Debates of June 9th, 2011

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I welcome back the representative from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I am pleased to hear that she has looked into the budget very thoroughly.

One thing troubles me about the budget, and I do not think it will come as any surprise because I spoke endlessly in the last Parliament. There are some 250,000 to 300,000 seniors who are living below the poverty line, most of those being women. They are living on $1,162 a month. The increases proposed by the government, and I give it credit for doing something, is only $50 a month. When a person is trying to survive on $1,162, it does not go far enough. It is targeted to 680,000. Instead, it should be $700 million to 250,000 to 300,000.

I have one other point I would like to make. The member talked about housing. Many seniors who are in assisted housing and receive any kind of an increase have it clawed back. I hope the finance minister will be talking to provincial ministers about that.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has raised a very important question around seniors who have worked very hard and who are struggling on guaranteed income supplement and old age security. That is why we increased that amount.

People diminish the amount and the value of it. When I talk to seniors, they say that it is a month's rent and they will now have money to buy presents for my grandchildren. Looking forward, one of the reasons we need to move this process forward and get the budget implementation act through is so we can start delivering those additional funds to seniors right away.

The other thing that is very important is the new horizons program for seniors and the additional dollars for that. I have groups that have really had tremendous benefit from that program.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the hon. member back to the chamber and congratulate her on her re-election.

The member for Northumberland—Quinte West talked about the tax credit for firefighters. When I first saw that, I was very pleased. A former colleague, Rick Casson, the member for Lethbridge, did a lot of work on it. I worked with Rick on a couple of different initiatives, as well as the member for Malpeque. It looked like a pretty good thing.

The budget has a number of initiatives that look like roses, but there is a bunch of thorns around them. When I saw the tax deduction for firefighters, I thought it was a great step. However, when one gets into the details, one sees that it is a non-refundable tax credit.

There are 50 firefighters in my riding of Cape Breton—Canso. Firefighters who make less than $22,000 are not eligible. They do the same job, they take the same risks, but they get no benefit. They have to choose between the $1,000 honorarium deduction or this. Does the member see the injustice in that application?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, many in the House were incredibly supportive of the volunteer firefighter tax credit and were delighted to see it in this budget.

There are probably 16 volunteer firefighter departments throughout my riding, which I visited during the election campaign. They were, without question, absolutely delighted to see it included in the budget. I am pleased to be part of a government that is finally moving forward on this issue.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for coming back to the House to work alongside me on the finance committee.

I would like to take an opportunity to address the fact that in the last Parliament the Liberal Party was very much against what Mr. Rick Casson had put forward for the firefighters of our country, and this measure is going to help them.

Could she continue to talk about the need to proceed with this volunteer firefighter tax credit, given that the Liberals voted against it?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is providing misinformation in the House. The Liberals never opposed the volunteer firefighter initiative, not at all. She should stand and be honest.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I thank the hon. member, but I believe that is a question of debate.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, all I can say is when I visited the volunteer firefighter departments, they were absolutely thrilled with our government moving forward on this initiative.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on the last point of order. Though I know you ruled on it, I would like to take this opportunity to say that if the Liberal Party would like me to table a list of the members who voted against it, I am happy to do that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

As I said, I believe this is a point for debate.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, first of all I would like to extend sincere appreciation to the constituents of Souris—Moose Mountain who have re-elected me yet again, in 2004-06 and 2008-11, with the highest percentage of votes in Saskatchewan. I am humbled by their support and I will do my utmost to continue to deserve their support and will do what I can to represent them fairly and to the best of my ability.

I would also like to thank the many volunteers who campaigned with me, the board of directors and of course my thanks to my wife Sally who has been a tremendous help and support on every campaign, an ever ready partner particularly on this campaign and during my stay here in Ottawa. I know that spouses make life here bearable and they certainly stand with us.

I must also mention the difficult circumstances in which the residents of Souris—Moose Mountain find themselves. Mostly throughout my riding after a very wet fall last year, we have experienced above average snowfall and rainfall and more rain that has caused flooding of farmland, damage to homes including on reserves, a heartbreaking loss of property and cattle. Land that was once seeded is now five feet under water. Areas around Estevan, including homes, have suffered much damage. It is a frustrating and dire situation. Many are tired and frustrated. Rural municipalities and villages are fighting water, doing their best, cutting roads and doing what they have to in order to preserve towns and villages.

This government, along with the provinces, has disaster relief programs in place, income protection and business risk management programs. I am hoping the programs will address these losses and provide a basis for recovery next year.

This budget sets the stage for Canada's future prosperity and a better future for all Canadians. The steps taken now will preserve jobs and continue Canada's economic growth into the future. These steps must, of course, be placed in context. Before the global recession hit, our Conservative government paid down nearly $40 billion of debt, bringing Canada's debt to its lowest level in 25 years.

While other countries struggle with an ever-increasing debt that is spiralling out of control, Canada has one of the best fiscal positions in the G7. We have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the entire G7. The independent International Monetary Fund has stated, “Canada's overall fiscal outlook in the aftermath of the crisis stands out as among the best in the G20”.

Since July 2009, nearly 540,000 new jobs were created. For our future prosperity, it is important to do the right thing and take the right steps at the right time. First we paid down debt and then when the recession hit we made a deliberate decision to run a temporary deficit to protect our economy and jobs.

Now is not a time to spend, but rather a time to return to balanced budgets and the budget sets out a plan to do so by winding down the temporary stimulus spending, putting in place targeted spending restraint measures and reviewing government overhead costs in order to balance the budget by 2014-15. This is in stark contrast to the NDP and Liberal Parties that would increase taxes by billions. In the case of the NDP, campaign promises were made to the tune of $60 billion. Both are just plain wrong.

Canadians have spoken loud and clear on this subject by electing a majority Conservative government.

With respect to the budget, Saskatchewan finance minister, Ken Krawetz, said, "We're pleased to see there was no deviation from the plan" and that the first budget was an “OK budget” and this one is as well. “It's not a spend, spend budget...but it's a cautionary budget. I think that's a good example for the province of Saskatchewan”.

In particular, he welcomed tax breaks for specific groups such as the volunteer firefighters, family members who act as caregivers and families whose children attend music camp or art classes. He was most relieved with the commitment to keep increasing health care transfers to the provinces by 10% annually. We will not do what the Liberals did and that is balance the books on the backs of ordinary Canadians, RMs, municipalities and provinces.

We must also place this budget in the context of the previous budgets. We cut taxes over 120 times. We cut the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%. We removed over one million Canadians from the tax roles. We increased the amount that Canadians can earn tax-free. We reduced the GST from 7% to 5%, putting nearly $1,000 back in the pockets of the average family. We introduced a universal child care benefit, offering families more choices for child care by providing $1,200 a year for each child under age six. Total tax reductions for an average family of four approximate $3,000.

The new budget builds on this foundation with measures such as enhancing the guaranteed income supplement by up to $600 for single seniors and up to $840 per couple per year.

I am not sure whether the NDP will support this or not, but I would certainly encourage them to support this budget. The Canadian Association of Retired Persons, CARP, said to CTV news on June 6, 2011 that they were very happy and that this issue has been an issue that they have raised many times before and it is finally something that is being addressed.

Another measure is the new family caregiver tax credit for those who care for a dependent family member who is infirm. Here is what the Canadian Caregiver Coalition had to say:

On behalf of the millions of family caregivers across the country, the Canadian Caregiver Coalition (CCC) applauds the federal government for their recognition of the tremendous time and resources required of family caregivers.

This is the kind of initiative that should have been supported when the budget was handed down in this House in March. It is the kind of initiative that should be supported now.

There is also a provision to forgive up to $40,000 in student loans for new family physicians and up to $20,000 for nurse practitioners and nurses serving underserved rural and remote communities.

As mentioned, there is the $3,000 volunteer firefighter tax credit. Here is what the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs had to say in a news release on June 6, 2011:

We were delighted...This measure will help with the recruitment and retention of volunteer firefighters across the country--

Of course we extended the eco-energy retrofit homes program.

I would say at this point that the NDP resistance should either collapse or capitulate. I would encourage the members to support this budget.

There are even more measures that include: a new hiring credit of up to $1,000 for small businesses to support local job growth; a permanent annual investment of approximately $2 billion in gas tax money to provide stable funding to municipalities; ongoing funding to the Canada periodical fund to continue to support the distribution of publications in Saskatchewan and across the country; and $60 million to the CBC/Radio-Canada in 2011-12 to provide radio and television services, and this will certainly be welcomed by the many CBC supporters in Souris—Moose Mountain.

Finally, it is heartwarming and good to see our government's commitment to end the wasteful and inefficient long gun registry, and to ensure western Canadian farmers have the freedom to sell wheat and barley on the open market.

Something that is also well received is a commitment to limit Senate terms and to phase out direct taxpayer subsidies to federal political parties over the next three years.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation had this to say on June 6:

Eliminating the per-vote subsidy is a major victory in the fight against political welfare...this is major win for taxpayers and for democratic reform.

All in all, the budget contains positive steps that will move Canada forward in the right direction. It would ensure a strong economy. It would ensure that jobs are created. In fact the budget sets the stage for Canada's future prosperity and a better future for all Canadians.

I would ask all members from the opposition to join with us to ensure the speedy passage of the budget and to show Canadians that indeed they are working together with this government to help all Canadians have a better life and better lifestyle.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was interested to hear from the member across regarding his government's agenda, especially when it comes to the economy.

I would like to ask, as a fellow member of Parliament from western Canada, how that view truly reconciles with the plan to get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board which supports the livelihoods of not just farmers but rural communities all across western Canada?

Further, how does the member feel about his government's cutback of western economic diversification which is absolutely critical especially in the diversification of rural areas across Manitoba and Saskatchewan in a very large way?

Instead of seeing a strong commitment to economic development in the west, what we are seeing are the most intense cuts affecting our area.

I would like to hear how that might actually oppose the government's agenda when it comes to economic development.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, this government's record of economic development and creating opportunities is stellar across the country from coast to coast to coast. There is no question about that. In fact, many of the initiatives that were taken were not supported by members opposite.

With respect to the Canadian Wheat Board, it is rather interesting that west of Manitoba farmers do not have an opportunity to sell their produce where they would like to sell it at the best or highest prices. For instance, anyone growing durum in Saskatchewan would have to sell through the Wheat Board at dollars per bushel less than they might in the United States.

It is simply a question of fairness. Those farmers who wish to continue to deal with the Canadian Wheat Board can so, but that should not prevent the farmers who want to deal with the issue on their own or through other agencies or bodies from doing so. This is something that should be encouraged.

I do not know of anywhere else in the world where farmers are forced to sell their product to only one source. It does not seem to make sense. In today's world, we need to give farmers the opportunity to do the best they can.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech with interest and I have a question for him.

Government is giving a major tax break to corporations that already have a competitive tax rate and is proposing to balance the books through attrition, which means cutting the civil servants who provide services to Canadians. How is that not balancing the books on the backs of ordinary Canadians?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, with respect to not balancing the books on the backs of Canadians, we did not cut transfers to the provinces by $25 billion like the previous Liberal government or raid the EI account of $50 billion to pay for the deficit.

When we are dealing with corporations it is not just corporations but the vehicle by which jobs are created so that everyone in the country can work. Here is what the Financial Executives International Canada had to say:

FEI Canada is pleased with the budget’s proposed initiatives to eliminate the deficit by 2015-16 without raising taxes or reversing previously announced corporate tax decreases, measures which will foster economic growth for the benefit of all Canadians.

Also, Deloitte Canada said: “Canada's position as an attractive business destination for global enterprise--”. It allows those who choose to proceed with planned corporate tax reductions. It sends a signal that Canada is a friendly place to invest, both foreign and domestic.

This is the type of thing that encourages investment, builds jobs, builds opportunities for Canadians and is something that the opposition should support.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, to the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain, my condolences to the farmers in your riding for suffering the ravages of climate change.

I have a brief question relating to the member's comment about political subsidies. I refer the member to page 184 of the budget which makes it clear that taxpayer support comes in three ways. I would ask why your government has chosen to pursue the very smallest and most fair application of public support to political parties?

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I would ask all members to direct their questions through the Speaker.

The hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain has 30 seconds to respond.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a good first step. Certainly it goes into the millions of dollars and encourages members of Parliament and parties to raise money like everyone else. There are already provisions made to allow parties to receive money so they can exist. This requires a little initiative, a little effort, to raise money. I would encourage the member to get behind this particular proposal in the budget and support it.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate all returning and new members. I thank the citizens of Vancouver Quadra for electing me for a third time. I also thank my campaign team and all the volunteers who were so much fun to work with. I had the real pleasure of meeting with constituents from one end of the riding to the other in the last campaign.

The beginning of a new Parliament is always a critical juncture for Canada. It offers the governing party the chance to present a new vision, an exciting vision, a vision that addresses Canada's future. Unfortunately, the government has woefully failed to do that. In fact, it has presented its retread budget that is complacent fiscally, disappointingly regressive socially and worrisome environmentally. It is a budget that promotes ideology over evidence in a number of ways.

It is the government's responsibility to represent all Canadians, not just a select number of Canadians. As an opposition MP, it is my responsibility to hold the government to account, something that I will do rigorously on behalf of the constituents of Vancouver Quadra who elected me to do just that.

I do want to give credit where it is due. This is a budget that has incorporated some ideas, programs and proposals from the Liberal Party of Canada, and we are glad to see them in the budget. They were good ideas and here they are, perhaps a paler version than the Liberal Party proposed and perhaps in a slightly more regressive version but, nonetheless, things like the permanent gas tax revenue to municipalities, a small amount of relief for small businesses, home care, tax credits for volunteer firefighters and a bounce back of the eco-energy program, which the government has flip-flopped on several times already. However, it is a good thing that we have it for another year or two. I congratulate the Conservatives for listening to what that Liberals proposed.

However, the budget is absolutely not good enough. What I mean when I say that it is fiscally complacent is that the growth projections are outdated, there is no reserve in case things go sideways on the international stage and there are many risks that might happen.

The Asia Pacific Gateway, which is so critical to Canada's future, particularly to Vancouver Quadra in British Columbia, did not even deserve lip service in the throne speech.

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Malpeque.

There is no long-term vision for prosperity in the budget and certainly no focus on the green economy, which any sensible government would see as being key to our future. In fact, the presidential candidate in France is running on the platform that if we do not address climate change and natural resource management we will not have the future prosperity that could be shared to have an equitable society.

The Conservative government does even give a nod to the importance of a green economy. Instead, there are tax cuts for large companies, like the oil and gas industry, tax cuts that are not required for competitiveness. There is very little evidence that these tax cuts will actually create jobs.

The budget is fiscally complacent and, unfortunately, socially regressive. This is a budget that contributes to inequality. I mentioned in earlier questions that the non-refundable tax credits leave out those very Canadians who need support the most.

What message is the government trying to send? Is the message that if one is not doing well financially, too bad? It will hand out some goodies but people should not even bother getting in line. That is the message that these regressive tax credits send, and that is very disappointing in the 21st century.

The budget fails to address the shameful realities faced by aboriginal communities throughout Canada.

I noticed an article in the paper today in which the minister responsible was patting the government on the back and saying that for the first time there is a government agreement to engage aboriginal peoples on these issues. That is complete nonsense. The Kelowna accord was the fruit of a whole year of working with aboriginal organizations and representatives. It actually was signed by all the provinces and territories in Canada to deliver benefits and to address the shameful conditions in aboriginal communities.

These kinds of socially regressive policies are completely regrettable at a time when we are seeing the large companies receiving a tax break that they do not need for their competitiveness.

How about honesty, transparency and the use of evidence in this budget? Once again, unfortunately, we are not told what will be cut. The finance minister will not or cannot explain the $11 billion in cuts. It is a “trust me” budget. In British Columbia, we actually call this kind of budget a “fudge it budget” because there is no clarity.

We know this not just about attrition. Attrition is fewer civil servants providing services. In Vancouver Quadra, we care deeply about the plight of sockeye salmon. There simply has not been enough research in the fisheries department over the years to know what is happening with our sockeye salmon. How will the constituents of Vancouver feel about being told that this budget is a great one because it will achieve its deficit targets through attrition, which means loss of researchers, loss of fisheries people and loss of the ability to actually identify the problem with our sockeye salmon and correct it?

The government is pretending that it is fat being cut. However, my constituents do not actually see it that way. I received a passionate letter from a constituent whose father is a veteran in his nineties. He served in the second world war, had an armed forces career all his life and is not getting the benefits that he is actually entitled to from Veterans Affairs. I gets worse. This gentleman has been homebound, not because he could not be independent, but because the very services he was promised in May 2010 were not provided because of cuts and attrition in Veterans Affairs.

I will just quote with regard to this situation:

This is a truly sad example of what budget restraints can do to the most vulnerable. To do to people who are old, disabled and who have served our country without hesitation when they were needed, is unconscionable. I am ashamed we are treating veterans this way. Please help bring the situation to the attention of the proper resources in Ottawa.

That is what these bland words of cutting fat and attrition really are. They really are affecting people. For someone to be homebound and not receiving services but who could be independent if the services that were agreed to were actually delivered is shocking and a sad situation.

I also want to touch on ideology ahead of evidence. We have a minister responsible for these budget cuts who actually created a giant pork barrel in his own riding and who, according to the Auditor General, deliberately kept public servants in the dark about how the projects were approved. Millions of dollars were taken from a fund designed to reduce border congestion and approved for that purpose and then used for toilets and park benches in the minister's riding hundreds of kilometres from the border. That is shocking. That minister was then re-appointed. How hypocritical is that?

We have had many prime ministers in the past who fought for a future that would allow all Canadians to succeed and all communities and regions to thrive and prosper. The current government is one that is cutting the regional economic development programs that support communities and jobs and, instead, shovelling the money to the corporations that do not actually need it at this point.

Prosperity means nothing if it is not shared. We need to create prosperity and we need to share the prosperity so that all Canadians have a chance to pursue their goals, to have their lives work and to contribute to Canada. This budget does not do that and I will not be supporting it.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her election to the House.

She made reference to a real gap in the budget with regard to the investment in aboriginal people's programs and investments that their communities are depending on. As she pointed out, the reality that aboriginal people face is a very difficult one across our country.

Given the government's complete lack of not only leadership but investment in critical needs when it comes to education, health, housing, water and sewer services that are at third world living conditions in some of the communities I represent, would she not agree that, as the aboriginal communities grow, these issues will become more difficult and their lives will be more challenging under the watch of the Conservative government?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member pointing out the future of aboriginals as we go forward with a program like the government is proposing with a 45% cut in aboriginal housing. How can that be defended?

I have been to Iqaluit and a number of aboriginal communities and I know there is disappointment and despair in those communities. The government is doing nothing except patting itself on the back. It has cut the very programs and agreements that were intended to address this shameful inequality many years ago.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Madam Speaker, once again it is a pleasure to welcome my friend back to this most august of places.

I understand many of the issues that she has raised. It was part of her party's platform and that is why she is here. I am here to put forward my party's platform as part of the government.

However, I somewhat bristled when she mentioned veterans and their plight. It was under a previous Liberal government that 3,500 allied veterans were removed from the veterans list. We reinstated them. There were 3,500 veterans who were stripped from the list. It was a Liberal government that cut benefits to veterans. Some parts of the VIP program were taken from them.

She said that her constituent was having issues with Veterans Affairs. I can assure the member that when my constituents come to see me, I advise them of the appeal processes. I hold their hands and we walk right through the process. I would say that almost all the time, if they are dealing with legitimate issues such as benefits being taken from them that they are entitled to, we get them.

I wonder if she could explain to me why the Liberals took 3,500 veterans off the veterans list.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will first note that the member may be here to promote his government's platform but I am here to serve the constituents of Vancouver Quadra.

I will read another quote regarding the situation with Veterans Affairs. It reads, “The problem seems to stem from the Veterans Affairs' staff being overwhelmed with excessive numbers of cases to handle”. This constituent received approval for the benefits that were being proposed by the physiotherapist. Everything that could be done was done, except for delivering what was agreed. We are working on that, but because of the attrition and the cuts, there are impacts on individuals that are unacceptable. That is the government's approach to eliminating the deficit. It is mostly necessary because of the reduction of the tax rates for the large businesses that are already competitive.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to express my profound thanks and appreciation to the constituents of Malpeque for having demonstrated their confidence in me in this, my seventh, election. It is an honour and a privilege to have the opportunity once again to represent the riding of Malpeque in the House of Commons. As always, I am committed to taking their specific issues forward, to work on their cases and to aggressively put forward issues that I think would benefit Canadians.

The questions my constituents want answered, and which I attempted to find answers for during the election campaign, rise from the intentions of the government, outlined in its projected estimates and budget.

The new budget is basically the same as the old budget we were questioning when it was tabled, just a little bit worse. One thing I will admit the government is fairly famous for is changing language, trying to make things sound like something they are not.

On page 218 of the budget tabled in this 41st Parliament is a table covering strategic review savings. Really, we have to be clear on this: strategic review savings are not really strategic review savings but serious cuts. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will be cut by $31.9 million over three years, and that is only one of the agencies. All of the regional agencies are to be cut, the one in Quebec and the one in western Canada. Regional development is there to assist the regions, to give them the opportunity to have economic opportunity and prosperity for their citizens, and what does the government do instead of investing in those agencies and investing in people? It is cutting them, and cutting the one in Atlantic Canada by $31.9 million.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada is another very important department for Atlantic Canada and all of Canada, including central Canada and the B.C. coast. What is the government going to do to Fisheries and Oceans Canada in terms of cuts? It will cut $84.8 million over three years. That is a department that is supposed to provide safety for the fishermen, to provide opportunity for them in terms of the fisheries industries.

Human Resources and Skills Development Canada is another extremely important department for the country moving ahead.

As people are being laid off, the government likes to talk about the jobs it has created, but what it does do not tell us is where full-time jobs have been lost. What we have in this country in their place are part-time jobs, lower paying part-time jobs, as a result of this Conservative regime over the last five years.

Instead of maintaining services under Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, giving people extra training and assisting them to get better education so they can improve their jobs and their pay scales, the government will cut $495.1 million from the department over three years.

Industry Canada is to be cut, as well as Infrastructure Canada, which is very important. If we are to have a prosperous country, we have to design and develop infrastructure. What does the budget do? It will cut $124.4 million.

It is absolutely unbelievable, but the government's language to Canadians is that these are strategic review savings. No, these are cuts to the very services and programs that Canadians need and desire so they can become prosperous individuals, and it is done in a time of deficit.

Yes, at one point in time, corporate taxes needed to be lowered, but when we lower corporate taxes we should not be borrowing money from our grandchildren to do so. That is what the government is doing, cutting services to Canadians and borrowing money from our grandchildren in order to give the wealthiest corporations in Canada greater tax cuts, $4 billion in fact, so they can return greater profits to their shareholders.

The proof is in about the tax cuts over the last number of years. They did not create jobs and did not increase productivity, and the companies that received them from our previous government, and this one as well, did not make the proper investments from these tax breaks.

The fact of the matter is that corporate taxes in Canada are 25% below those in the United States, so our corporate tax rates are already very competitive.

The Prime Minister has claimed that his government will maintain the core services of Canadians. Therefore, the question remains, what are the core services?

When asked to define core services, the Prime Minister made reference only to health transfers to provinces and CPP benefits. Following that logic, obviously everything else is on the table. That is what concerns me.

Following the Prime Minister's own statements, there are likely few programs or services that Canadians will not see negatively impacted. The only issue is why does this Prime Minister and this government not have the integrity or the courage to tell Canadians what they intend to eliminate?

Let us take a look at some of the facts. In my province, Fisheries and Oceans is very important. Small craft harbour spending is critical to the safety of fisherman in that province. In the budget of March 22, it was announced that beginning this year, DFO will be cut by $84.8 million. What will be lost? In the spending plans for DFO released on March 1, the budget for small craft harbours will be cut by 44% in the coming years.

On March 15, the then Minister of Fisheries and Oceans made a commitment that $72.4 million would be spent on repairing storm damaged harbours, of which $6.5 million would go to P.E.I. However, as is so often the case on that side of the House, what the minister failed to say was that it was really not an immediate commitment but spending over three years. Furthermore, the minister also failed to tell us that only $15 million would appear in the budget, and it is in this budget, for small craft harbours across the country. As well, the minister failed to say that $14 million would be spent on storm damaged harbours this year and only $1 million next year.

The question is this. Where is the missing $57 million in that specific example? I raise that example to make a point. I believe my colleague talked earlier about fudging the numbers, and that is what this government is up to.

However, what is very serious for this country is the fact that the Prime Minister will not commit to what he means by core services. Canadians need to know. We need to have some answers from the Prime Minister on what areas he will cut.

I see some of my colleagues on the other side from the previous parliament's agriculture committee. We already know from the estimates that he is cutting $418 million from agriculture programs.

Why will the government not in fact tell us?

The last point I would like to make is critical to P.E.I. The Prime Minister went across the country and announced some mega energy projects. However, it was the Prime Minister who cancelled the third cable from P.E.I. to the mainland when he first became Prime Minister, a signed agreement between the previous premier Pat Binns and the previous Liberal Government of Canada. Just a few months ago, when he was dealing with the megaproject for a cable running across from the Churchill River to the Maritimes, the Prime Minister had an opportunity to make the commitment to reconnect P.E.I. to that cable, and he failed to do so.

What does this Prime Minister have against Prince Edward Island and Atlantic Canada? I ask his colleagues on the other side of the House to be honest with us and tell us exactly what will be cut in this $11 billion worth of cuts to Canadians. Be honest with us and give us some straightforward answers.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be honest. I do remember the cuts made by the former Liberal government to the provinces and municipalities. It was very hard on health care distribution in our province of Alberta.

What I also am proud of is that we are part of a government that is increasing health, social and education transfers by 6%.

The member was the former agriculture critic for the Liberal Party of Canada. He created their agriculture policy, which was soundly defeated and rejected by western Canadian farmers.

Will he now stand up and admit that our government has a strong mandate from Canadians, particularly western Canadian farmers, given that we hold every seat on the prairies, to move forward with our mandate and changes to agriculture and agriculture policy?