Debates of March 27th, 2007

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did a very good job of giving a synopsis of what the government has done, which is precious little.

We talk about the tax cuts. The tax rate base for lower income Canadians was 15%. The Conservatives came into government bragging about how they were going to lower taxes. What did they do? They raised the rate by half a per cent on the most vulnerable people in Canada. That is unacceptable. That is just not Canadian, for lack of a better thought.

What I look at what the Conservatives did cut, it was the GST. The GST cut of 1% is where we see where the Conservative government is going.

Someone who orders a lobster dinner will save 1% on the bill for that lobster dinner. That is pretty luxurious and it might be a fair amount, but someone who can only afford a hamburger will not have the same amount of saving. The real difference can be seen there. We can look at the price of cars. Someone buying an expensive car saves a substantial amount. Someone who buys a cheaper car does not save that same amount.

When we look at it we can see the real difference in where the Conservatives are concentrating. If people have money, then the Conservatives are really there to help them out, but if people are struggling and trying to get ahead, I am sorry but the Conservatives are just not there.

In talking about cars, my hon. colleague mentioned the environment. We heard about the Conservatives' great tax credit. There is going to be a levy of $4,000 on a vehicle if it produces too much carbon or burns too much fuel. There are very few cars that qualify. What I find very interesting is the way in which the levy will be implemented. CTV reported that it will be implemented by the manufacturer. It will be buried in the price and it will not be seen. On a $100,000 vehicle, $4,000 probably will not make a difference to the buyer.

Let us look at the other extreme. On a cheaper, low end vehicle, if people qualify for the $2,000, it is graduated. Most who do qualify will only qualify for perhaps $500 or $1,000 and not the full $2,000. In that situation it will not be buried in the price. People will apply and they will get a cheque from the Government of Canada, which is the Conservative government. We can see the optics of this and how the Conservatives have engineered it so that they look like the ones that are handing out the cheques.

The Conservatives talk about accountability and honesty in government. I am sorry but I really have to question what kind of accountability and honesty there is in that program.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak against this divisive minority Conservative budget. I say divisive knowing that the Tories themselves are divided on its merits, especially when it comes to their successful efforts to create a fiscal imbalance in Canada.

This weekend a Conservative candidate in a Newfoundland riding, Ms. Cynthia Downey, washed her hands of the Conservative Prime Minister, her own leader, in no uncertain terms. Not only will she not run again, she says that she feels “very betrayed because...I spent...weeks saying that”--the current Prime Minister--”was the person who would work best for Newfoundland and Labrador....this gentleman has not done what he said he was going to do”. She said that the Conservative Prime Minister, whom she campaigned for last time, has got feet of clay.

There are so many things that could be said about the shameful flip-flop by the Conservative government. The only thing is most of them have been said before.

For instance, “It is so nice not to have to drag a prime minister kicking and screaming to fulfill a promise to our province”. That was Premier Danny Williams speaking not so long ago about the current Prime Minister and, by implication, insulting the former Liberal prime minister. I wonder whether Danny Williams would say the same thing now.

In a speech to the Empire Club of Canada in February 2005 Premier Williams said that the prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, “lived up to his commitment. I applaud the Prime Minister for keeping his promise”. It was a Liberal promise made and a Liberal promise kept. Contrast that with what Premier Williams now says about the current Prime Minister and his duplicity and broken promises.

Here is another line said by another Conservative: “What we need is fairness. We certainly do not need another snow job”. That was said by the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. A snow job is just what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador got. It is also what the people of Nova Scotia and the people of Saskatchewan got. It was a blizzard of deceit. What about this statement:

This deal must be outside the equalization process. This deal must confirm that 100% of the revenues go to Newfoundland and Labrador. This deal must not be subject to clawback. This is what was promised and this is what must be delivered.

That is a statement by the same minister again in a press release dated October 18, 2004. I wonder, does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans today feel the same way?

I will mention this statement:

The two MPs reiterated that the Prime Minister's promise of 100% of offshore revenues, with no Equalization clawback, is a promise to which they intend to hold the...government, today, next week and in the weeks to come--until the promise is honoured in deed, as well as in word.

The two MPs who iterated that are, once again, the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the member for St. John's East.

Our regional minister had another line for the press after his motion was voted on back on November 16, 2004: “This vote was either you're for us, or you're against us”. Perhaps it is time for him to decide who he was for, who he was against.

How about this statement: “I'm really surprised that”--he--“would sell out our province on billions of dollars”. He said that they have gone back on their word and that it is okay to share in poverty but not in prosperity.

That was said by the minister's colleague, former provincial finance minister Loyola Sullivan, who now is in patronage heaven in DFO. He was talking about our former regional minister, Mr. Efford, in the Transcontinental newspapers in November 2004.

There is this one: “We cannot be assured of obtaining 100% of the net revenues from offshore...unless the Conservative Party has made these solid written commitments, wins this election and becomes the Government of Canada”. That was said by former Conservative cabinet minister John Crosbie writing in The Western Star in June 2004. How naive. We had a written commitment. Look at what it was worth. It was not worth the paper it was written on.

The Conservatives opposite vilified and demonized hon. members on this side of the House throughout 2004 and 2005 and now they find themselves defending their own broken promises. We kept our promise on the Atlantic accord.

Premier Williams recognizes that the former prime minister, the right hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, kept his word and he also recognizes that the Conservatives have not kept theirs. It was a Conservative promise made and a Conservative promise broken.

All three Conservative members from our province have disappointed us on this issue. They have turned their backs on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The member for Avalon, for example, wrote, “no province will be adversely affected”, to which the premier responded:

It basically doesn't give the clear and unequivocal support that I asked for....That letter could have been a lot stronger.

I have in front of me the Prime Minister's letter of January 4, 2006. It contains his promise concerning equalization. It is one of six occasions where he made the same promise in writing, the same broken promise. It would be one thing if this were the only Conservative broken promise to our province and to my riding of Labrador, but it is just one of many.

The Prime Minister also said:

A Conservative government would support extending custodial management...to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap--

Now the fisheries minister is NAFO's best friend and NAFO is his best friend. He says everything is fine beyond the 200 mile limit. It was a Tory promise made and a Tory promise broken.

The Prime Minister wrote, “We support...in principle” a loan guarantee for the development of the Lower Churchill. I noticed that the Prime Minister recently announced financial aid for hydro development in Manitoba, for which I am pleased for the people of Manitoba, but anyone who was counting on federal money for hydro projects in Labrador is sorely disappointed. It is a Conservative promise made and a Conservative promise broken.

The Prime Minister wrote:

--an effort must be made to ensure that there is a fair distribution of the federal government presence across the country.

According to the most recent Statistics Canada data, there were fewer federal employees in our province after the Tories took power than there were the year before. Again, it is another Conservative promise made and another Conservative promise broken.

The Prime Minister promised a Conservative government would support a cost-shared agreement to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway. What was in the Tory budget? There was no money for the Trans-Labrador Highway, not a cent. There are infrastructures, like the building Canada fund, but the Trans-Labrador Highway is not eligible. Thanks for nothing, I say to the Conservatives, literally. It is a Conservative promise made and a Conservative promise broken.

The Prime Minister wrote that a Conservative government will:

Station a new Rapid Reaction Army Battalion...at CFB Goose Bay.

Station a new long range Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Squadron at CFB Goose Bay....maintain a foreign military training program at 5 Wing Goose Bay and actively encourage increased allied flying training operations at 5 Wing Goose Bay.

Four Tory promises made and four Tory promises broken; goose eggs for Goose Bay.

This one is a gem: “A Conservative government would live up to and respect its constitutional responsibilities” for Marine Atlantic. The constitutional responsibility is to maintain a service to Port aux Basques in accordance with the traffic offering. What did the Conservatives announce last month? They announced Marine Atlantic fare hikes, fuel surcharges, and hints that they will reduce services, and there is nothing in this budget. It is a Tory promise made and a Tory promise broken.

The Prime Minister wrote:

A Conservative government would develop infrastructure programs which will allow provinces to address their unique needs and requirements.

What is in the budget? There are infrastructure programs that go nowhere near far enough and which certainly do not allow us to address our needs or requirements, especially in Labrador. It was a Conservative promise made and a Conservative promise broken.

And of course, there is the granddaddy of them all, where the Prime Minister wrote:

We will remove non-renewable natural resource revenue from the equalization formula--

It was a Conservative promise made and a Conservative promise broken. My Liberal colleagues from Nova Scotia have made that very point forcefully in the last number of days.

No one on this side believes that the Conservatives kept their promise. No one in the provincial government believes it. No one in our media believes it. The only ones are the Conservatives over there, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, the money bunny, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who are hiding behind their buddies on the front benches, deflecting questions on how they have betrayed their own people, the very people who elected them. The members for St. John's East, Avalon, South Shore and Cumberland—Colchester are the only ones who believe they have kept their word. They might be fooling themselves but they are not fooling anyone else and they do not deserve a second chance to entice the people again with promises they have no intention of keeping.

On behalf of the people of Labrador, I will vote against this budget.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech and I have a real concern with the way those members characterize the deal with the Atlantic accord.

I heard part of Cross Country Checkup on the CBC on my way to the airport on Sunday. The same kind of misinformation was being put out by various members. This is what I am talking about. Let me give the man a quick analogy.

Let us say an employee is hired onto a sales job and his boss said that he would pay him $5,000 a month. He was doing sales of around $100,000 a month. Then the boss said that instead of paying $5,000 a month, he would offer 10%, which would give him $10,000 a month income if he kept up the same sales level. However, the boss would give him the choice. He could either stay with the plan when he was hired or he could go with the new plan. It would be the employee's option.

Could that employee tell his friends that his boss had broken his promise? No, he could not because of the fact that the boss gave him the option. He could stay with the original deal or he accept the new one. This is exactly what the budget provides.

If the member had been paying attention to the Minister of Finance, he said that explicitly. I do not know why they keep saying it was a broken promise. It is up to the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador to say which kind of a deal he wants. He can keep the old deal and that would be fine. That is the promise made and that is a promise kept.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member does not like my characterization in my speech then he does not like the truth. I will repeat time and time again that the Prime Minister gave in writing to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador an explicit promise and he did not live up to that promise. It was a matter of deceit. As the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said back in 2004, it was a snow job on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The premier knows that. Everybody in the province understands that it was a snow job.

There are over $13 billion in surplus and the Conservatives say that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should be happy with nothing. They call that fairness when it comes to what they characterize as the fiscal imbalance. There should have been something for everybody and there was not. When it came to the offshore accords, when it came to this non-exclusion or the exclusion of non-renewable natural resources, the Prime Minister did not live up to his word to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Is it fair to say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that they either choose between nothing or less than nothing when it comes to something new in this budget?

When we look at what the Prime Minister promised in writing on six different occasions, he did not live up to it. If that is the truth, and that is the truth, then I am sorry that the hon. member feels a little uncomfortable about it. The truth is that the Prime Minister broke his promise, not only to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador but to the people of Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite correct. There is hostility in Atlantic Canada about these broken promises. We are dealing with a Prime Minister right now who is getting very used to breaking promises and he is getting very good at breaking them. I suppose the previous questioner across will argue next that there was no broken promise with the income tax trust.

I recall vividly the debates that took place two years ago when the member for Avalon, the member for St. John's East and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans were in the House arguing that everyone in the House, including the Prime Minister, should keep the Atlantic accord. In fact, he called the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte a weasel because he was not going to keep the Atlantic accord.

What are these three Newfoundland members of Parliament now saying?

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are saying about the three Conservative members for St. John's East, St. John's South—Mount Pearl and Avalon. They say that they are not standing up for their province. They are turning their backs on the province. They are basically defending a broken commitment and promise by the Prime Minister of Canada. They say that they should have a bit of backbone, that they should stand up for their province and not turn their backs on their people, the ones who elected them. They should not be duplicitous and hypocritical. Two years ago they said one thing and two years later they have done another thing just because they are on a different side of the House.

The people back home are saying that they should defeat the budget and stand with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my speaking time with the hon. member for Laval.

First off, I want to emphasize how proud I am to see that the Bloc Québécois' hard work to eliminate the fiscal imbalance is finally paying off. This long standing effort undertaken by the people of Quebec, which the Bloc Québécois then took to Ottawa, is now producing initial results. It translates into actual monetary gains for Quebec.

I want to remind the House that we are the ones who initiated the fight against the fiscal imbalance by chanting that the money is in Ottawa while the needs are in Quebec City. Let us not forget that the Séguin commission was struck by the sovereignists. In Ottawa, it was the Bloc Québécois that kept the pressure on the federal government and maintained standards high enough to make sure they would be taken seriously. The people of Saint-Maurice—Champlain and myself are convinced that we owe the new federal transfers we are seeing today to this relentless fight. The people of Quebec stand to benefit from the fiscal imbalance eventually being resolved. For these reasons, my colleagues and I will be voting for this budget. This money rightfully belongs to Quebeckers, and we have to make sure that they benefit from it as they should. However, the elimination of the fiscal imbalance remains only a possibility, since it is clear from reading the budget for 2007-08 that the federal transfers it contains do not quite eliminate the financial pressures Quebec is currently facing.

Clearly the Prime Minister did not keep his promise of fully eliminating the fiscal imbalance. It is deplorable that the Conservative government is still not planning to put an end to the federal government's power to spend in Quebec's jurisdictions, as the Séguin report recommends. I would remind the Prime Minister that there is a general consensus on that report in Quebec.

At most, the Conservative budget talks about limiting federal spending power by offering the right to withdraw from cost sharing programs with compensation and with conditions imposed by the federal government, which is unacceptable. Not only do the current intrusions in Quebec's jurisdictions have to stop, but Quebec has to be able to withdraw without condition and with full compensation every time it sees fit in the future.

Clearly the government has disregarded the basic solution long proposed by the Bloc Québécois and confirmed in the Séguin report, which is to transfer income tax points or GST points to Quebec and the provinces. This is not over yet.

In a number of matters, the proposed budgetary measures do not respond in any way to the requests of the Bloc Québécois or the expectations of Quebeckers. I am referring to the forestry industry, and especially to the older workers who are victims of one of the worst crises in the history of that industry. The lack of true measures to help these workers and this industry concerns me very much since the people and families in my riding are severely affected by this crisis. In Saint-Maurice—Champlain, this crisis translates into 500 lost jobs and the loss of over 1,000 jobs in the Mauricie region alone.

Clearly the Conservative government passed up another chance to help workers of the forestry industry. The Federation of Paper and Forest Workers was critical of the government about this in a March 23 press release. A suitable income support program for older workers is noticeably absent in this budget. Ever since POWA, the program for older worker adjustment, was cut by the Liberals in 1997, the Bloc Québécois and a number of groups have been calling for a new income support program for workers 55 and older who can no longer be retrained and who are victims of mass layoffs. The Conservative government has to respect the amendment to the 2006 throne speech, which was passed unanimously.

The Bloc Québécois wanted to find a concrete and immediate solution to the problem of older workers who are the victims of mass layoffs, or at least wanted the Conservative government to allocate funds to the income support program for older workers in response to the conclusions of the expert panel set up in January 2007.

To demonstrate this need, I will give the example of the workers at the Groleau plant in Sainte-Thècle, in my riding. This wood processing plant, which closed in February 2005, employed over 90 people. At the end of January 2007, 11 of these workers aged 55 to 64 stopped receiving employment insurance benefits. These workers must now turn to social assistance.

It is shocking to think that people who gave 30 to 40 years of their life to a company and then suffered the effects of the softwood lumber crisis are now in such a dire situation. These employees from the Groleau plant were not able to benefit from the TIOW because they did not meet one of the eligibility requirements— losing their job after May 1, 2006.

It is unconscionable to leave these people with nothing, and that is what the Conservative government did when it tabled this budget. These are honest citizens who have worked their whole life and now find themselves having to apply for social assistance. This is unacceptable.

As this example proves, again, it is those who are less fortunate who are the victims of the social policies of the Conservative government. So, it is not surprising that once again, the unemployed are the big losers in this federal budget. There is no separate employment insurance fund in the budget speech or plan. As a member of parliament for a region where the unemployment rate is relatively high, I am greatly distressed to see that this government is ignoring a whole category of the population.

On the subject of an independent fund, the Prime Minister previously said, on May 1, 2006, “—we share the Bloc leader's philosophy on this”. He even said that he was “on the verge of proposing to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development that she formulate alternate measures for this government”. However, the budget that has been presented does not respond to any of the demands of the Bloc Québécois.

I want to emphasize that it should have been the duty of the federal government to create an independent employment insurance fund and an independent commission. Likewise, the day after tabling the budget, the government should have immediately taken steps to return the $48 billion that was taken from the fund.

It is deplorable to see that, in addition to making no improvement to the plan, the Conservative government will continue to use part of the employment insurance fund as it pleases.

It is obvious that even if the Conservatives claim to share the Bloc Québécois' philosophy, in fact, they follow the same practices as the Liberals. That party abandoned the population by transforming the employment insurance plan into a disguised and discriminatory tax on employment. By refusing to move on this question, the Conservatives are doing no better, as the tabling of this budget proves. The Prime Minister is far from repairing the damage done by his predecessors. On the contrary, he is once again showing his contempt for all workers.

The Bloc Québécois will continue to pursue the government on this vital issue. We will do everything we can to restore the plan to its original purpose as an instrument for ensuring reasonable support for workers who lose their jobs.

All the signs provide evidence that the most unfortunate have been cast aside by this government. You must know that for us, as members who represent all sectors of the population, it is very painful to have to explain to our voters that some of them do not appear to be considered as valuable as the rest of the population by the current government.

I recently heard from Jean Marcel who lives in Grand-Mère in my riding. This 52-year-old man has worked hard since he was eight years old and he is now unable to work. He receives $852 in social assistance per month, giving him an annual income of $9,760. He pays $5,000 in rent. This sick and very poor man does not have a family doctor. He feels abandoned by society, the same society to which he actively contributed all these years. This man asked me if he is entitled to live. What do I say to him when governments, such as the one in power, have clearly abandoned people like him?

The Bloc Québécois will continue to lead the charge on key issues such as the fiscal imbalance and to stand up for the interests of Quebeckers. As the vice-president of the Desjardins Group has said, the fiscal imbalance has only been resolved in part; a definitive solution remains to be found.

In addition, it seems that Ottawa still meddles too much in provincial areas of jurisdiction, namely health, education and labour force training. You can rest assured that the Bloc Québécois will continue to fight, with the support of all Quebeckers, for the complete resolution of the fiscal imbalance.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I paid attention to the hon. member's speech and was struck by some of the things he said.

He was right when he said that the Conservative government has turned its back on the forest industry and that there is really no program for older workers. He went on to say that income support for 55 year-olds and older is non-existent. He also said that many people in his own riding have lost jobs as a result of the Conservative government's economic strategy and that honest citizens who have worked throughout their whole lives are now being left behind. In fact, this Conservative government is really leaving the disadvantaged people of our society behind.

The hon. member also said that the Conservative government is showing contempt for workers, that the most disadvantaged are ignored. I am wondering if he is willing to stand up for his constituents. If he really believes what he actually said in his speech, then why is the Bloc Québécois supporting the budget?

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I will answer by explaining why the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this budget, despite all the problems I pointed out and that he repeated.

First of all, one extremely important component of this budget is the interesting approach it takes regarding the correction of the fiscal imbalance, even though the approach is only partial. We in the Bloc Québécois are convinced that correcting the fiscal imbalance will allow Quebec to find its own solutions to the problems we have raised.

In addition, I would say that a full resolution of the fiscal imbalance issue is needed to allow Quebec access to its full powers. Thus, the encroachments on Quebec's jurisdictions must stop, so that Quebec may, once and for all, address the problems that we raised and of course find its own solutions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the hon. member why the Bloc will vote in favour of this budget.

Some comments I heard indicated that, since the budget addresses the fiscal imbalance, Quebec will help Quebeckers resolve problems such as those seen in the manufacturing industry and problems regarding poverty, among others. I also heard the Quebec premier say that he will use that money to lower taxes in Quebec.

I would therefore like to ask the hon. member how simply lowering taxes will help people? How will Quebec be able to invest in social programs if there is no money, if the money from the fiscal imbalance is used to lower taxes?

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is no doubt aware, an election was held in Quebec yesterday. Not all of the parties committed to reducing taxes.

It is now up to the Government of Quebec to manage the funds that are to be transferred. At any rate, the point is that Quebec is entitled to these transfer payments because the fiscal imbalance really exists.

The funds that are to be made available will enable Quebec to choose. I hope that Quebeckers and their government will make the best possible choices to enable all Quebeckers to resolve as many issues as possible, including the ones we have raised today.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for sharing his time with me.

I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to congratulate all of the people who were elected yesterday evening in our great country of Quebec, as well as those who had the courage to run in what promised to be a difficult election and who nevertheless conducted an outstanding campaign.

I would like to offer my sincere sympathy to the members of the Parti Québécois—which I support—who were not re-elected. I am sure that we will still succeed in doing what we must do for Quebec.

I have risen today to discuss the budget not because we do not support it—everyone already knows that we will support it. However, over the past few weeks, my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle and I have toured the regions in Quebec to find out what women think of the cuts to Status of Women Canada, and to better understand how women view this budget overall, how they view these cuts and how concerned they are about the rise of the right in Quebec and in Canada.

We have met with 47 groups but we have not finished. We are going to continue meeting with women's groups over the coming weeks. Those 47 groups represent more than 100,000 people in Quebec. In all of those groups, the women we met told us the same thing.

In this budget, we are solving part of the fiscal imbalance, but we are not solving all of it. There will still be a lot of things to do before that happens. We know that the government has promised us that it will continue to put a major effort into this. We hope that it will keep its word. However, we see that it is still continuing to invest in areas that are under provincial jurisdiction, and we are not all happy about this.

When the Minister for the Status of Women decided to cut her budget, she told us that she wanted to reinvest that money to meet the needs of more women. However, women have seen that the way these cuts and these reinvestments were made means that women now have to look for charity.

There is no longer a desire to give women the tools to liberate themselves and get out of the rut we have been in for many years, with families, single parent heads of household—mostly women, older women, and a large number of people in Quebec and Canada, all getting poorer. That means that we are increasingly needing federal transfers to be able to meet the needs of our people. The federal government is not meeting those needs, and it is not the job of the federal government to do that.

When it comes to the needs of women in general, in Quebec and in Canada, I would in fact say that, in this budget, the federal government is neglecting certain women for whom it is actually responsible. Obviously, I am talking about first nations women, aboriginal women, women in the north, the Inuit, and so on.

Those women fall within the direct jurisdiction of the federal government, and there is absolutely nothing for them in the budget that has been presented to us. I am very disappointed to see this, and extremely concerned. We know that it is even harder for women in aboriginal communities to have a decent life. Housing is virtually nonexistent. There is no waste water treatment. There are problems with education. Some Status of Women Canada programs were designed specifically to enable women to pass on the aboriginal communities' values and way of life to the children, so that they could have a better life and feel better about themselves. We are familiar with the many problems faced by young people in those communities.

But the minister and the government were not concerned about solving those problems.

They spread the money around various programs— not the kind of programs that communities had asked for—but the kind of programs that give the government visibility. When governing you must respond to the needs of the people and not do what will keep you visible or popular, as the current government has done.

Unfortunately, since having become an MP, this is the first government that I have seen act in this way. I am troubled because people are not aware of the dangers that await when they elect such a government, even though it is a minority. Several issues are still on the table and the government will go to any length to pass bills that we, as a democratic society and a social democratic society, hope will not see the light of day.

I have been reading quite a bit about the budget and also the views of several groups about it. I would like to share some of what I read regarding the budget in a FAFIA summary:

Women in Canada are affected differently than men by tax and spending policies of governments as a result of their varying labour market opportunities, family and community responsibilities, and levels of economic security. This budget demonstrates how little these facts are acknowledged. Some of the measures in this budget continue a trend that was documented in FAFIA's ten year retrospective budget analysis...authored by Armine Yalnizyan.

They also speak about aboriginal women, as I mentioned, as well as immigrant women. FAFIA states:

While this year’s federal budget invests an additional $342 million per year for language instruction and employment-related support, the federal government has backed away from its commitment to establish a federal agency to assess and to recognize credentials at the federal level. It has instead directed resources to providing immigrants with path-finding and referral services to identify and connect with the appropriate assessment bodies. However, the difficult question of how foreign credentials will be assessed has yet to be resolved.

In addition, many groups have called for the elimination of the live-in requirement of the Live-In Care-Giver and Domestic Program, which attracts skilled and almost exclusively female professionals to work as full time care-givers while residing in their employer’s home. Groups have also demanded that these workers be granted landed status upon arrival.

This has not yet happened. I find that unfortunate because we know of situations where these women, these people, have been abused and used as slaves in the homes of people who have the means to pay for slaves in modern times. These are modern-day slaves.

The Standing Committee on the Status of Women has often discussed human trafficking in terms of sexual abuse, but it has not discussed these women even though this is a major issue because there are so many of them. There are thousands of them living in people's homes. They are hidden. They are forced to keep quiet because often, they do not even have an opportunity to learn a language that would enable them to communicate with the outside world. This is a very dangerous situation.

Earlier, we talked about social housing. The budget does not mention social housing even though we know that the CMHC is making astronomical profits—over $11 billion. I think they might even be making $15 or $16 billion.

When drafting a budget, the government must consider the people it represents. Even though it was elected by 36% of the population, it should meet the needs of more than 36% of the population. When a government is elected, it is elected for everyone and it must meet everyone's needs.

That is why the Bloc Québécois will continue to demand that the government do better, that the government do more and that the government do a better job of meeting the needs of Quebeckers and Canadians.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the speech by the hon. member, who apparently is in the process of doing a tour in relationship to the challenges facing women in her province.

However, I will tell the House something that is becoming pretty evident in this budget debate. In fact, Liberals feel that the budget has failed Canadians when it comes to income tax relief, when it comes to the issue of climate change, when it comes to the issue of federal-provincial relations and when it comes to the issue of preparing this country for the 21st century. Liberals feel that the budget fails students and universities, working families, and aboriginal Canadians as well as women. This party is willing to stand with those individuals and tell the Conservative government that in fact we do not agree with the direction in which it is taking the country.

On the other hand, in what the Bloc is trying to do, always under the guise of fixing the fiscal imbalance, the Bloc is not actually standing up for the women of Quebec. It is not standing up for those individuals who need social housing. The Bloc members are going to vote with the government. They are not doing what the Liberal Party is doing. The Liberal Party is saying that we do not agree.

The hon. member would like to have it both ways. On the one hand, those members deliver nice speeches to women and nice speeches to social and housing groups, telling them that they are there to support them and that they feel their pain, but they are not willing, in a very principled way, to vote against the government.

If they truly believed in their speeches and truly believed in their words, they would vote against a government that is not acting in the best interests of women and is not acting in the best interests of those individuals who unfortunately do not have access to housing in this country. It is not acting in the best interests of the students who need student aid--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. We do need to leave some time for the hon. member for Laval to respond.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how pleased I am to hear my Liberal colleague's tirade.

They should really stop treating us like fools. The Liberals were in power for 13 years and ignored even the basics of the principle of fiscal imbalance. They stopped giving money to the provinces in 1994, so they could line their pockets and do what they wanted. They stopped giving people what they needed. Under the Liberals, the CMHC raked in enormous amounts, as did the employment insurance fund. The Liberals took money from workers and kept it. And today, they would dare tell me that I am not defending Quebeckers because the Bloc will vote for the budget? We promised Quebeckers that if the government committed itself to correcting the fiscal imbalance, we would support this budget. We are probably the only party in this House that sticks to its promises, come what may.

I would ask the Liberal member to think before trying to make us out to be dishonest. He should take a look at himself, the members and the policies of his own party before trying to cast others in a bad light. We must look at ourselves before talking about others.

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

Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns of the hon. member opposite regarding the government elected yesterday in Quebec. I also agree with her on the fact that the budget does not correct the problem facing women, who still earn only 70% of what men earn. It changes nothing for the unemployed, employment insurance, immigrants, aboriginals, students and so on. That said, I still wonder how the Bloc can vote in favour of this budget, which claims to correct the fiscal imbalance, when that money will be used to lower taxes instead of being invested in social programs to improve the lives of Quebeckers.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, from my perspective, the hon. member across the House is quite right to say that I am concerned. However, I would remind the House that it was not the Bloc Québécois nor the Parti Québécois that decided to put the money given to Quebec for the fiscal imbalance towards lowering taxes. Once again, it was a Liberal government that decided to do so. And they did so not to meet the needs of Quebeckers but in response to an election campaign that was very difficult for them.

I would like to tell the hon. member not to worry. I believe our colleagues in the Parti Québécois will do their work and demand that the government use the money given to Quebec to improve the lives of all Quebeckers, for things such as social housing and the programs developed by the Parti Québécois over the past 30 years.

[James Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

Mr. Speaker, today I will be splitting my time with the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

I am pleased to rise to speak to budget 2007. In particular, I want to focus on what this budget means and what our Conservative government has meant for my constituents and all British Columbians.

On January 23, 2006, Canadians elected a new Conservative government and we have delivered real results for British Columbians.

We are a minority government in this Parliament, with 10 fewer seats than the recent Liberal minority government, and we have fewer than one in four seats in the Senate.

Historically, minority governments have had limited success in achieving their goals.

Our government, on the other hand, is getting things done for hard-working Canadians. Actually we have done more in 14 months to create a more rewarding future for British Columbians and their families than our predecessors did in 13 years. Let us just look at the facts.

We have signed a seven year softwood lumber agreement that will provide market stability in B.C.'s largest industry. The agreement will return $5 billion in illegal duties to Canada. The agreement was supported by the B.C. industry, supported by all the softwood producing provinces of Canada, including the government of British Columbia, and supported by all Conservative MPs, but it was opposed by the Liberals and the NDP.

We have supported the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. When the government of B.C. and the 2010 Olympic organizing committee asked for an additional $55 million on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars the federal government is already proudly providing the 2010 games, we delivered.

Our Conservative government has delivered record tax relief for British Columbians in our two budgets. We have cut the GST to 6%; cut small business taxes; provided an annual $1,200 per child universal child care allowance; created a $2,000 per child tax credit; made the largest debt paydown in Canadian history, $22 billion over two years; allowed pension splitting for seniors; and created a $500 per child amateur sport tax credit, which is an idea, I am proud to say, that originated with Sharon Mack, a constituent of mine and a resident of Port Moody.

In the last election campaign, Conservatives promised $1 billion over 10 years to address the mountain pine beetle infestation in B.C. We are delivering on this commitment and we are doing so ahead of schedule, with $200 million committed in our first budget alone.

It should be noted that neither the Liberal Party of Canada nor the NDP have ever presented a plan or made any commitments on the mountain pine beetle issue, while Conservatives have honoured the promise we made.

Our government has also supported B.C.'s environment. When asked to contribute to the cleanup of Stanley Park after the devastating windstorms, we immediately responded with $2 million in assistance.

We have also contributed $199.3 million toward the B.C. government's environmental agenda through our own ecotrust initiative.

We have reversed the federal Liberal cuts and hired more fish habitat and conservation officers for B.C. than ever before.

We have also invested $30 million toward B.C.'s Spirit Bear rainforest, the largest intact temperate rainforest left on earth.

We have also supported B.C.'s infrastructure needs.

In the campaign, we promised to support the Asia-Pacific gateway, and we have kept our promise in government, with a commitment of $1 billion toward this key initiative.

We are increasing the GST rebate for municipalities from 57.1% to 100%, which will mean millions more for local infrastructure across British Columbia.

For commuters in B.C. using public transit, whether it is our bus systems, SkyTrain or West Coast Express, monthly transit passes are tax deductible.

We have invested millions in the Prince George and Cranbrook airports.

We have followed through on $450 million for the Canada Line rapid transit extension that links downtown Vancouver to Vancouver International Airport in Richmond.

Our Conservative government has also ended the Liberal cuts to the Fraser River. For years Liberals refused to do proper dredging in the Fraser River. We have invested $4 million over two years for dredging in the Fraser River.

British Columbians value our cultural diversity. Our Conservative government has taken action to bring our diverse province together by addressing past wrongs. We have offered a historic apology and redress for the racist Chinese head tax.

While in power, the Liberals refused to launch an inquiry into one of the worst terrorist attacks in our history, the bombing of Air-India flight 182, which saw the murder of 329 Canadians. We have taken action and launched the Air-India inquiry.

For B.C.'s first nations, after 13 years of no progress and hundreds of millions wasted on lawyers and failed negotiations under the Liberals, our Conservative government has reached historic treaty agreements with three B.C. first nations: the Lheidli T'enneh in the north, the Maa-nulth First Nations on Vancouver Island, and the Tsawwassen band in the lower mainland.

We also signed a new education agreement for B.C. first nations, and we addressed a tragedy of our past by putting in place the Indian residential schools settlement agreement.

Our Conservative government is also working to improve public safety and enact justice reform.

In budget 2007, we committed $324 million for six new Coast Guard vessels, three of which will be based on the west coast. We have passed tough new laws against street racing, made investments to hire more police officers and more border guards. We have allocated $9.9 million to TransLink to improve security on public transit, particularly on SkyTrain which has seen some appalling violence that must be stopped.

We also have legislation to end house arrest for dangerous offenders, enact mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes and protect children from sexual abuse but the Liberals and the NDP are preventing those bills from becoming law.

Criminal justice reforms are crucial to the future health of B.C. residents and only the Conservative Party of Canada is taking the need to get tough on crime seriously in this Parliament.

In just over a year in office, our Prime Minister and our Conservative government have brought real dollars, real results and positive change for British Columbians. We have kept our promises and British Columbia is stronger for it.

In my riding of Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, I have fought hard for important investments and real results for my community. Our government delivered $1 million for the new Port Moody arena, $1 million for the redevelopment of the Rocky Point Park in Port Moody and tens of thousands of dollars to support local art programs.

On the transportation front, we have delivered the largest federal infrastructure investment in my community in my lifetime: $90 million toward the new $198 million Pitt River bridge.

We have also delivered $120,000 to the village of Anmore for Anmore's innovative renewable energy project which will assess the feasibility of producing green hydrogen and clean electricity by integrating three sources of renewable energy: micro-hydro, solar power and micro-wind.

My riding is surrounded by water, the Fraser River to the south, the Pitt River to the east and Burrard Inlet and Indian Arm to the west. We value our environment and keeping our coastal waters clean is something all my constituents support. That is why our government is enacting new regulations that will protect my riding's and all of Canada's coastal waters from sewage, garbage, oil and other pollutants. Among the regulations is a complete ban on the dumping of untreated sewage from all boats and ships along Canada's coastal waters.

Our Conservative government has delivered for Canadians, delivered for British Columbians and delivered real results for my constituents.

Every day that I serve as the member of Parliament for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam is an honour. I will continue doing all that I can to ensure that my community, the community that I love, has the best possible results from this Parliament, which is why I will be voting in favour of this Conservative budget.

I encourage all members of this House, from all parties and from all corners of this country, to vote for this budget because it will make Canada stronger. It gives real tax relief to all Canadian families. It pays down our debts, makes the important social investments and it does exactly what Canadians voted for in the last election campaign, which was to have a change from the past, to cut back on corporate welfare, to make important social investments, to give tax cuts that Canadian families voted for in the last election campaign and to continue building this country to be as strong as it can be as we go forward.

I am proud to be voting for this budget on behalf of my constituents, on behalf of all British Columbians and on behalf of Canadians because it will continue to make this country stronger.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the hon. member's attention to some of the commentary that ensued after the budget speech was delivered.

Nancy Hughes Anthony, who is the President of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said:

We don't see any broad-based tax relief either for taxpayers or businesses.

The government promised in November that they were going to make Canada more competitive and control spending and I think they broke that promise today.

As well, when we examine the issue of the environment, John Bennett from the Sierra Club said that the government was basically ignoring the climate crisis.

John Williamson, who I am sure the hon. member knows, the President of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, said, “The fellow working in the line or anyone with a salary income and no children will receive no tax relief. That's disappointing. Ottawa is running huge surpluses. This is a good time to cut the rates for all taxpayers up and down the economic ladder. The government decided to broadly target, for example, seniors, not tax relief in this document for all taxpayers”.

Andrew Coyne, the National Post columnist, said, “With this budget [the Minister of Finance] becomes officially the biggest spending finance minister in the history of Canada”. He went on to say, “The budget in fact has no sense of health priorities”.

I need not remind the hon. member what Danny Williams said about federal-provincial relations. He said, “Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are feeling an intense sense of betrayal by this government”. That was said after the Minister of Finance actually stated that the era of federal-provincial bickering was in fact over.

I would like the member to explain to me what in fact is going on. The government has a certain view of the budget but it seems to me that many other Canadians view this budget as a very disappointing one.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I counted, I think my colleague raised four points.

First, with regard to Premier Williams and Newfoundland and Labrador, I know the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will be speaking in a moment in more detail and more broadly on that, but we did keep our campaign commitments. I think Danny Williams will be very delighted to hear the speech from my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, from St. John's, addressing that issue and how good this budget will in fact be for Newfoundland and Labrador.

On the issue of the environment, with respect to my good friend, the member for Vaughan, we will not be taking lectures from Liberals on how to get results on the environment. We have put forward the clean air act, Bill C-30, which is now before its own independent parliamentary committee. We are approaching this with open minds and open hearts on how to achieve the best possible results for our environment.

However, while we recognize that climate change is the most important issue on the environment front right now that Canadians and the global community want us to address, it is not the only front on which we need to take action on the environment, which is why I mentioned the important steps that our government took in protecting our coastal waters from the dumping of raw sewage, pollution, garbage, paint, effluent and bilge water from ships. We are banning all that to ensure that our coastal waters will be clean.

We are taking a multifaceted approach to the environment, dealing with protecting our waters, protecting our land, protecting our soil, protecting our air and also dealing with the issue of climate change internationally.

With regard to tax cuts, my colleague dealt with the issue two ways. I do not think my colleague will ever accuse Andrew Coyne and John Williamson of being good Liberals with regard to the budget, so I am surprised that he is quoting Andrew Coyne and John Williamson who are both good friends of mine, but, frankly, we have a disagreement with John Williamson and Andrew Coyne, I take it, on this budget. However, for every $3 in surplus, we put $2 toward tax relief.

The vast majority of our tax relief will go toward families, especially in suburban communities like my own, because we think the people who are facing the biggest financial crunch in our society are new and young families. I think about my sister and my brother-in-law Dave, my little niece Abby, my other sister and her husband Tony, and my other niece--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I have to cut the hon. member off. There is one more question. This interchange has taken up four out of five minutes already.

The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also hate to interrupt the family discussion that has just taken place but I would like to ask a question that is important to constituents in my province, the province of Ontario, which is the manufacturing heartland of Canada.

I am very troubled that the budget contains no initiative toward an industrial strategy. Tax cuts that are not tied to investment and job creation are just a giveaway to corporations. Far too many people in this country are losing good paying, decent manufacturing jobs and are falling through the cracks because of manufacturing restructuring.

The government has done nothing to bring down the high dollar and the poor exchange rate. It is negotiating free trade deals with Korea where we already have a massive trade imbalance for manufactured goods. It is just giving away free money to companies and nothing is tied to job creation.

Could the hon. member explain how he will defend good paying manufacturing jobs here in Canada?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to finish off my answer to the previous question, which is that the lion's share of the tax cuts that we put forward in our budget are geared toward families because we think families, like the people I know in my life very well, are the people who are most in need of tax relief from the federal government.

With regard to the manufacturing and industrial sector, which my colleague, the member for Parkdale—High Park, raised, we have put forward initiatives in our budget. In fact, a number of the recommendations that came forward from the industry committee, which is chaired by my good friend, the member for Edmonton—Leduc, found their way into the budget. It was an all party committee that came forward with unanimous recommendations on how to help the industrial sector and the manufacturing sector. We made important changes to industrial reform, especially with regard to the capital gains taxes and the dealing of assets.

However, this is a little curious coming from the NDP. We hear constantly in the House of Commons, New Democrats saying that we need an auto strategy, that we need to ensure auto workers have their jobs protected. On the other hand, we have the leader of the NDP riding his bike to work every day and encouraging all Canadians to get out of their cars and car pool every day. The NDP want to build more cars, it wants to protect auto makers and it especially wants to have more cars built in this country, but it does not want anybody to drive them.

The NDP members are speaking out of both sides of their mouths here when, on the one hand, they encourage the federal government to protect all auto jobs in this country with some kind of subsidy and encourage us to build more cars in Canada but, on the other hand, they want us to give incentives for people to not drive cars at all. The NDP plan on the economics makes perfect sense, given its past track record with regard to economics.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak in the House today to our budget 2007. It is good news for both my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which I have the honour of overseeing.

Media coverage in my province has focused almost exclusively on the issue of equalization but that is just one part of the overall budget. Even with so much attention in the media, unfortunately there has been significant misinformation put forward in some quarters concerning the Atlantic accord.

I will not dwell on that issue today since it has already received so much coverage, and perhaps too much coverage, but I will make a few basic points.

Despite inaccurate comments reported shortly after the budget was introduced, the Atlantic accord is still completely in effect. There is no cap. The Atlantic accord was a hard fought deal that I and others in the caucus fought for during our time in opposition. We would not have stood for there to be any changes that would have weakened that accord.

I am confident that the province, through introduction of its promised energy plan, can maximize the development opportunities that exist in the offshore oil and gas industry. In fact, these benefits continue to increase, not decrease as some have argued over the past week.

In 2005-06, we received $180 million in offset payments. This year we received a total of $329 million, with projections for the next two years of $494 million and $757 million respectively. With no cap on how much money we as a province can bring in through these royalties, it is completely within our own control to become a have province before the accord expires. As a proud people, that is what we should be striving for.

A budget should be judged by its entire content, however, and whether it will help families of ordinary people, these are the things we must assess. In this case, the budget certainly does.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are tired of hearing governments bicker. They want governments to work cooperatively and get things done for them, and this budget is an important step in that direction.

The budget invests heavily in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have invested in infrastructure that really matters for the province; $52 million has been earmarked for infrastructure projects which will help improve the quality of life in Newfoundland and Labrador.

In addition, special attention was given to the needs of small provinces, provinces with smaller populations. There is a base of $25 million approved for infrastructure. Instead of giving money based upon the number of people where smaller provinces always get hurt, we have a $25 million base and then we will build upon that on a per capita basis.

We will also receive $151 million for Canada's social transfer, including additional funding for post-secondary education and child care, along with $347 million under the Canada health transfer. This is money that will go toward providing important frontline services for people in my home province.

Finally, there are two other items of note. We will receive $23 million for the Canada ecotrust for clean air and climate change and $17.7 million earmarked for the province should it decide to participate in the health care wait times guarantee program. That is a total of more than $1.5 billion being invested in Newfoundland and Labrador.

However, the budget does more than invest in Newfoundland and Labrador. It reduces taxes in our province. Families are the big winners. We have created a tax benefit of $2,000 for each child. We have increased the spousal exemption amount, made it easier to save for children's education and have protected loved ones from financial hardship in the case of disability. Those measures are all aimed at putting money back into the pockets of people where it belongs, not into government coffers.

In our province alone, those measures will keep over $24 million in the local economy, instead of sending that money to Ottawa. The working income tax benefit will provide an additional $7.1 million in tax relief.

An increased RRSP and registered pension plan maturation age will save Newfoundland and Labrador taxpayers $200,000. Then there is pension splitting. People on pension income who quite often are having a rough time, particularly when there is only one working person, now have the ability to split the pension income for income tax purposes. This is a major boost for a lot of people.

Perhaps one of the most significant changes is the increase from $500,000 to $750,000 in the capital gains exemption for our fishermen. This was extremely well received. When we announced the $500,000 tax exemption in relation to capital gains, it was praised heavily around the province. This increase has certainly added to that. The capital gains exemption is a key element of tax fairness and will help many people retire from the fishery with dignity and on a solid financial footing.

In regard to my own department, we added $15 million a year last year on a permanent basis for science. We have now followed up with $105 million over the next five years. Investing in fishery science is absolutely critical. It is not uncommon for there to be healthy tension between fishermen and scientists when it comes to assessing the health of fish stocks. In the past, quite often fishermen would say, “What do you know, you have not invested in science”. Now we have, and collectively we can make the right decisions. The new government has been glad to help reverse that trend.

We have announced approximately $70 million for capital improvements to our science facilities across the country, on top of the money I already mentioned. This helps keep our top notch staff working at home instead of going abroad for different opportunities. We increased DFO's permanent science budget last year, as I mentioned. Then we allocated additional funding this year to help deal with pressures created by the Laroque decision and to ensure we continue to move in the right direction.

We directed more than $300 million to purchase six new large Coast Guard vessels to ensure that proper patrol, science and search and rescue can be conducted. Last year we had added $45 million per year on a permanent basis to the Coast Guard budget to ensure that the brave men and women had fuel and could make the necessary repairs. We do not have boats tied up to the wharf any more as we did when the previous government was in power. We have them on the ocean doing the job for which they are designed.

There was also new money for species at risk, the health of our oceans, the Atlantic integrated commercial fisheries. This budget is about aspiring to be a stronger, safer and better Canada, and this includes Newfoundland and Labrador. I would encourage all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to look at the entire document to see where it affects them in their own pockets, and not to get caught up in the hype that some people like to perpetrate. They should have a good look for themselves to see how the plan will improve their situation. Through this budget our province and more important our people will be better off.

We in Newfoundland and Labrador can be very passionate about our province. We have to be. We were the last province to join Confederation in 1949. We brought with us tremendous riches. Over the years we have seen a lot of those riches dissipate. We have seen our resources develop and we have not always been the beneficiaries. That is changing.

Despite the spin that some people might put on how they are being treated by the present government, I ask people to get the facts, to think about what they see, to read, to understand, to talk. I urge them not to listen to just one side of any conversation. They should make up their own minds as to how this government is treating the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is a good budget for people. There may be some who think we could have done better. There is nobody in this country who does not want to do better. We have had a number of provinces express concern, as has my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but when we look at Saskatchewan, which has probably been the most outspoken, its main wish is to have a deal like the one Newfoundland and Labrador has. Generally I think we have done very well.

Does that mean we stop here? No, not at all. This is just another step toward working for a very bright future in resources for Newfoundland and Labrador. We can be the main beneficiary of the great resources we have, but at the same time make sure that we are part of the great Canadian Confederation, because when times are tough, we always look to others to help.

I always tell the story to my friends from Alberta about when times were tough during the Depression, people from Atlantic Canada, from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, sent out fish to help feed those who were going through a really tough time. Then things turned around for Alberta and we have all benefited, the whole country has benefited from Alberta's great resources.

However, we are moving. Our province is one of the fastest growing provinces in the country, economically speaking. Very soon we will be a have province. That will be something to be very proud of, when the day comes when we can say, “Thank you very much for the help you have given. Now it is our turn to help you”.

That is what makes this a great country. That is what makes Confederation as strong as it is.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I find the debate on the Atlantic accord very interesting. I followed it very carefully in 2004 when the debate was raging between the Newfoundland members of Parliament. I listened with interest to the minister who told the other Newfoundland members of Parliament to stand up for Newfoundland. In fact, he called one member a weasel for not supporting the Atlantic accord. All the comments, remarks and statements by the minister are clearly, unfortunately for him, set out in Hansard.

The Prime Minister promised the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that the accord would be respected, no clawbacks, no caps, nothing. He broke that promise. There is not one person, except perhaps the minister in Newfoundland, not Danny Williams, not the provincial government, not a city government, not an editorial writer, none of the people who live in Newfoundland, who believes for one minute, for one second, that the Atlantic accord was not broken.

It was a promise broken. The minister does himself a disservice when he states that it was not a broken promise, and he does politicians a disservice.

In reflection, does he not now, looking back, regret some of the comments that he made in 2004?