Debates of June 7th, 2007

Business of Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely as I always do to my hon. colleague's comments, but let me make a few comments of my own in response to the remarks I just heard.

The first comment I would make refers to my hon. colleague's comments concerning his previous government's efforts to raise transfer payments. He called it at one time “to record highs”. I would remind all Canadians, including of course the hon. member for Wascana, that it was his government that cut $25 billion in health care transfers to the provinces during his terms of office while he was in cabinet and he did nothing to stop that, absolutely nothing.

Second, I would point out that during the 13 years that the member was in cabinet, the Liberals did absolutely nothing to help the equalization problem in Saskatchewan. If they would have done as we have recently done in budget 2007 and removed non-renewable natural resources, 100% removal, it would have meant during a decade of have not years in Saskatchewan $4 billion in additional revenue for the province.

Those figures come not from me, but from the department of finance in the province of Saskatchewan. Yet, the member has the gall to stand up and make it appear that the Liberal Party is the great protector of Saskatchewan. I would suggest only this, that it was absolutely not the case.

The hon. member for Wascana has spent a lot of time on this cap. I have asked three members in the Liberal Party opposite the same question today and none of them has given a response except for the member for Halifax West who said that my comments, which members are about to hear, were absolutely false.

In March of this year the leader of the official opposition said on live television, the Mike Duffy Live show, that in his opinion non-renewable natural resources should not be excluded from the equalization formula. Further to that, he also stated unequivocally that in his opinion there should be a fiscal capacity cap because he felt there was no way that an equalization receiving province should end up with a fiscal capacity higher than a contributing province.

The very cap that the member is criticizing is being advocated by his own leader, except for one small detail. Although the leader of the official opposition stated that, and of course there is proof because not only do we have transcripts we have the tapes of him stating this on live television, the member for Halifax West said “he did not say that”. The leader of the official opposition says “I did not say that”. So who is being disingenuous here? It is clearly members opposite.

I would ask the member for Wascana one thing. Does he stand by his leader's comments refuting that he made those statements about putting on a fiscal cap? When was the Leader of the Opposition telling the truth, before or now?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the angst in the government ranks is palpable. I can understand why my friend from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre is so deeply concerned about this issue because it is taking a political toll on the Conservative Party in Saskatchewan as it is in Atlantic Canada.

With respect to the member's questions, he talked about the cuts that were made in various government programs in the course of the 1990s. I think he would recall that fiscal restraint in the middle of the 1990s was rather necessary because the previous Conservative government had left Canada with a $600 billion debt and a ballooning deficit that was rising at the rate of $40 billion per year.

The country was a basket case in terms of its fiscal situation because of the pathetic performance of the previous Conservative government. It created that problem and Canadians wanted that problem solved.

We had to get the balance sheet under control and we did that. I would point out that the Conservatives at the time and Reformers at the time said we were not cutting enough. They said we should cut more back in the mid-1990s, so they can hardly argue about the cuts that were made when they wanted more cuts.

I would point out that the fact remains that after the period of restraint, we did raise transfer payments to the provinces to an all time record high and we had booked $100 billion more in those transfer payments to come.

Second, the hon. gentleman said Liberals did not help the situation in Saskatchewan. I would point out that in fact we made changes in the formula that put $799 million in extra equalization benefits into Saskatchewan between 2004 and 2005.

Finally, on the issue of the promises that have been made, I would point out that it is his leader and his Prime Minister who made the promise of removing non-renewable natural resources. His leader and his Prime Minister said there would be no cap. That is the promise that has been broken. Our leader has said that when he gives his word on an issue, we can honour that word. He will keep his word. He will not betray the provinces and the premiers like the Prime Minister has done.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It being 6:30 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the opposition motion.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

A recorded division on the motion stands deferred until later today.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

moved:

That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008, less the amounts voted in Interim Supply, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, the form of this bill is essentially the same as that passed in previous supply periods.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have prepared an exciting speech on the main estimates. We are going to let everyone know what we have done because the main estimates present information on both budgetary and non-budgetary spending authorities.

The 2007-08 main estimates provide information on $210.3 billion in total budgetary expenditures, including $74.9 billion in voted appropriations such as departmental operating and capital expenditures, and $135.4 billion in statutory items previously approved by Parliament.

In total, the 2007-08 main estimates have increased by $12 billion or 6% relative to the 2006-07 main estimates. This increase is accounted for by increases of $11.7 billion in budgetary spending and $256.6 million in non-budgetary spending. However, when the 2007-08 main estimates are compared to the total 2006-07 estimates, including supplementary estimates (A) and (B), the year over year increase in total projected spending is $2.3 billion or only 1.1%.

Why are the main estimates so important? The estimates help to ensure that parliamentarians and Canadians are sufficiently informed of the government's expenditure and resource plans so that the government may be held to account for the allocation and management of public funds.

The government is moving forward with priorities announced in budget 2006 and the November 2006 economic and fiscal update, including increased funding for the environment, defence and security, and social programs.

The 2007-08 main estimates demonstrate the government's approach to effective and transparent management of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars and its commitment to keep growth in spending to a rate that is sustainable.

These main estimates show that the government is keeping its fiscal house in order and taking the right steps to effectively manage taxpayers' hard-earned dollars and ensure that they do get the best value for government programs and services. The estimates, in conjunction with the budget and the economic and fiscal update, reflect the government's annual resource planning and allocation priorities.

Last November, the finance department released Advantage Canada, which has four core principles: first, focusing government, which means making sure that spending is efficient, effective and accountable; second, creating new opportunities and choices for people, which means creating incentives and ensuring opportunities for Canadians to succeed right here at home; third, investing for sustainable growth, which means investing in the areas that are needed for a strong economy, including scientific research, infrastructure, and a clean and sustainable environment; and finally, freeing business to grow and succeed, which means ensuring that government is facilitating business and not hindering growth through excessive tax or regulatory burdens.

Those four core principles build upon the five comparative advantages, which are: fiscal advantages, tax advantages, obvious infrastructure advantages, knowledge advantages and, what we are so strong at here in our country, entrepreneurial advantages.

I will talk a little about 2007 budget spending.

With respect to infrastructure, budget 2007 delivers more than $16 billion to infrastructure. Including the infrastructure funding provided in budget 2006, federal support under the plan will total $33 billion over the next seven years. That is about $1,000 for every Canadian. Provided are an estimated $17.6 billion in base funding, $8.8 billion for the building Canada fund, and $2.1 billion for the national fund for gateways and border crossings. Part of this amount will be used to make a contribution toward the cost of a new access road that will link a new crossing at Windsor-Detroit with Highway 401.

Also provided are $1.26 billion for the national fund for public-private partnerships and $510 million to the Canada Foundation for Innovation to enable it to undertake another major competition before 2010. The government will account for the funds as they are disbursed by the CFI to institutions. It is anticipated that $70 million will be provided to institutions in 2008-09. That is not bad for those in my riding who are students at Brock University. To enable additional young Canadians to pursue graduate level studies, budget 2007 provides $35 million over two years to expand these scholarships.

As border communities, and we have many of them in our country, we will see an increase of $146.8 million in net funding for the Canada Border Services Agency. This is primarily as a result of budget 2006, which outlined the government's commitments to securing Canada's borders and to further implementing the security and prosperity partnership of the North America initiative.

These major items include $390 million to go toward the electronic eManifest program aimed at streamlining and speeding up border crossings without sacrificing security. There is also $60.5 million to arm border service officers and eliminate work-alone situations in order to enhance border security and certainly enhance officer safety.

There is $15.1 million for the provision of border services in relation to a new container facility in Port Rupert as part of the Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor initiative, and there is also $8.7 million to screen marine crews and passengers on the Great Lakes under the securing Canada's marine transportation initiative.

With respect to seniors, budget 2007 provides an additional $10 million per year to new horizons for seniors, which will bring the total budget for the program to an astounding $35 million per year.

Canada's government is making solid progress on its priorities, including investment in environment, defence, security, our nation's health, and our social programs.

The largest portion of program spending is devoted to social programs, which account for $97.4 billion, or 46.3% of the total program spending for 2007-08. This represents by far the largest component of total program spending.

Of the remainder, spending on public debt charges, international immigration and defence programs and general government services account for an additional $82.9 billion, or 39.4% of total spending.

The government has made a commitment to ensuring that Canada's aid programs deliver tangible results while making effective and efficient use of our resources.

The main estimates for 2007-08 include $3.026 billion in budgetary spending for CIDA and a further $22.6 million in non-budgetary investments. Together, these amounts represent a $74.3 million increase over CIDA's main estimates for the fiscal year now drawing to a close.

The Minister of Finance reiterated the government's commitment to increase spending on international assistance by 8% in this fiscal year as part of the overall objective to double Canada's international aid between 2001 and 2011.

When it comes to arts spending, the operating base of Canada Council for the Arts is increasing by $30.9 million, or 20.5%. Of this, virtually all of the funding is for individual artists, art organizations and increased touring and dissemination of artwork to support innovation, growth and success in Canada's cultural communities.

The remainder of the funding is to support the interdepartmental partnership with the official languages community program.

Canadian Museum of Nature spending is increasing by a net of $25.1 million, or 42.4%. The increase is reflected in its capital budget, with $25 million for a major renovation of the Victoria Memorial Museum Building.

Total spending requirements are being partially offset by a decrease in the operating budget. The National Battlefield Commission spending is increasing by $4.3 million, or almost 49%. Virtually all of this increase is for the rehabilitation of roads, sidewalks, storm sewers in several areas of the Battlefields Park, the construction of a restroom/office building and landscaping at the major events in site preparation for the celebration of the park's 100th anniversary and the 400th anniversary of Quebec City.

With respect to the environment, the Parks Canada Agency spending is increasing by $21.3 million, or 3.7%, of which the major increases are the following: the enhancement of Parks Canada's ability to manage ecological integrity; the 400th anniversary of the Quebec celebration; the Asian-Pacific Gateway initiative; and repair and restoration of infrastructure in national parks.

The National Capital Commission's spending is increasing by a net of $2.8 million, or 3.1%, mainly as a result of increases in capital projects being funded from their acquisition and disposal fund.

The Department of Natural Resources' spending is also increasing by a net of $719.1 million, or 50.4%, with some $536.1 million in new funds for contributions and other transfer payments, and the remainder in operating and grants.

Among the variety of program initiatives receiving funding, the most noteworthy include: the nuclear legacy liabilities program; the clean air agenda; the Port Hope low level radioactive waste cleanup program; the federal response to the mountain pine beetle program; and the forest industry long term competitiveness strategies program.

In addition, there are major increases in statutory payments to the Newfoundland offshore petroleum resource revenue fund, which is $241.6 million, and the Nova Scotia offshore revenue account.

The Department of the Environment is anticipating a net increase in spending of $38.1 million, or 4.7%, with much of the increase due to the implementation of the new environmental management agenda and its clean air initiatives, which represent $250 million.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency's spending is increasing by $15.8 million, or 2.8%, for increased operating and capital costs, the major item being an increase in funding for avian and pandemic influenza preparedness, something on which we focused in budget 2006 as well.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's spending is increasing by $15.8 million, or 20.1%, in order to deal with new demand in regulatory workload associated with industry growth and the licensing of new nuclear power plants.

Security and public safety program sectors in 2007-08 is estimated at $6.5 billion, which represents 3.1% of total program spending. Compared to the previous year, this sector's spending in 2007-08 has increased by $484.8 million, or 8%. Among the major drivers contributing to the increase in planned spending is the increase of $298 million in net funding for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

As we can hear, there is a lot in the estimates for 2007-08. I certainly want to compliment the President of the Treasury Board for the work that he did in preparing these estimates, working long hours to ensure the ministries were prepared and that we were prepared to implement budget 2007-08 and that we would stay on track.

I know the President of the Treasury Board will ensure our government our ministries do that. I think we will see that at the end of 2007 and 2008 we will have accomplished a lot for the people in this country. We will have accomplished a lot because we set a budget in place that, hopefully, will pass very soon, of which its estimates will ensure that we spend the money appropriately, accountably and in the way that we should.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member across the way but I did not hear him talk about two programs, one being the Big Brothers of Canada. It has had a cut of $200,000.

Last night I happened to run into the priest who is the head of Big Brothers right across Canada. I do not know if the member has spoken to him but I hope he will take the time and take it to the Prime Minister, because this is very serious. We have an organization in every town and city across Canada and this organization is hurting badly because of the $200,000 cut. I am making a very public plea here to ask the hon. member to go to the Prime Minister and ask for the reinstatement of those funds.

The member mentioned a whole lot of programs, and there is no doubt a lot of good in those programs. I am not downplaying that in any way, shape or form. However, the second program is literacy, a program that is hurting every community across Canada because of the cuts. The government cut a lot of money from literacy programs. As a past literacy provider, I can tell members that it is hurting some of our most vulnerable people, people who are in jobs and who cannot read, who have difficulty, who cannot progress and who are having trouble. There are young moms who need to administer medicines properly to their children but they cannot read.

The government has put a lot of people at risk by attacking those two programs.

My plea today is to ask the member to go to the Prime Minister and ask him to reinstate money for Big Brothers and for literacy. When we attack the ordinary, everyday person who is part of the Canadian fabric, who we are supposed to represent, we, the government, make a grievous error. I plead today for the reinstatement of these two programs.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for paying such close attention to my speech.

The member makes two very excellent points. On the first one, regarding Big Brothers Big Sisters, I appreciate her offer to go back and do a little bit of investigating to see where that program stands and to see if in fact what she has stated is the case.

However, I do want to make note of something she mentioned about Big Brothers Big Sisters. In my riding of St. Catharines, Big Brothers Big Sisters do great work. One of the many positive components of the Canada summer job programs for students is that, maybe in the member's riding but certainly in my riding, young people are participating in the program, and Big Brothers Big Sisters was one of the programs that benefited in my community. I anticipate that across the province and across the country that is also the case, showing clearly that this government shows support for Big Brothers Big Sisters. However, I take her point and certainly will look into it.

I will comment briefing on adult literacy. I certainly share her point, her goal and her feelings about adult literacy. It is very important in terms of adults who do not have or have not had the opportunity to learn. However, in terms of funding, we have addressed those issues, maybe not in the program that she formerly stated but let me just show from budget 2006 that we invested an additional $350 million per year in aboriginal funding for education.

We also made sure that within that there was a priority that additional funds, which did not exist in any previous budgets, would certainly be there to try to address those issues of youth and ensuring that our young people, certainly aboriginal young people, have the opportunity to learn to read and write, but at the same time also ensuring that the help is there for aboriginal adults who need it. It was there in 2006 and obviously it is there in 2007 as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague seems to have gone through the estimates in a wide range. I will make a small correction. Port Rupert does not exist. The funding for the Port of Prince Rupert was provided by the previous government with much insistence from this corner. I am not sure if the Conservative government is trying to take credit for the money but that is what governments do.

This brings me to my point around the environmental spending my colleague talked about. The government, by its own admission, misunderstood and much underplayed the issue of the environment for Canadians. We were slightly surprised by the vehemence of the reaction from the Canadian public when the government did not come forward with more progressive ideas. The government dragged its feet on greenhouse gases and spent most of its first 12 months blaming the previous regime's performance.

We initially did not have a problem with this because we in the NDP have consistently said that the previous government was not performing well when it came to climate change, but yet offered the Conservative government no excuse. Previous Liberal failures do not condone present Conservative failures when it comes to greenhouse gases.

The member talked about the ecotrust funding. It is just by coincidence that today department officials were in front of committee. We asked them if the money had been spent because the minister had stood in his place and said the money had gone out the door. He said the cheques were not just signed, not just in the mail, but they had been cashed. However, when we checked with the provinces, no one had seen any of the money. There seems to be an enormous discrepancy here. The minister is taking much credit for all these environmental initiatives when the money has not gone out the door.

There is not a single string attached to this money so that it will actually lead to reductions in greenhouse gases, further continuing Canada's deplorable record on greenhouse gas emissions and delaying action from other countries.

Before the government actually takes credit for programs and spending on initiatives, it seems to me that it would be wise that it actually spend the money. When those members were in opposition, I know they were paying attention to the Liberal government's tendency to re-spend and re-announce and re-announce until it was beating a dead horse, but I would resist the temptation if I were that member.

It seems to me that Canadians need to know what has happened. The environmental initiatives and the ecotrust funding have not happened. The money has not been spent. The money has not been delivered. The provinces have not seen it.

I wonder if my colleague could take this opportunity to clarify the record. I know he does not wish to mislead Canadians or those who are watching, but I wonder if he would like to correct the record here in the House to ensure we actually understand what is afoot.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has raised a number of points and I would like to just briefly address them.

With respect to his point about the expenditures for the environment, this government has taken a strong approach. I take my colleague's comments about whether or not it is our job to blame previous governments, or whether it is our job to address those issues. I will not even talk about casting blame, but I will talk about what our commitments to Kyoto were supposed to be and what has not happened in the past number of years.

Obviously, to take the type of approach that the member's party would like to take would certainly bring this country's economy to its knees. That is not our intent. That is not going to be our approach. We have set money aside. We have put money in the budget. We have developed programs, including “Turning the Corner”, which speaks specifically to the issues that the member spoke to.

If this budget does not pass through the Senate, the money that is booked to be spent on the environment will need to come out of this year. The difficulty that the member speaks about is a fair one in terms of where that revenue is going to come from, where it is going to go, how much is going to be spent and where it is going to be allocated.

What we need to do to specifically address the issues my colleague mentioned, is to get the budget through the House and through the Senate.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure tonight to talk about the estimates. I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Winnipeg Centre.

We all know that these debates are very important. For the benefit of the many Canadians who are watching at home, I would like to begin by explaining that this evening we are debating estimates. We are talking tonight about the money that is being spent, but we are also going to talk about the money that is not being spent. I expect we will hear that clearly from that side of the House by the minority Conservative government.

It is important to remind Canadians that the Conservatives inherited from our great Liberal government the best fiscal situation in the history of Canada. Back in 1993 when the Liberals took over as government from the Conservatives, what we inherited to the great surprise to those who were elected at the time was something like a $42 billion deficit. The country was almost at a point of bankruptcy for a variety of reasons. Certainly fiscal mismanagement was a big part of that.

We made a lot of commitments of things that we had wanted to do. Then we got into government and found out that it was impossible. It took years of constraints, of having to cut programs and for Canadians having to cope with all of that while we attempted to get the government out of the deficit position it was in. It was a difficult time.

In contrast to the Conservative government of today, when the Conservatives got in they found an $11 billion surplus. That is a very different thing. They had lots of money to throw around in a lot of places. That is part of the reason for the discussion tonight about some of the areas into which I would like to have seen them put some more money.

Unfortunately, the minority Conservative government has preferred to cut many of the important programs, those that were Liberal, and they will reintroduce them under the Conservative name. Whatever they are called, they were good programs. A lot of them are being reintroduced under the Conservative logo because they were good programs. We knew what the needs of Canadians were. We were out there with our full intention to meet the needs of Canadians and to give Canadian individuals and communities the necessary tools.

Many of the funding cuts made by the Conservatives, in spite of the surplus that the Conservatives had, targeted women in particular, students, many people who are in need of affordable housing and other groups for which the Conservatives have traditionally shown very little concern.

Some $5 million was cut from Status of Women Canada. This is an organization that was established by the Liberal government just a couple of years ago, in order to give women more opportunities to be advocates for the needs of women in Canada, and to make sure that women's voices were being heard loud and clear.

There was $45 million cut from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation programs. This was done at a time when we are hearing more and more about the needs for affordable housing throughout the country. We had a minister of housing under the previous Liberal government who was working with the provinces to ensure that affordable housing would be built throughout our country. We had committed around $675 million to the province of Ontario alone to build affordable housing and $45 million was cut from that.

There was $10 million cut with the elimination of the support for the Canadian volunteerism initiative. That is a really difficult one, given that volunteerism is such an important part of Canadian society today. So many people volunteer the utmost amount of hours. If we had to, we would never have enough money to pay people for all of what they do.

There was $10 million cut with the elimination of the international youth internship program. This was a wonderful opportunity for young people to travel abroad to learn more about other countries and the rest of the world.

The Conservatives cut $6 million from the Canada Firearms Centre. They cut $18 million from youth employment initiatives. We are hearing about that through the summer employment programs. There is a great need for youth employment initiatives to provide opportunities for our young people to talk about careers and focus on where they will go in the future.

There was $18 million cut from the literacy skills program. It is unbelievable the number of people who still cannot read and write in Canada. If we truly want to see people in Canada aspire to be a successful citizen, they need to be able to read and write.

To cut the money out of programs that are the fundamental basics that we need to have a successful country frankly was unbelievable.

The court challenges program, another $6 million, was looked upon as not necessary. If it was not for the court challenges program we probably would not have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms today. These cuts are from programs that are very important in the lives of Canadians.

Let us talk about child care and all the spaces that were not produced. What is early learning all about? Early learning is not about child care. Early learning is about investing in our youngsters from the very beginning so that we can plan a positive future for them. That came out as a result of a lot of work that was done across this country through a variety of agencies talking about how to ensure that our children can compete with those in countries abroad that are investing a lot of money in their children. That was the first social program specifically geared to early learning and child care that was going to put our children at a real advantage over many of the others.

A lot of evidence has proven that early learning contributes immensely to the development of children and helps to give children the best start in life. Canada needs a high quality early learning and child care system, and I am not talking about a babysitting system. Early learning is very important for our precious children to get the best possible start. They need the highest quality early learning opportunities that we can provide in order to ensure that our children can grow and prosper.

Ever since the election of the minority Conservative government, child care and early learning have suffered immensely. The Prime Minister's so-called universal child care plan is not child care. It is an allowance, much like the baby bonus that people used to receive, and it is a meagre one at that. It is taxable. It is unaccountable. Certainly it is not a plan, by any means.

The Prime Minister promised to provide funding for 125,000 new child care spaces. I can still hear the Prime Minister to this day saying how the Conservatives were going to produce 125,000 child care spaces. I have not seen one created yet. Once he got into power he so desperately wanted to cut the funds to child care. The Conservatives have not created one space that they can talk about.

The previous Liberal government had committed to give every child a good start in life. It invested $5 billion over five years for the creation of a Canada-wide system of early learning and child care based on the principles of quality, universal inclusiveness and accessibility, all very important principles.

Ten provinces had signed bilateral agreements to increase investments in early learning and child care. As a nation we were moving forward with our plans to create a new national system. Just getting 10 provinces to agree on something like that was a huge amount of work and something that we all desired. We had to give it time to come to fruition and we also had to have the money. It took that long to get it all together and organized. Sadly, the Conservative government cancelled all of the agreements and undid all of the good work that had been done.

Cutting literacy programs, as I indicated earlier, is another heartless act by the government. Literacy reaches far and wide. To foster a healthy, vibrant economy, we must ensure that our population has strong literacy skills. If Canada is to maintain its place in the world, we must improve literacy skills, especially for our most vulnerable citizens.

How can the Conservative government justify cutting $17.7 million in funding from the adult learning and literary skills program? I have not heard anybody justify it yet. The Conservatives simply say they are reinvesting it differently, and so on and so forth. I have not seen them produce a specific program to indicate they are helping adults who are suffering from literacy issues.

One of the Conservatives' targets is the Status of Women Canada which I mentioned earlier, which has long been on the hit list of social Conservatives. They cut the Status of Women's budget by $5 million, compromising the agency's ability to do important work and to allow for the advocacy of women and women's issues. The minority Conservative government's decision to close 12 regional offices of the Status of Women Canada leaving only four to serve Canadian women is reprehensible.

Canadian women are still only earning 71¢ for every dollar earned by their male counterparts. More and more women are living in poverty and we are still waiting for the government to create child care spaces. The Conservatives stood here and argued with us and said they were so proud of the 125,000 spaces they were going to create. I am looking forward to hearing, and we may hear it tonight in this discussion, where those spaces are and when we can see the official opening of those spaces.

With the closure of the regional offices of the Status of Women, the government is taking away one of the very few remaining resources for women to get the kind of assistance that they need. It will also take away the government's ability to be aware of what are the issues facing women today and what is the government's role in ensuring that women have full access to opportunity.

That is the reason these 12 offices were created across Canada. These offices were established to assist women in advocating for equality. Clearly, the Conservative government is against that goal of equality just by the kind of cuts that it is making.

This year we celebrated the 25th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, something that I believe every one of us in this House is very proud of. The Conservatives have undermined the charter at every turn. Clearly, by cancelling the court challenges program and the Law Commission of Canada, by endangering judicial independence, and by trying to stack the courts, I do not think they believe in it at all.

A Liberal government would reverse the steps the Prime Minister has taken to weaken the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which we all stand by, which is there to defend each and every one of us.

The charter is the centrepiece of Canadian democracy. Its legacy is too precious for us to remain indifferent to those who would seek to undermine it. The Liberal opposition will not permit the charter to be weakened by a federal government not committed to keeping it accessible to the Canadian people.

We will continue to fight the cuts to the court challenges program, as there are other groups clearly doing the exact same thing because they understand the value of it. It had been cut some years back by the previous Mulroney government and I gather after about five years of protests the Conservatives reinstated the program because they realized just how important that was. For such a small amount of money of $6 million it delivers a huge amount of opportunity for people to be able to get their points across.

No wonder Canadians do not trust this government. From politicizing the public service and cancelling the court challenges program to stacking the judiciary, and undermining the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this government's ideological attacks are designed to reshape Canada to fit its narrow neo-conservative views.

Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to be able to join and participate in this debate tonight. It is important. Every time we talk about budgets, they are important to all of us, not only as parliamentarians but as Canadians. There is always a fair amount of benefits to the country when those budgets are there and it is important that we move forward.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member and I want to remind her what we have done for women. For example, INAC has begun the process to address matrimonial property rights for aboriginal women. We have increased funding to on reserve family violence shelters by $6 million.

We can look at justice. We have had tougher legislation to deal with sexual predators, repeat offenders and conditional sentencing. We raised the age of protection.

With regard to immigration, we are protecting victims of human trafficking with temporary visas, treating them as victims rather than criminals.

When she talks about the literacy funding being cut, we increased funding by $307 million for immigrant settlement services. We also have $6 million allocated for the protection of sexually exploited children.

If we want to talk about health: vaccines for cervical cancer, wait times for prenatal aboriginal women, $120 million for the global fight against AIDS, and $7 million annual funding for the family violence initiative.

If we want to talk about human resources, we have the universal child care benefit. There is $5.6 billion a year going into early learning and child care. That is twice what her party had ever given toward early learning and child care.

We had the new pilot training program in New Brunswick for women in non-traditional work. We made it easier for senior women to claim guaranteed income supplement benefits. We have a women in trades project in Edmonton. We have textbook tax credits for university women. We have older workers pilot project initiatives. We gave an additional $20 million to Status of Women, which is the highest budget ever. She sits on that particular committee, so she knows that.

With regard to international cooperation, there is $45 million over five years to UNICEF which will provide medical treatment to children and mothers in Bangladesh. We could talk about--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I am sorry, the parliamentary secretary cannot go on forever, we need to give the member the floor.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a list as well of all the things that were cut and I have a list of all of the wonderful things that we did when we were in government. The role of government is to ensure that it meets the needs of Canadians. It is all about that.

The Conservatives clearly have their priorities and their ideology and will function that way. The Liberals want to ensure that we build a healthy Canada. When the Liberal government had to make the cuts because we had the huge deficit to deal with, all Canadians had to buckle in and live within those cuts. Once the money started coming back in, because the economy was doing well and so on, then we had the money to reinvest in people and those areas.

However, the Conservatives have made cuts in areas of adult literacy, youth initiatives, summer career placement program and a whole lot of the other issues that matter to those folks who are in the lower income levels. It is important that we invest in those areas. There was no reason for Conservatives to make the kind of cuts they made previously when they had an overabundance of money.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's comments are right on. This was the point I was trying to make earlier to the Conservative member of Parliament who spoke. It is all very well and good to list a whole list of things they do. It is onerous, we cannot take it in, it is so huge that nobody really knows to what money has been given.

However, what we do know is what the Conservatives have not done, and I want to go back to literacy. These are programs on the ground. The two Conservative members of Parliament who just spoke will have these programs in their own cities and towns. These programs deliver service to people we represent who cannot read and who need that tool.

The Conservative government has taken $18 million out of that fund. It is extremely important that the money be reinstated. While members can list all kinds of things, we have to look at the person in the street who cannot read, the person in the street who cannot get along, people who the Liberals were actually helping. Now the Conservatives have taken that away.

I ask the hon. member—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Sorry, but I am going to have to give the hon. member a chance to respond.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I represent a very high needs riding, a riding in the last couple of weeks that has unfortunately been the subject of an awful lot of violence. When I am looking at these programs, I am thinking about the people who were going to benefit, the young people who would have been employed over the summer. Many of them are not going to be employed because of cuts.

We need to invest in opportunities for our young people, everything from crime prevention programs to education in our schools. It is all about that. It is not about a huge list. It is about investing in our people and that is what we have to ensure we continue to do.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight to speak to this issue once again. I spoke when the budget came down and I will repeat some of the points I made at that time.

I was thinking about the budget as I was preparing for tonight. I tried to think of an analogy of what the budget was. What it reminds me of is a paint gun, one of those guns that shoot balls of paint. It is a big burst, it splatters everywhere and it makes a hell of a mess. I would make the analogy of this budget to a paint gun. It was a big burst but not a lot of meaningful initiatives for people and for many it left one big mess.

I will quickly go through some of the broken promises to my and your province, Mr. Speaker. It has been profoundly impacted negatively. We heard early from my colleague about the literacy program. We have heard about the women's program. We have heard about the closing of the women's office in the city of Winnipeg, which had been such a huge support to women's groups there.

We have heard in previous times about the cancellation of the labour market partnership, a signed agreement with the Government of Canada, not with the Liberal Party, $129 million gone.

We have heard much about the court challenges program, in and of itself, and the merits of the program for women's groups, for other minority groups and for francophone groups. However, we have not talked about it in the context of the city of Winnipeg. It was one of the very few national programs in the city of Winnipeg and it too is gone.

On the homelessness initiative, we have heard much from members opposite about their great concern about crime and young people on the street. One of the members opposite even had the audacity to say that the streets of Winnipeg were, and I really do not want to repeat it, filled with uncharitable and unkind people who were lawless and involved in crime.

At the same time as they talk about crime, building jails, putting people behind bars and increasing the sentences, they are also cancelling funding for a major youth initiative that keeps young people off the streets. What one hand does, the other hand does not know. This has had a significant impact on my community and what it has done there.

We have heard a lot about child care. My colleague who preceded me spoke about the impact of the loss of the child care program and the ineffectiveness of the $100 a month to families. We have heard much from members opposite about the importance of having choice.

I allege that one cannot have choice if there is no choice. What the government has basically done is removed choice for parents, the choice to go back to work, the choice to go back to school, the choice of where a child might be cared for.

In the city of Winnipeg, 80% of the centres have waiting lists. The province of Manitoba was slated to receive $176 million over five years. That program was cancelled. We now know, under the current allocation, the province of Manitoba will receive an annual $9 million grant, obviously considerably less than $174 million that would have been in place for the province of Manitoba. We also know the $100 a month might provide three days of child care for a family in the city of Winnipeg.

The city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba had a well laid out plan for the development of child care, for the training and development of a skilled workforce. It has gone and there is much challenge and struggle to maintain that.

We also have to look at child care, not simply as a social issue, but as an economic issue. Women cannot go to work if they do not have the option. I have heard recently about women who have been leaving their employment because of their inability to access good, safe child care for their children. We have to be wary of that.

One of the very large disappointments in the province of Manitoba is the funding, or the lack thereof, for the remediation of Lake Winnipeg. For many, Lake Winnipeg is a symbol. I have heard many call it their beloved Lake Winnipeg. It is a form of economic development. It is a place for recreation. It is a place for memories. It is a place for history. It is beautiful. It is an inland ocean, but unfortunately, it needs considerable remediation.

The previous government made a commitment for the restoration of Lake Winnipeg for $120 million. What we have now is a small sum allocated now for the clean up of Lake Winnipeg, which one of my colleagues said might be enough to rake the beaches. If we are to clean up Lake Winnipeg, let us not do it in a messy way. Let us do it in a way that will have a real impact and outcome and that will serve for generations to come.

The issue I want to focus on, because it has a profound impact on my province and on Canadians from coast to coast to coast, is what the government has done or has not done for aboriginal people.

I will not belabour the cancelling of the Kelowna accord. We have talked about it in the House. We have talked about it in committee. It has been talked about in legislatures across the country. First and foremost, that has had a profound impact and disappointment. Kelowna had become a symbol of hope for many, and that hope has gone.

When we hear the minister opposite speak about funding for aboriginal peoples, on budget day, March 19, I heard the minister, in the course of three hours, give three different figures. The budget document said $9.1 billion. He later said $10.1 billion. At a scrum outside the House, he used the figure $11 billion.

The moneys used or portrayed as being used for aboriginal people are being provided as misinformation or not factual information to Canadians. What other group in Canada has the amount spent in its area factored out to a per person cost? We do not hear any other group singled out as how much we spend per individual in that group. That is quite shameful.

We have been hearing that they are taking great initiatives in aboriginal communities, but what the minister is not telling us is that he is taking dollars committed for one community and reallocating them for another community.

My colleague, the member for Kenora, told me just yesterday of two projects being cancelled in his community, one for a school and one for a treatment facility. It was a reallocation of moneys that probably went to Pikangikum.

I want to quote what some of the aboriginal leader said. Angus Toulouse said:

It is scary.... f people aren't heard, if claims aren't addressed...you can bet there's going to be much more confrontation and barricades.

I want to quote John Ibbitson the columnist with the Globe and Mail when the budget came down. His comment was, and I think it is important:

The Conservatives lack the political courage to confront, head on, the overriding social policy challenge of our time: eliminating aboriginal poverty on and off reserve.

This truly is the biggest challenge facing Canadians within Canada. We have seen no commitment from the government. We have seen smoke and mirrors with figures. We have seen money taken from one pot and allocated to another pot, ostensibly in the guise of doing something and not talking about the community being left behind.

I would say that this is the greatest shame. From a high water point 18 months ago between the Government of Canada and first nations and aboriginal people across this country, we are at an all time low, a low that is now mobilizing aboriginal people across this country to a day of protest, a day of action, in order to show their displeasure, their disappointment, and the profound lack of hope that aboriginal people now have as it relates to this government.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to the member that if she does not vote for bill she should think about the things that will be cancelled.

She talked about the things that were cancelled. There will not be $1.5 billion for the Canada ecotrust, for clean air and climate change; $600 million for patient wait times guarantee, which she was concerned about; $400 million for the Canada Health Infoway; $30 million for the Rick Hansen Foundation; $100 million for aid to Afghanistan; and $100 million the Genome Canada.

She said, regarding universal child care, that if people do not have child care spaces, they will not be able to work. For those who are working, the $2,000 child tax credit will be welcomed. We believe in fairness for single earner families. We have $4.3 billion in total that includes $400 million in new tax measures. I encourage the member to think about what she is not voting for.

When she talks about an aboriginal strategy, we do have an aboriginal strategy. The $300 million will give first nation members the opportunity to own their own homes when a new approach to on reserve housing is developed. There is $14.5 million over two years to expand the aboriginal justice strategy, about which she has expressed some concern.

I would like to remind the member that when she is speaking about all these cuts that she says happened, perhaps the money has been refocused and she will see tangible results. I would like to ask the member why she is voting against these items?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what we have heard from the parliamentary secretary, for whom I have tremendous regard, is further indication of what I call this paint gun approach. It is a little bit here, a little bit there, and a splattering here. There is no coherent strategy. There is no coherent approach in this budget. It is, “Give a little here and maybe they will vote for us, give a little there and perhaps that group will vote for us”. It really is deceptive.

In terms of the aboriginal items that she cites, I would remind her that the $300 million was identified for housing in the previous budget and reannounced in this budget. I would remind her as well that the aboriginal procurement policy was cancelled. It has had a profound impact on aboriginal businesses across the country, many of whom have had to go out of business because of the cancellation of this project.

I would remind her of the cancellation of the aboriginal language funding, which also is having a profound impact on aboriginal people across the country, and in some cases not allowing them to celebrate aboriginal awareness day on June 21. There are significant implications in this budget. I find it very difficult to support what I call a spattered approach.