a member. He somehow believes that he has a clear insight into the finances of Newfoundland and Labrador from his office in Ottawa, finances that are impossible to see from St. John's, that Premier Williams absolutely cannot understand. He cannot see that less is more.

I will speak about other matters also.

We cannot say that the budget is all bad. Not all the initiatives in the budget are bad. It is theoretically impossible to have the largest spending budget in the history of Canada to not have a few good initiatives in it. I welcome the capital tax exemption for Canadians. The Conservative government had a lot of money with which to work. It had large surpluses that were built up by the Liberal government. It had a lot of potential.

I cannot support the budget because it is a huge lost opportunity, and I regret that. The Prime Minister has not tried to hide the intent of the budget. It is intended to target a group of people in the most populace regions of the most populace provinces who are most likely to change their vote for the Conservatives and force a majority government. That is it. The budget is all about majority building, not nation building.

When we have the ability and the surpluses to build a nation, in my mind and in the minds of all Canadians, we should try to assist those who are most in need. We should try to develop potential when there are problems.

The government had an opportunity to assist Canadians in problem situations. With the proper investments, the government could have helped them out. It could have given them a hand up so they could have full participation in the economy. The government could have helped other regions. What do we see? We see targeted money going to the most populace areas, to the richest provinces. The government is ignoring single seniors and families and children in poverty who are in great need. The government needs to make real investment in innovation and post-secondary education. We do not see that. Money is not targeted for those who need it. It is very simple to send a lot of money to Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta in an attempt to influence those urbanites to vote for the Conservatives. That is all I see.

With respect to the Atlantic accord, Nova Scotia signed an agreement that its natural resources, such as offshore gas, would be used for its benefit and the money would be above and beyond any other funding program in equalization, health, education or infrastructure.

The Premier of Nova Scotia now has to swallow a poisoned pill. If he wants new money in equalization under the new formula, he has to forgo the potential benefits of the Atlantic accord, benefits that would have been there for the next 15 years. He has to sign away the future of Nova Scotia for much needed cash in the short term. This is unfair and it is certainly contrary to the intent of the accord and contrary to the stated intentions of the Prime Minister when he was in opposition. That is unacceptable.

There is no new money for ACOA. We see diminished funding. We see less spending and investments by ACOA. There is a huge opportunity to maintain the principle, but we know the Prime Minister does not like the agency and that it will suffer the death of a thousand cuts over time.

There were some good initiatives for our farmers a couple of weeks ago. There was an opportunity in the budget to assist the regions, to help farmers in Atlantic Canada, particularly in Nova Scotia where we produce less than we consume. We are not part of the problem in overproduction, but our farmers are being starved out of the industry. There is nothing in the budget to help them. The opportunity was there to work with the provincial government, but we do not see that potential.

When we see the attack on the Wheat Board, we know supply management is at risk. Some time ago he called it a glorified communist plot against the free market. I do not remember the exact terms he used, but it is the same type of thinking with which he has been attacking the Wheat Board. When the Prime Minister applies that to supply management, rest assured our supply management sector will be in trouble.

In my part of the country the poultry farmers and producers, egg producers and dairy farmers are the basic building blocks of the community. They are stable and doing quite well, not leaping great riches, but they are supplying jobs and participating in the economy. They need domestic protection to be maintained. A government sponsored price fixing cartel I guess is what he called supply management. We have to be very vigilant and seriously call the government to task on these matters.

I am pleased that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was in the House to speak. He was on the committee of fisheries and oceans when a report called for more funding for small craft harbours, which I agreed with as a minister. I was minister of ACOA at the time. I was able to get a $100 million investment over five years into small craft harbours. That expired this year.

In our election platform last year we promised to put in even more money, and that is what is needed. What do we see? We see the government letting it expire. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans hypocritically called for more funding when he was in opposition. Now that he is Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, he is calling for less funding. Not only did he let that $20 million a year lapse by not reintroducing the funding next year, but there is less funding for Small Craft Harbours.

I was amazed and amused, but irritated, yesterday when on a question from the Bloc Québécois, he indicated in the House that he would find some money here and there for the wharf in the Bloc member's riding to get his support for Bill C-45. There are good elements to Bill C-45, but there are some very difficult, scary elements for the fishing industry that he does not seem to want to clarify.

I remember the opposition talking about how it was important to invest in the Digby wharf. We do not see that any more. There have been five years of legal wrangling brought about because the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley made some very serious allegations, allegations and questions that I shared, and they had to be answered. The legal process ended up 14 months ago.

We were told that the fault was the contract written by the Department of Transport. Has the Minister of Transport stepped up to the plate? Do we see anything in the budget to get that facility back in the hands of the community? I believe it should be owned by Small Craft Harbours, like the other fishing harbours, and administered by a local harbour authority with the proper funding assistance. We see none of that.

There is the Digby/St. John ferry service. Last year I was pleased that the federal government, with the provincial governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, found a short term two year solution for that ferry service. However, I did not see anything about it in the budget, but I will keep some hope. I understand the bureaucrats within the Department of Transport are working seriously at finding a long term solution. I encourage the minister to take quick action to ensure that we know a good year or year and a half in advance of the termination of the agreement that there will be a long term service there so businesses can make the necessary plans.

The government had a real opportunity to assist working families. What did it give them? In some cases $20 a week. It did nothing for the working poor. We know the federal government does not want to put anything in the second budget or third budget next year. It wants to force an election. It gave away every opportunity it had to help the poor.

If promised next year, there will be another cut in the GST. That is $6 billion. The $6 billion invested in the child tax benefit would bring a million children above the poverty line, and he has given away that potential. We know that next year it will be a very difficult budget. I am afraid we may go back toward deficit financing in the medium to short term with the type of budget introduced this year. We are not helping to build our country or our nation. Nor are we helping those most in need.

I am afraid I cannot support this budget. While I like some initiatives within it, it would be impossible for me to stand in support of a budget that throws away so much opportunity to build a nation.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my colleague's fine speech one thing he said raised a question. He spoke about the regional agencies and mentioned ACOA. This budget fails all regional agencies. It fails FedNor in my part of the world, and we have heard no mention of this. For those who do not know, FedNor is one of the lifelines for northern Ontario as we suffer through the forestry crisis and a number of other things.

The member mentioned that the regional agencies would suffer the death of a thousand cuts. How can this can serve northern Ontario, my area, or Atlantic Canada and will this shake the confidence in the regions that have struggled so much? How is abandoning the regional agencies going to serve Canadians?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it would be a great disaster. I am afraid we would head in that direction if the Conservative government ever got a majority. We know the government does not like the regional development authority. We know the Prime Minister does not think the federal government should be doing anything outside of Ottawa and maybe Washington, that the provinces should have full control over everything and that the federal government should be reduced to a very essential international role.

I do not share that opinion. I believe there is a role for the federal government to provide opportunity to all Canadians so everybody across the country has a similar opportunity. What the regional development agencies can do very well is create partnerships among the communities, provincial governments, the federal government, community organizations, local business and do some development. That financial capacity by the federal government in conjunction with these communities and provinces has done a lot of good in the country. In Atlantic Canada good knowledge and partnerships have been created and they should be maintained.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the speech by my hon. member for West Nova. I had the opportunity on Friday to listen to another speech, one by the finance minister of Nova Scotia, Mr. Michael Baker, who has recently had a recurrence of cancer. I am sure hon. members would join me in expressing our wishes for his speedy recovery and successful treatment. Our thoughts go out to his family.

He said one thing in his budget speech, which I have with me. He stated:

Measures in the federal budget will widen, not close, the gap that exists between the richer and poorer provinces in this country.

That is not a Liberal finance minister of a province. He is a Progressive Conservative finance minister.

He goes on to talk about equalization and the accord being cancelled, being torn up. He says:

And new methods of allocating other federal transfers, based on a cash amount per capita, actually favour the more-populous provinces like Alberta and Ontario—the ones that already have a far greater fiscal capacity relative to Nova Scotia.

In view of those comments from finance Minister Baker of Nova Scotia, in view of the brochure that was sent out by Conservative members a few years ago that said there was no greater fraud than a promise not kept and that Nova Scotia would be left with 100% of its offshore oil and gas revenues, no small print, no excuses, no caps, what are my colleague for West Nova's comments on this betrayal?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a 100% betrayal. The Prime Minister said that Nova Scotia would not have to make the decision for a year, that it would not have to swallow the poison pill until next year. A partially kept promise is a fully neglected promise. The Conservatives broke that promise.

The member speaks about funding on a per capita basis. If we look at areas like health care and education, the province of Nova Scotia has more seats in universities per capita than probably any other province. It has outstanding universities. Students from all over Canada and internationally come to our universities, but they are expensive to operate. They are old universities and have old infrastructure.

Rather than giving the money out on a needs basis, in accordance with the number of students attending or another formula that would recognize the need, the Prime Minister chooses a per capita basis. Where does all the money go? It goes to Quebec and Ontario. Is that a surprise? Those are the provinces with the most seats in the House of Commons.

His intent is not to improve the system, not to build a nation, only to try to improve his electoral chances in an election, which I presume he will try to force relatively quickly. I know Canadians will not be fooled by that. Canadians will see through that charade.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had two hours to speak about the budget because I would really love to talk about it. However, what I am going to do is focus on two components of the budget which I think are important.

First and foremost is what I like to call the smoke and mirrors component of the budget which is what is said in the budget that is meant to be helping Canadians and what it really means.

Lots of buzz words were used in the budget, things like families and children were a huge priority supposedly in the budget. However, let us examine exactly what is happening to families and children.

We see that there was a tax credit given. We know the poorest families, those who make under $30,000 a year, will not see a penny of that because 99% of that socio-economic group, who make under $30,000 a year, do not pay taxes. One cannot get a tax credit if one does not pay taxes. Therefore, they are not going to see a penny of the money promised.

The money to get people out of poverty and off the welfare lists will help people who make about $14,000 and less. These people are going to be getting $500 a year. That is $500 a year for a family on welfare to help them to live, to feed their children, and to be able to do certain things to help that family. That is not going to go anywhere. That is going to buy two winter coats for two kids and that is it. The amount of $1.37 a day does not take people off welfare. People think they are getting money and they are really not getting any money.

We also heard about the fact that seniors are getting money and there will be income splitting for seniors. In my riding I have a large number of seniors. The fact is women tend to live longer as seniors. The senior women cannot split income, so single seniors in this country will not get a single penny out of this. In fact, they are going to, as usual, be left to continue to live in very low income circumstances. Therefore, nothing is really done for seniors even though they were used in the budget as a group who was being helped.

Let us talk about health care and wait times. Money was put in for wait times and this is a very clever trick that the government did in the budget. The Conservatives took money that the Liberal government had put in that was in the base budget, they added the small amount that they put into that base budget that was put there by the Liberal government, and then they gave us the grand total so that if we were not paying attention we would think that suddenly they put tons of money into something.

Let us look at wait times. The government only put $600 million on top of the money promised in 2004 for wait times which was given by the federal Liberal government. The Canadian Medical Association has said very clearly that $600 million will do absolutely nothing to deal with wait times.

The second part of wait times is health human resources. Anyone who understands the problem knows that people are waiting longer because we do not have health care professionals to deliver the care. There are lab technicians needed, doctors needed and nurses needed. There is not a word in the budget about health human resource development. There is not a single word. I would love to see how wait time guarantees will in fact be met without that component.

We heard again, laid on top of Prime Minister Chrétien's budget for grants for students in the millennium budget scholarship, how the Conservatives added a small amount to that and renamed the whole thing. They said that they had put in all this money, which was mostly Liberal money. They have done absolutely nothing to help students.

The biggest challenge the country is facing is productivity and competitiveness. When we look at a small country like Ireland with 4 million people, it took money given to it by the European Union. What did it invest the money in? It invested it in education, skills and training, innovation, and research and development. It is now among the top five competitive nations in the world. That is 4 million people.

Nothing happened here. There was a bit of money given on top of old money given by the Liberals, a small amount of money, so we think that students were helped.

Let us look at other issues like the environment. The Conservatives said for years in the House that global warming was a myth. Suddenly, they have found science. However, now they still believe that if we put a border around the country that they will be able to fix it. I guess the wind, the sea and the air never heard about that border because I think they can come across Canada's borders very easily. Therefore, the Conservatives are doing nothing globally to deal with environmental issues. They call it the ecotrust, but they have cut the money that the Liberals were going to be transferring to the environment and to the provinces. The money is cut.

On the one hand we hear that the provinces are getting a ton more money on equalization payments and the boast is that this will create peace among the provinces forever. What we have seen is what the provinces were given with one hand was taken away with the other, so that their wait times money has been cut. There is no money for health human resources.

We have watched $250 million a year replace a billion a year for child care spaces with the provinces. We have watched the environmental transfers to the provinces cut. We have watched the skills and training agreement with the provinces cut. The government is cutting the provinces on the one hand and saying it is giving them the money on the other.

What for me is the saddest thing about this budget is that the government was handed a huge surplus due to good, strong fiscal management by the previous Liberal governments over the last 13 years. The Conservatives took that money, $35 billion, and they blew it on little boutique programs that are not, as I said earlier on, really going to help people. The government has wasted this money. What a squandering of an opportunity.

Here is an opportunity on health care. Let us do something about health human resources. The government could think about the aging population and take the opportunity to deal with long term care and bring about a long term health care act to help seniors who are looking for health care.

The government had an opportunity to help with the huge catastrophic drug costs that people are facing for health care. Nothing was done about that.

The government had the opportunity to do something about helping the epidemic of obesity in this country among our youth and with diabetes, and with heart disease and stroke that will occur as a result of that. There was nothing to deal with issues of obesity which should have been a number one issue for the government in terms of health promotion and disease prevention.

With regard to education, it was an opportunity missed. Here was an opportunity to create an education act that would work with all the provinces, in partnership, to ensure that there is not a single child or a single youth in this country who does not have access to post-secondary education, training, skills or the ability to get a licence or trade. Not a penny was given to that. That is what the Irish did in terms of productivity and competitiveness. The Irish trained their people. We had an opportunity to get the best and the brightest in our workforce and nothing was done. Instead, the government cut programs in adult literacy.

We know that science again tells us that early learning is important for children to be able to be the best they can be. That has been cut. Opportunities have been lost.

With social transfers we had an opportunity to talk about the problems that are facing people, the homeless in the cities. Nothing has been done about this.

The number one priority for 80% of people who live in the urban areas in most provinces, including my province of British Columbia, is housing. Why? It is because our property values are increasing. Last year property values increased 24%, but people's incomes did not increase 24%. People cannot find rental housing in Vancouver. People do not have the money to buy a house.

We have poor families that will be getting $1.37 a day, but they still cannot afford to pay rent. There was nothing at all on housing. What an opportunity that was squandered and missed. In our entire country housing is the single most important thing for families.

We have talked about the cities agenda. There was nothing in the budget to help the cities. The government says it will be tough on crime. Here is what the previous Liberal government promised on how it would deal with crime. We promised that we would give $20 million to increase the number of RCMP officers to create a SWAT team that would deal with issues such as gun crime in the urban areas.

The Liberals promised that they would create 2,500 new municipal police positions to help the province to police property crime and gun crimes. The government promised Vancouver's mayor that it would give him 69 police officers. Nothing was done. Then I listened to the minister in the House saying, “oh, let them go and ask the province”. He might as well have said, “let them go and eat cake”.

This is the attitude. What saddens me most is that there was nothing for aboriginal people. Canadians have to go to the four western provinces and actually see the plight of urban aboriginal people. There is homelessness and drug addiction. We see people living on the streets who have nothing. They have the lowest health care status in Canada. There was nothing for aboriginal people and nothing for urban aboriginals.

The budget is ideological. If the government approved of certain individuals, it gave them something in the budget. If it did not approve of other individuals, then they got absolutely diddly-squat. This is so sad. Here we are at a point where we should be dealing with the challenges that face this country.

How do we help people get out of poverty? There must be real strategies to help people get out poverty. The government has to help them with housing, learning, education and training, so they can find better jobs. Nothing was done.

I cannot support this budget because it was an opportunity wasted, $35 billion squandered.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my friend's comments across the aisle. She talks about the money squandered and refers to the budget as one big boutique item. Almost two-thirds of the new spending announced in budget 2007 is related to transfers to other levels of government to restore fiscal balance and provide long term predictable funding for the provinces. Two-thirds of the money would go to health care, education, infrastructure and housing, and I could go on. Of the remaining third of new spending, two out of every three dollars invested goes to tax reductions for hard-working families.

The member refers to these boutique items, but two-thirds of the money goes to other levels of government for the exact priorities that she was identifying. That is the first issue I would like the member to comment on.

Second, the member commented on the wish list of things that the Liberals had promised in terms of justice. Canadians watching at home know that there is only one party, and that is the Conservative Party, that is going to provide the answers in terms of justice, judicial reform, help for our police, and cracking down on crime.

The member listed a litany of things that the Liberals were going to do, but is it not the case that after 13 long years of Liberal government they just simply did not get it done? They talked about all the promises, but they did not get it done and that is what Canadians are well aware of.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the most interesting thing is that obviously the hon. member was not listening to what I had to say because the smoke and mirrors of this budget is exactly what he reiterated.

We see that ordinary families are not going to get any tax relief in this budget. If people make under $30,000 a year, they do not get a penny because if they do not pay taxes, they do not get a tax credit. If they are making under $14,000 a year, which are the very lowest income Canadians, they are getting $1.37 a day. That does nothing for them.

What is more interesting, as the Liberal government we had lowered that lowest tax bracket by one percentage point. The Conservative government increased it last year by one-half a percentage point and did not lower it. The Conservatives do this, they give with one hand and take away with the other, so there is no real relief here.

Being hard on crime is to talk about how to intervene and stop the judges from making the kinds of decisions that they should be making. However, when it comes to giving real help to cities for real police officers in municipalities, real help to boost the RCMP so that it can be effective, none of that was done, absolutely nothing was done.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver Centre mentioned diabetes and other health care concerns that were forgotten by this Conservative budget.

In my riding of Kenora we have a growing epidemic of diabetes and in the first nations communities they are suffering. Children and youth, adults and seniors are all suffering and I want to put it in context. In many communities in the south we have services that can be accessed by the residents, but first nations communities generally have no services.

My question is in regard to the abandonment of first nations communities and what it is going to mean for health care. These people are suffering now. I believe it is only going to get worse, but I would put that question to the member for Vancouver Centre.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member asked that question because I happen to come from a city, Vancouver in British Columbia, and by the way, Mr. Speaker, there is a province beyond the Rockies just in case anyone did not know that across the way.

In that province the city of Vancouver has large numbers of aboriginal people who are living in urban areas. Their lives are typified by poverty, homelessness and substance abuse. They struggle every day to make ends meet. When the Kelowna accord was signed, it may not have been perfect but it was a start. There was $5 billion to help aboriginal people with housing, education and health. However, that was cancelled by the government and very little was given. If we added up the amount for aboriginal people, it was something like $60 million replacing $5 billion. Come on, smoke and mirrors.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction for education, health and social services. There are $2.9 billion in social transfers, $1.9 billion in equalization, $650 million in infrastructure, and $612 million for health wait times. These address all of these issues.

The member spoke as if nothing was happening. We are giving the provinces, who have these responsibilities, the fiscal capacity to get on with their job and the member should give us some credit.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am here to say that my premier, Gordon Campbell, in the province of British Columbia, does not believe that he was given anything. For the first two years he gets nothing. He gets no equalization payments to help him with doing anything in the province because the Conservative government added property values as one of the criteria for transferring funds.

As I said earlier, property taxes are high in the urban areas of British Columbia, but people's incomes have not risen with the property taxes. It is paper money. There is no money for the problems that British Columbia has to fund. For us to hear that transfers have been given only to find out that money has been taken away for child care and for agreements on early learning, it means that all of those things are gone. Government cannot give with one hand and take away with the other--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. Secretary of State for Agriculture.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Secretary of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Palliser.

Before discussing the federal budget, I want to congratulate all the men and women who took part in yesterday's election in Quebec. In particular, I want to congratulate Premier Jean Charest on his reelection, and Mario Dumont on his fine campaign.

I am pleased today to be able to address this House to discuss the merits of the excellent budget tabled a week ago by my colleague, the hon. Minister of Finance. This budget reflects the Government of Canada's unwaivering support for our agriculture and agri-food sector. Our government has confirmed its intention to ensure a prosperous future for our farmers. Quebec's agriculture sector is a major contributor to the Canadian economy. We know that Quebec's producers, just like the producers in the rest of the country, are not asking for a handout. We want them to be able to benefit from solid, predictable programs in order to face the growing challenges they encounter. The new Government of Canada is keeping its promises to improve farm support programs and encourage the production of renewable fuels. We are supporting our producers and protecting the environment at the same time.

The 2007 budget contains an additional $1 billion for producers. Once the cost-shared agreement for the new savings account program is signed with Quebec and the provinces, the government will give $600 million to producers for them to put in their new savings accounts. To help compensate for the increased cost of production over the past four years, the budget also includes an immediate $400 million payment.

The launch of a program focussed on savings accounts for producers is a major step in replacing the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program, commonly referred to as CAIS, with programs that are more predictable and better suited to our producers' needs. As I was just saying, we have entered into negotiations with the provinces in order to implement a savings account program. Together, this new program, the disaster relief framework, improved production insurance, and an improved margin-based program will replace CAIS.

That was an election promise and we have kept it. Investments in renewable fuels production will allow Quebec and Canadian producers to help the bioeconomy grow. Budget 2007 will provide $2 billion over seven years for the production of renewable fuels, including $1.5 billion for incentives to produce renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. In addition, $500 million will be made available to Sustainable Development Technology Canada to invest with the private sector in setting up large facilities producing renewable fuels. These actions show that the Conservative government listened to producers. We keep our promises and we deliver.

I would like to take a moment to explain how the investments this government is making will help producers in Quebec. Budget 2007 builds on the proven ability of the new Government of Canada to provide Canadians and their families with tax relief, including a new working income tax benefit of up to $500 for individuals and $1,000 for families, to reward work and strengthen incentives to work. Workers in Quebec will receive $106.7 million under this new initiative. We also have a new child tax credit that will provide more than 3 million Canadian families with up to $310 in tax relief for each child, resulting in savings of approximately $297.2 million for Quebec parents, and an increase in the basic spousal amount that will provide tax relief of up to $209 to a supporting spouse or a single taxpayer supporting a child or relative. This initiative will translate into savings of approximately $55.7 million for Quebeckers. Also, raising the age limit for registered pension plans, or RPPs, and registered retirement savings plans, or RRSPs, to 71 years of age will save Quebec taxpayers $28.4 million.

The correction of the fiscal imbalance brings unprecedented levels of federal support to Quebec and the provinces. For Quebec, transfers total more than $15.2 billion for 2007-08. Once again, we are keeping our word and delivering the goods. Under a new and improved equalization system, payments will total $12.8 billion in 2007-08, including nearly $7.2 billion for Quebec.

In 2007-08, the Canada health transfer will give Quebec and the provinces cash payments of $21.3 billion in 2007-08, including $5.2 billion for Quebec. The Canadian government will pay $9.5 billion in 2007-08 through the Canada social transfer, including $2.2 billion for Quebec.

In 2008-09, all provinces and territories will benefit from an additional $250 million in the form of permanent CST funding for the creation of child care spaces, as well as an additional $800 million for post-secondary education.

The combination of those two transfers means that Quebec will receive $410.4 million, with an annual increase of 3%.

Furthermore, in 2007 and 2008, all provinces and territories will benefit from an additional $250 million for the creation of new child care spaces. This funding is meant to round out the CST, and includes $97.5 million for Quebec.

Budget 2007 provides $500 million a year for labour market training beginning in 2008-09, including $117 million for Quebec. We have accomplished a great deal, for Canada as well as Quebec.

Overall, Quebec farmers should receive $896 million through various programs begun in 2006. The payments made to Quebec producers during the first three years of the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program should total $598 million. Additionally, Quebec will receive over $51 million of the total budget of $1.5 billion announced for agriculture in budget 2006.

Quebec producers will also benefit as follows: $50 million to cover the additional costs related to changes in the criteria respecting coverage of the negative margin under CAIS; $90 million under the cover crop protection program; and $550 million under the Canadian farm families options program. Quebec’s producers will also benefit from the payment of $46 million under the grains and oilseeds payment program. In addition, the federal government contributed some $22 million to production insurance premiums in 2006 to help Quebec producers manage their production costs.

For Canada’s new government, the long-term prosperity of farm producers also depends on a firm defence of their interests internationally. In fact we think it is crucial to fight the trade distortions caused by domestic aid policies, to work for improved market access and to oppose all export subsidies.

Canada’s new government has demonstrated over and over again that it is prepared to stand up for farmers in Quebec and Canada where our supply management system is concerned. These past years, American corn subsidies have risen to $9 billion a year. That worries us. That is why, last February, Canada held formal consultations at the WTO with the United States about the financial assistance paid to American corn producers with respect to the total level of support for agriculture, which gives rise to a trade distortion, and about some of its export credit programs.

More recently, the Minister of Agriculture once again demonstrated our commitment to defend our supply management system by announcing that Canada’s new government will announce negotiations under GATT Article XXVIII to restrict imports of milk protein concentrates.

I wish to conclude by expressing my pride in this government’s achievements in the agricultural sector in both Quebec and the country as a whole. Thanks to our ongoing action in this sector, we can look forward to a prosperous future for agriculture in our country.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the speeches from the government, I note that they are quite repetitive and tend to show that a spray of different things has occurred, but not one of those little paint dots touches another one. There does not seem to be a direction, a vision or a priority for Canada.

I wish I could go into all of these items, but we do not have the time, so let me get to an item that I thought was one of the most significant items in the budget document, affecting two and a half million Canadians, and which was not mentioned in the budget speech and has not been mentioned in any of the speeches of the Conservative members. That is the broken promise that the Conservatives would not tax income trusts, which in fact they have. They have introduced a 31.5% tax on income trusts. In terms of decline in value of the investment, the nest egg of Canadians for their pensions, it cost about $25 billion.

I have a question for the member. On a major decision like that, where the finance minister refused to provide the calculations supporting the tax leakage and refused to answer the questions raised by expert witnesses that the methodology was flawed, why is it that no one in the Conservative Party is prepared to talk about it?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

He speaks of repetition. In fact, the there is a great deal of good news from the government. I think that our election platform clearly spelled out our priorities. We wish to support the agricultural sector. Since being elected, we have injected $4.5 billion into the agricultural sector. This sector had been woefully neglected for 13 long years by the Liberals with catastrophic consequences. The sector is reeling and has a lot of catching up to do. This government is determined to put it back on a sound footing.

These are unprecedented measures and we can be proud of them because the agricultural sector is the engine and the foundation of our economy. We must keep this sector in good financial health.

There are extraordinary measures for our seniors. They can split their pension income for tax purposes in order to obtain additional amounts. Furthermore, as I mentioned in my speech, amounts can be transferred to an RRSP or a RRIF.

These concrete measures will put a fair bit of change in taxpayers' pockets. Agriculture and families are the priority, are at the forefront. Let us not play petty politics with that. We can see that the Liberal Party does not know what to attack.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member about the so-called national water strategy that is mentioned in the budget.

Curiously, it is not a strategy. It is individual little bits of money for various cleanup sites, but the largest amount of money is going to purchase six large vessels, four for the Coast Guard and two scientific vessels. I notice that the strategy includes no national water standards and no ban on bulk water exports.

I also notice that missing among the cleanup sites is anything around the city of Toronto. My riding is a waterfront riding. We have beautiful beaches there. I have pictures of my parents swimming there as young people, but today those beaches are polluted and unusable all summer long.

Why has Toronto been excluded from the Great Lakes cleanup and why is the so-called national water strategy not really a strategy at all?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. She brings up a very important point.

We know that a certain climate change policy was established over the past 10 years with the previous government. There was a lot of talk, but nothing was done. This is disastrous.

Our government is making things happen. We are introducing clear and concrete regulations that will produce results for Canadians. We are already seeing the positive effects. We can see that it has been well received.

But it is not just about air. Canadians should also be entitled to expect clean water. This was announced in our election platform. Only 14 months after taking over, the Minister of Finance is already introducing a national water policy. He is announcing tangible results and projects.

This is good news for Canada, and we will work on this with the provinces and territories.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise today on behalf of the people of Palliser to support budget 2007.

Throughout the great constituency of Palliser, in Moose Jaw, Regina, Avonlea, Wilcox, Rouleau, Caronport, Caron, Pense and other communities throughout Palliser, our constituency is blessed with families who work hard and seniors who have spent their lives building their communities.

Palliser is made stronger through the work of our farm families, whose dedication to the land is an inspiration, and through the small businesses that create the jobs we need to sustain a strong economy.

The people of Palliser want a government that delivers results, a government that cuts taxes for working families and invests in priorities like health care, the environment and infrastructure. That is what our Conservative government has done in budget 2007.

This budget delivers real results for Saskatchewan families. It invests in the important social and health priorities of Saskatchewan people while cutting taxes for families and addressing the fiscal imbalance by delivering the best equalization deal to Saskatchewan of any federal government in our history. This latter point is significant.

Our government campaigned in the last election on the promise to fix the fiscal imbalance that had been allowed to continue under the previous Liberal government. This budget delivers on that commitment by offering the province of Saskatchewan the option of excluding natural resources, as we promised, and delivering $226 million in equalization payments to Saskatchewan this year, the best equalization deal in our province's history.

In fact, under the fiscal balance package in this budget, Saskatchewan will enjoy the largest per capita increase of any province.

A renewed equalization deal is part of the $1.4 billion this budget delivers to Saskatchewan in transfers for health care, infrastructure, post-secondary education, child care and other measures under the Canada health and social transfer.

I want to remind Saskatchewan residents of what happened the last time a Liberal finance minister brought down a budget in this House, a budget that was supported by the NDP. That budget contained no measures to exclude Saskatchewan's natural resources and nothing to provide additional resources to Saskatchewan as part of a long term equalization deal.

Where both the Liberals and the NDP failed Saskatchewan, our government has delivered.

Even Janice McKinnon, the former NDP finance minister in Saskatchewan, agrees with us. She says that Premier Calvert's desire to negotiate a side deal for Saskatchewan is “particularly disturbing” and that “he wants to take us back down the road that got us into this mess”.

It is not just through a new equalization deal that Saskatchewan people are benefiting from this budget. I want to take a moment to list the benefits that the people of Saskatchewan will see because of our government's budget.

The benefits include: $250 million for Saskatchewan farmers as part of our plan to provide producers with a new farm income stabilization program; $75 million for infrastructure; $24.8 million through the patient wait times guarantee trust over the next three fiscal years; $8.9 million to implement an immunization program to combat cervical cancer over the next three fiscal years; $44.4 million from the Canada ecotrust for clean air and climate change; and $10 million to support the Canadian Police Research Centre to establish its permanent base in Regina.

Budget 2007 will provide the residents of Saskatchewan with over $878 million in new money. That funding will be used to directly improve the lives of Saskatchewan residents and deliver real results on the priorities of Saskatchewan people.

Not only does the government's budget provide increased transfer payments to Saskatchewan to address the fiscal imbalance and invest in the priorities of Saskatchewan people, it provides concrete benefits to families and seniors.

Budget 2007 contains a new $2,000 child tax credit for families. This measure will save Saskatchewan parents $45.2 million this year.

The budget increases the basic spousal amount to provide up to $209 of tax relief to a supporting spouse or single taxpayer supporting a child or relative, saving Saskatchewan residents an estimated $7 million.

As well, it contains a working income tax benefit that will provide $19.4 million in tax relief to low income workers in Saskatchewan.

Our government has delivered for seniors.

Budget 2007 delivers on our commitment to allow senior couples to split pension income. It also increases the age credit amount by $1,000 to $5,066, while increasing the RRSP and registered pension plan maturation age, saving Saskatchewan taxpayers $3.9 million this year.

These are the benefits budget 2007 delivers to seniors and families.

Budget 2007 also delivers results for businesses in Saskatchewan.

Our budget will help manufacturing and processing businesses make major investments by allowing them to write off their capital investments in machinery and equipment acquired on or after March 19, 2007, and before 2009, through a special two year 50% straight line rate. This will provide $13 million to assist Saskatchewan businesses this year.

The budget supports Canada's job creators by increasing the capital cost allowance rate from 4% to 10% for buildings used in manufacturing and processing and from 45% to 55% for computers.

The budget rebalances the tax system to encourage investments in oil sands and other sectors in clean and renewable energy while phasing out the accelerated capital cost allowance for oil sands development.

Budget 2007 will provide $3 million in tax savings for farmers and small business owners by increasing the lifetime capital gains tax exemption to $750,000.

Through these measures, plus $75 million for infrastructure in Saskatchewan and $23.6 million in gas tax funding for municipalities in Saskatchewan, our government is delivering real tax relief and enhanced support for my province.

Our government believes in balance. While we have continued to provide real tax relief to Canadian families and businesses and have addressed the fiscal imbalance, we have also strengthened investment in health care and the environmental security of our country.

I have already outlined some of the new funding our government will provide for health care in Saskatchewan, but I want to talk about the commitment that our budget makes to the environment.

Battling climate change and creating a sustainable environment for Saskatchewan people is a priority for this government. Through our budget, Saskatchewan will receive over $44 million from the Canada ecotrust for clean air and climate change initiatives.

Our government is also taking action to preserve and protect the environment by assisting Canadians to make green choices. We will do this through rebates of up to $2,000 to assist Canadians in buying fuel efficient vehicles, through a green levy that will apply to the most fuel-inefficient vehicles and through an incentive plan to retire older, polluting vehicles.

In addition, we will provide $500 million to Sustainable Development Technology Canada to support private sector production of next generation renewable fuels. Iogen, one of Canada's leading biotechnology firms, is seeking $180 million to build a new plant in Saskatchewan and would be a candidate for funding.

We will also be allocating $1.5 billion toward operating incentives for producers of renewable fuels. This funding will help Saskatchewan farmers by creating new market opportunities and creating value added jobs here in Canada.

The measures contained in the budget are good news for Palliser residents, good news for Saskatchewan and good news for Canadians.

Through budget 2007, our government has taken action to build a stronger, better and safer Canada. Our government has delivered a balanced budget that cuts taxes for working families, invests in priorities such as health care, the environment and infrastructure, and moves to restore fiscal balance by giving provinces the resources they need to deliver the front line services that matter to Canadians.

In addition to investing in spending priorities, we are cutting debt by $9.2 billion, bringing our government's total debt reduction since taking office to over $22 billion, or $700 for every man, woman and child in Canada. As well, we are delivering on the tax back guarantee by dedicating over $1 billion in debt interest savings to ongoing personal income tax reductions.

I am proud to support this budget on behalf of the people of Palliser and I am proud to be a part of a government that continues to take action to build a better future for the people of Palliser and for Canadians across our great country.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the words of the hon. member for Palliser and, being that he is from the west, I think he would share some of my concerns about what is not in the budget. I heard other hon. members earlier say that the government had made it easier to save for children's education but that it did not make education any less expensive. It is really difficult for families to save for their children's education when they have such high child care costs and housing costs.

Income splitting does not help single seniors. It is a fact that many women outlive their partners and many of those women are living in poverty.

First nations want to settle their treaties but there was nothing in the budget for them. They are very concerned in British Columbia about what has been left out of the budget with regard to treaty settlements.

One of my other big concerns is western economic diversification. I did not see any mention of that in the budget. I understand, when I met with the department, that there have been cuts to WED. I wonder what the member can tell me about western economic diversification. Will there be any funding for the program and will it continue?

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member touches on a number of points and I will try to respond in kind.

The member said that there was nothing in the budget for education and yet we increased post-secondary education funding by 40% to ensure that Canadians are the best educated and that we have the most flexible workforce in the world.

By fixing the fiscal balance and providing two-thirds of the spending in this budget to lower levels of government to discharge their responsibilities, a lot of that money will flow into things like education, health care and housing.

The member asked what the budget does for first nations. In my province, the first nations in Saskatchewan will benefit from $35 million over the next two years in the aboriginal skills and employment partnership, a skills training program for aboriginal people.

What is really significant about the budget is some of the troubling questions that come out of the positions taken by the New Democratic members and the Liberal members of the House. We need to ask ourselves why they are saying no to a budget that provides $1 billion for producers, $250 million of which will go to Saskatchewan. They are saying no to a $2,000 child tax credit for all children under the age of 18. They are saying no to over $1 billion in tax relief every year for seniors.

We have heard a lot of troubling questions, a lot of things that the NDP and the Liberals will need to answer to when they face their constituents.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member should say “not for seniors but for some seniors”.

In fact, what the budget does not do is address those in most need in our society and they include seniors in poverty. An increase in the age credit does not help people who do not have any income to apply that non-refundable tax credit against.

The increase in the age at which RRSPs must be converted into RRIFs does not help someone who does not have an RRSP. Pension income splitting does not help someone who is a lone senior, who has no partner, whose income is below $36,800 of pension income or, if they are a couple, their retirement amounts or pensions are already taxed at the lowest possible rate.

The issue is that some seniors benefit but it is the more well off seniors who benefit, except those for whom the government broke its promise on income trusts and brought in a 31.5% tax on income trusts which destroyed $25 billion of the pension nest egg of seniors.