Debates of Feb. 13th, 2014

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that there were no initiatives in the budget related to the environment.

I am holding a copy of budget 2014, the economic action plan, here in my hands, and I am wondering if the member is aware of the initiatives to sustain Canada's national parks; to conserve recreational fisheries, one of my favourites that I will be thinking about a little bit later; to encourage donations of ecologically sensitive land; to improve recreational trails; and to expand tax support, for example, for clean energy generation. These are all very clear and concrete environmental initiatives.

Perhaps the member has not come to page 160, but I would suggest that if he has not, he read that part, because it includes these very concrete measures to improve Canada's environment. I am just wondering if he has seen these ones.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course I saw those measures, but they were pretty insignificant and not at all proactive. Polluters are under no obligation to take responsibility for spills or environmentally destructive activities. Major polluters are not responsible at all.

The government is using tax credits to provide billions in subsidies to the mining and oil industries. When those industries leave Quebec's far north a few years later, they leave behind sites that need to be decontaminated. The companies that make the messes leave the country or go into hiding. The first nations are fed up with all these contaminated sites. Major polluters do not take any responsibility at all.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of the environment, I noticed that the words “climate change” do not even exist in the budget document. I notice that the Conservatives have spent millions on the National Energy Board to help us get fossil fuels to market more efficiently. I notice that there are more subsidies for promoting offshore oil and gas facilities. Yet I notice that there is nothing about renewable energy such as the eco-energy retrofit program that has been sought.

I wonder if those are the sorts of things the member was talking about. I wonder if he could elaborate on the government's environmental commitments as reflected in the budget document.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this shows the extent to which the government is thumbing its nose at research, innovation and science. It has cut geological departments even though we have a flourishing mining industry. It fired vast numbers of scientists working for Environment Canada and geological services. Now the government is trying to convince me that it cares about the environment.

Unfortunately, the budget does not even mention climate change. We already know that some crops can no longer be grown in some parts of Canada because of climate change, so the government will have a very hard time convincing me that it is taking meaningful action on the environment. It is just not true.

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

Mr. Speaker, to cast some light on what was said earlier by my friend from Mississauga South, one must remember that in the 2012 budget, Parks Canada was cut by 10%. That has been a significant, really deep, and devastating cut to Parks Canada's capacity. All the scientific work in Parks Canada has ended because all the scientists have been laid off.

One of the consequences of these deep cuts across Canada has been that Parks Canada's infrastructure is crumbling. The money in the budget for Parks Canada, which I am glad to see, it is not to protect national parks but to protect Canadians who are trying to drive through national parks. It is to repair the roads, the bridges, and existing dams. There is nothing new in the budget to repair the damage done to Parks Canada in previous budgets.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Parks Canada used to be a source of national pride from coast to coast. There are national parks in my riding. People were proud to work there. It was a flourishing industry for tourism and economic development in many regions of the country. Now the government is abandoning that sector, that source of national pride. Once again, that is unacceptable. It will take years to repair the damage that the Conservatives have done over the past nine years. In 2015, people will have to take action and elect an NDP government.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure and honour today to speak to the budget. I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette.

I have been reading the budget and making a few notes, and there are a couple of highlights I would like to flag not just for members of the House, but also for my constituents back home in Mississauga South who will benefit from the budget.

I realize that not many viewers are watching because everyone is probably rivetted to the Canadian men's Olympic hockey game that is going on right now. This budget reflects the excitement that many Canadians are feeling about the Olympics and about the hockey game.

The captain of our team for budget 2014, the hon. Minister of Finance, has stickhandled the budget once again. This is his 10th budget and he has once again done a great job. With over one million new jobs created since the worst of the recession, I am very proud at how the Minister of Finance has dealt with this.

I appreciate that those who are not watching the hockey game are listening to me. I would like to tell the House about a couple of things that are important to me, my constituents, and all Canadians. I would like to continue on the theme of the environment, which we have been talking a bit about today. This issue is of great importance in the riding of Mississauga South.

I have had some experience with recreational fisheries in working with Credit Valley Conservation. It has done a wonderful job in restoring the wetlands in the Rattray Marsh area of Lake Ontario in south Mississauga, and I thank it for that.

I also want to thank the Minister of Finance for renewing the recreational fisheries community partnerships program. An additional $15 million will be provided over two years to extend this partnership program. My colleague across the way will also probably highlight this program but I wanted to mention it because people sometimes do not know that urban areas also benefit from these types of programs.

My riding, which is situated on beautiful Lake Ontario and has the Credit River running through it, has been able to benefit from this program and leverage double the funds as a result. We have been able to help restore the Rattray Marsh wetlands. As I said earlier, in concrete ways we are actually helping the environment, and that is a big deal to me.

In terms of the environment and families, I am quite proud that the budget recognizes the Earth Rangers Foundation. This organization is dedicated to educating children and families about biodiversity and empowers them to become directly involved in protecting animals and their habitats. It is an organization that operates across Canada. I have seen the work it does in the GTA. I am particularly pleased that economic action plan 2014 would provide $3 million over three years to support and expand the existing family oriented conservation and biodiversity programs of the Earth Rangers Foundation .

I would like to switch gears for a moment. I am not sure if the House is aware that I had the honour to chair a special parliamentary standing committee on missing and murdered aboriginal women. The committee studied violence against aboriginal women in Canada.

This is a huge problem—not just in the aboriginal community—one that all Canadians care deeply about and one that our government is working very hard to erase. That is why I was so proud when I saw that this government is making this a priority by establishing a DNA-based missing persons index or registry. Essentially, we would be using technology to help find these women. We need to use all the tools available to us to solve this very tragic problem. Budget 2014 would provide $8.1 million over five years to create this DNA-based missing persons index. Once this DNA data bank is established, it will be much easier for the RCMP to continue doing the work it needs to do to find missing women and to identify remains.

While that is very important, I would also like to point out that, related to that, there has been a renewal of $25 million to address violence against aboriginal women and girls in general. This same pocket of funding actually started in 2010 with $25 million, so we renewed it in this budget because the five years was almost up. In the last few years, with that funding, the government has made targeted improvements to law enforcement and the justice system, including the creation of a national centre for missing persons and unidentified remains.

The government has also made enhancements to the victims fund to ensure that aboriginal victims and families of missing and murdered aboriginal women have access to culturally appropriate services; and it has supported the development of community-based awareness initiatives, which are very important, as well as safety plans to promote the safety of aboriginal women and girls. These are issues that the committee has been discussing for the past year, almost, and I am delighted that the government has recognized we need to take action. We are putting our money where our mouth is on this issue. As I say, there will be another $25 million over five years to continue efforts to reduce violence against women; this is an issue that all Canadians care about.

I was on the phone this morning with a representative of Community Living Mississauga. Her name is Debbie Moffatt. We were talking about the ready, willing, and able initiative, which is mentioned on page 62 of the budget. For people who are not aware, this organization helps people with intellectual disabilities—autism, for example—to gain employment, because people sometimes need a little extra help and a hand up. They are able to become contributing members of society with the help of the Canadian Association for Community Living. I am familiar with the Mississauga branch, which does very good work.

In fact, when we met in my office quite a few months ago, Debbie was telling me about Costco, which is one of the companies that has taken on the ready, willing, and able program. It is having great success in hiring folks through this program. I would like to quote, from the budget, one of the new Costco employees, as a result of this program, who said:

I'm very happy about getting this job, and I'm getting paid an equal wage—and a good one at that. I look forward to being part of a team and not being treated any differently—now I can tell my brother, my friends and my mom that I work at Costco!

These are the kinds of things that ready, willing, and able does for folks with intellectual disabilities.

I wanted to talk about supporting women entrepreneurs, but perhaps I can fit that into one of the answers.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about support for the environment. I would like to ask the member a question.

In this budget there is not a single mention of combatting climate change. There is not one mention of what is probably the biggest challenge of our time. We are facing a changing climate. We are seeing the effects not only on our environment but on our communities and local economies, and of course on the national economy.

Climate change is not only the biggest challenge for Canada, but it is in fact one of the biggest challenges in the world. There is not a single mention in this budget. We are passing the buck to future national governments. We are passing the buck to future generations. We are saying that we are not going to deal with it but we are going to let them deal with it.

I do not think that is a responsible way to deal with one of the biggest challenges of our time. I would like to ask the member why there is no mention of climate change in this budget.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I fundamentally disagree on how to solve the problem of a cleaner environment.

I believe that we need to take concrete action and that small steps in partnership with community organizations actually solve the problem.

I will not even get into all of our measures related to auto emissions. These are the kinds of things that actually improve air quality. The kinds of things we do for wetland rehabilitation improve water quality. These are the kinds of things that eventually improve quality of life for everyone. I would prefer to take these kinds of measures in partnership with community organizations.

Budget 2014 talks specifically about conserving Canada's natural heritage. It talks not just about the recreational fisheries but about expanding tax relief for environmental conservation of lands, encouraging clean generation, and providing tax relief for green technologies as well.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I could not help but notice the hockey analogy that my colleague from the Conservative side made about the finance minister, about his being really good at stick handling this most recent budget.

I wonder if the member recalls when, in 2011, the Prime Minister talked about how he was going to put in place a firm policy on income splitting after the deficit was eliminated, probably around now. We saw it on television last night.

I also notice that the finance minister seems to now have some serious reservations about income splitting, although he was very silent on it for four years. Continuing with the hockey analogy, do you not think that perhaps the finance minister has just scored in his own goal?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I am not sure whether the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie was asking the Chair that question. I would remind all hon. colleagues to direct their questions to the Chair. I presume he was asking the hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer that question. Luckily for this House of Commons, we are short on left-wingers and heavy on the right-wingers here in this caucus.

Since 2006, we have provided massive tax relief for Canadian families. As a mother of two, myself, I know that I am proud when I can tell other families and other parents of children in Mississauga South that we have saved the average Canadian family $3,400 a year in taxes. We have lowered taxes more than 160 times since 2006. It really is amazing. I am so proud of that.

I know that, as we approach balance, we will be considering even more targeted tax measures to help families.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to follow such an illustrious colleague as the member for Mississauga South. To pick up on her excellent comments, I would like to talk first on the issue of returning to a balanced budget.

Let us go back a few years. Prior to the recession, when the Conservative government took office, we paid down $37 billion of debt. That was a remarkable achievement. It allowed Canada to be very well prepared when the recession of 2008 hit. It allowed us to launch one of the largest infrastructure programs in Canadian history.

We deliberately went into a deficit of $55.6 billion at that point. However, we have a Prime Minister and a Minister of Finance who know what they are doing and who had a game plan to stimulate the Canadian economy at that time and then return to a balanced budget over time. That is exactly what has happened. It is exactly as predicted. The deficit this year will be in the range of $2.9 billion, and next year the surplus is expected to hit $6.4 billion.

I would like to give a little lesson to my NDP friends across the way on why eliminating the deficit is important. Why is a balanced budget important? It means that less taxpayer money is needed to pay interest on the debt. It helps keep interest rates low for Canadian families. Taxes are kept low. It signals stability to the rest of the world. It attracts investment to Canada, leading to a higher standard of living. It gives the government more flexibility to invest in and support job creation programs.

A balanced budget avoids the instability and draconian cuts seen in other parts of the world, such as Greece. As a grandparent myself, I see it avoids burdening our children and grandchildren with our debts. That is very important.

Our fiscal situation is the envy of the entire world. Canada's net debt is expected to remain the lowest by far of any G7 country. Japan's debt is incredible. Its net debt is 150% of its GDP, whereas Canada's is in the neighbourhood of about 35% to 40%. We have the lowest by far. That means Canada is in a very good position to weather any economic storms that might occur.

That is the big picture of what the budget would do for the entire country. Being a rural MP representing a large, remote, rural constituency, I tend to look at things through a rural lens. When I look at the measures for rural Canada in this budget, it is very clear to me that rural Canadians would be very well taken of by the government.

We have strong rural representation right across this caucus and right across the country. Approximately 65% of Canada's rural seats are held by Conservatives. Rural Canadians place their trust in us.

Let us talk about some of the measures. In western Canada, we now have livestock price insurance to mitigate risk for livestock producers. There is rural broadband expansion, with $305 million allocated. This has been wildly popular in my constituency, as I hear through phone calls and emails, and right across the country.

Let us talk about what the farm leadership is saying about our expansion of fast, reliable Internet across rural and remote areas of Canada. This is a quote from Mark Wales, an Elgin farmer and president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. He says that is a huge boon for farmers and small-town entrepreneurs, who will finally be able to do business in a way other Canadians take for granted. It is something they have been calling for, for a long time: full Internet service, much improved.

That is a promise made and a promise kept; end of story.

The growing forward program is continuing along. It has been a very successful program for agriculture right across the country.

Living next to a national park, as I do, almost right next to a national park, I was delighted to see the $390 million allocated to improving and protecting national park infrastructure. I would like to say to the constituents who are listening that I have already made my request known for what I would like to see happen.

I want to talk about a program that the member for Mississauga South referred to, the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program. It has been increased. It started off as a $10 million program. It is now $15 million. It has been wildly successful. Last year, that program funded almost 100 fisheries conservation projects right across this country in partnership with dedicated angling conservation groups. That is true environmentalism. We do not just talk about the environment or about process; we actually get out there and do things on the ground to fix the problems that people see.

I would gladly debate that with anyone on the other side who talks about the environment. All they talk about is process, but we get things done. The Sydney tar ponds are being fixed up. Others include the Lake Simcoe watershed and Hamilton Harbour. It goes on and on. Problems are being dealt with. I defy any members opposite to name any environmental indicator in this country that has become worse on our watch. They are all getting better on our watch.

Let us talk about the interest-free loans for apprenticeships.

There is a labour shortage in my constituency. We have a booming oil industry, a burgeoning oil industry. We have a forestry industry. We need workers in the skilled trades. Our interest-free loan program for apprentices would fill that gap.

We have a major tourism industry in my constituency and across the country, and there is now $10 million allocated for recreational trails.

There is a $90 million investment for the forest industry. It is called the forest industry transformation program.

There is a national disaster mitigation program. We all know about the disastrous 2011 floods that Manitoba experienced, as well as the floods that occurred a couple of years ago in Alberta.

There is a Canada First Research Excellence Fund. As a person who represents an agricultural constituency, I take a keen interest in biotechnology and agricultural research. It is because of our government's funding of high-class research and of scientists that Canada's agriculture is and will continue to be world class.

Here is a nice little program that I think all members will agree with, our little program to remove red tape from the beer industry. There is a small microbrewery in my constituency that is starting to emerge. Members may have seen it on Dragon's Den a few weeks ago. The beer is called Farmery beer. There are two young lads who started this brand of beer. They were on Dragon's Den. They are neighbours and constituents of mine. I am so very proud of Chris and Lawrence Warwaruk and their Farmery beer.

That is a free commercial for those guys, and it is worth it. I am looking for great things to happen for them. I urge all members to try this beer if they have a chance. They should.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Sure. Can you bring me some?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will gladly do that. In the spirit of non-partisanship, I will gladly bring colleagues beer.

I guess that is in Hansard now, forever. They can quote me. That is okay.

Let us talk about the laughable economic policies of the NDP for a minute. I have a list.

The facts of life are Conservative: free markets work, deficit reduction works, merit-based societies work, private property works, economic freedom works, free trade works, and wealth creation is critical to fund social programs.

What is the NDP's toxic ideology? Its members do not support free markets, they are suspicious of private property, and their cure for everything is more spending. They think we can spend ourselves rich. They are suspicious of business people and entrepreneurs and they thrive on a culture of envy. A dirty little secret about the New Democrats is that they want people to become dependent on government because they think it is in their own political interest.

With that, I will sit down and take questions.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my friend's discourse just moments ago. I note that there was a 400-page document in which the words “climate change” did not appear. There were five pages dealing with national parks, but they dealt mostly with the repaving of highways and $10 million for snowmobile trails, which I presume is the government's environmental policy.

I am indebted to iPolitics for this nugget: the Minister of the Environment went on Twitter on budget day and talked only about transportation, making people wonder if she is still the Minister of the Environment. However, there was an indirect reference to climate change that may have been missed. It was pointed out in other articles, which said that at least the Conservatives understood that unregulated economic development and providing hundreds of millions in subsidies for industrial development does require hundreds of millions for train crashes and infrastructure relief in disasters, so presumably they do understand but do not connect the dots.

I ask my colleague this question: has the government entirely given up on the environment?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for that question, because it gives me an opportunity to illustrate what I said earlier about the NDP's lack of knowledge about the environment itself.

We have instituted the national areas conservation plan, through which 800,000 acres have been conserved. We have 1,400 habitat projects under the habitat stewardship program. Canada has been a participant since 1986 in the North American waterfowl management plan, which is a wetland conservation program. These measures are important for climate change mitigation.

The member opposite should realize something about the protection and restoration of natural areas, wetlands in particular. They are carbon sinks, and when we create wetlands and restore wetlands we do more than just one thing. Sure, we sequester carbon, but we also protect biodiversity, we improve flood control, and we recharge aquifers.

This government implements concrete programs that actually do things for the environment. They have multiple benefits and, yes, they will mitigate climate change.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about having 65% of rural MPs. What do the Conservatives do? They certainly have not spoken up for rural Canada. They certainly have not. They do their trick. They stand up to say “yea” when they are asked to. We would call that—well, maybe I had better not use that kind of language in this House.

The member claims he is defending rural Canadians, and he is from western Canada. Well, right now in western Canada, 53 ships are sitting empty in the Port of Vancouver. Grain prices have been discounted by some 40%. Farmers cannot get their grain to market. The reason they cannot is that the current government, the government the member is a part of and the government that he said “yea, yea, yea” to, failed, when it killed the Canadian Wheat Board, to realize all the logistics carried out by the Canadian Wheat Board.

Now it has a crisis on its hands that the backbench members in that party are responsible for, and that is one of the reasons rural Canadians in the west are finding it difficult in the agriculture sector at the moment.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the member's comments about the rail situation. He is actually right, from the standpoint that it needs to be fixed. We have a bottleneck now. The biggest problem is that last year the farmers basically harvested a crop and a half, and the system simply could not stand it. However, the best Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in the world, our minister, is on this case and is working extremely hard.

Let us talk about defending rural Canada. Rural Canada hated the Liberals' long gun registry. Just recently, the Liberal Party put on its website, for its upcoming convention, a proposal to reduce firearms ownership in this country along Australian lines. That would get rid of 90% of the hunting firearms in Canada.

Yes, the Liberals really defend rural Canada, do they not?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

I would say that I am pleased to speak to the budget, but I am disappointed at the uselessness of the Minister of Finance's document in dealing with the problems many Canadians face and at the absolute failure of this minister and the government to put Canada on a footing for economic growth.

This book, Creating Jobs and Opportunities, is basically a piece of fiction. Yes, there is a little tinkering and a little programming there, but it does nothing to deal with the big-picture items of creating economic growth, really creating jobs broadly, and unifying the country from coast to coast with a vision for economic development. In fact, in the budget the Conservatives are in many ways splitting the country asunder.

I will quote from an editorial article in today's Guardian. Everybody in this House would know that The Guardian covers the island like the dew.

The article states:

It’s not often that any finance minister will try and camouflage a balanced budget while preferring to take credit for a small deficit. A sheepish Minister of Finance did his best Tuesday to convince Canadians this was the case but really fooled no one. This budget is, for all intents and purposes, balanced.

The federal finance minister prefers to speak those sacred words next year, an election year.

It goes on from there.

That is the context of the budget: setting the stage for partisan purposes to try to regain election next year, and that is irresponsible on the part of a government. A government's responsibility is to govern for all Canadians, and the government has failed in that responsibility. A government's responsibility is to plan and implement policies that benefit all Canadians, and a government's responsibility is clearly to deal with some of the issues out there at the moment, issues that came with the Conservatives' previous budget and that some of their previous policy decisions created. Many Canadians are hurting as a result of those issues.

In my area in particular, and I have spoken about it several times in this House, one of the greatest areas that has caused hurt, split families, and hurt communities is the employment insurance changes. Yes, the government has the authority to make changes, but it should make them in a way that would contribute to the economy, not undermine it.

The employment insurance changes have affected seasonal industries and our seasonal workers very negatively. Because of the clawbacks, they have less income than they had the previous year. Businesses cannot get workers because the timeframe has been set such that people's is being clawed back. As a result, there is a very serious negative impact on three of our major industries in Prince Edward Island: agriculture, fisheries, and tourism. That is a result of the EI changes.

The budget especially failed my province of Prince Edward Island, but it is not only P.E.I. The unilateral decisions taken by the Minister of Finance failed the other provinces as well.

I picked up an article in Inside Policy, a magazine of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. The article is by Stanley Hartt, who used to be a well-known deputy minister in Ottawa. The headline reads:

Budget making process requires provinces, feds to understand each others' goals and intentions

It goes on to talk about federal-provincial jurisdiction in this country and the need to work together to build a stronger Canada, that each sector has implications for the other and that they have to work together on the economy especially, building policies that would in fact strengthen the economy from coast to coast to coast. In that area, the current government has failed terribly. The Conservatives do not communicate with the provinces. They do not co-operate with the provinces. They unilaterally make decisions that download costs on the provinces, that change programs in the provinces and, in fact, can negatively affect those provinces' economies.

That is what happened with EI previously. However, in this one it was bad enough that the Government of Canada pushed the Canada job grant, actually spending $2.4 million in false advertising. The minister knew the provinces opposed it and yet he went ahead and put in place the Canada job grant, albeit somewhat changed after discussions with them.

However, for Prince Edward Island, this would replace a $2.1 million labour market agreement that was used for employment assistance for businesses and the unemployed. Folks who worked in that system were just transferred from HRSDC a few years ago, when it was a federal program, and downloaded to the provinces. The money was given to the provinces and they were to be in charge of labour market development. Now they find that the whole program will be changed unilaterally by the federal government against their wishes.

Additionally, in terms of Prince Edward Island, the government unilaterally eliminated the immigrant investor program. I spoke to people at the government level yesterday. There was not a word of discussion. That program is very important to the economy, very important for us to attract people into the province. It was just cancelled like that and a new program came into place. There was absolutely no consultation.

For many retired public servants, veterans, and RCMP in Prince Edward Island, the tax grab of increasing the cost of health benefits would be almost criminal. Retirees paid into those plans in good faith and felt that their retirement was secure, but retroactively changing the rules as the Conservatives plan to do is absolutely wrong. They are trying to balance the books on the backs of public servants, veterans, RCMP, and others who worked their lifetime securing their retirement, and now the Conservatives will increase their health premiums.

Moreover, while the Conservatives are claiming in this document, this so-called budget, that they just deferring their military procurement, it should be seen as nothing other than a cut. For Prince Edward Island, shipbuilding in Georgetown would certainly be affected, undermining our economy and possibly creating a loss of jobs. What will happen to shipbuilding in Halifax, which was a huge program, we do not know.

Furthermore, the government has failed to ensure that major industries like agriculture are on a competitive footing with other countries like the United States. President Obama signed the U.S. farm bill last week, with $1 trillion over 10 years for its industry, enshrining in legislation country-origin labelling that has already cost our beef industry about $5 billion. Yet, this Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food will cut programs. So we are not even on a competitive footing any more. The bottom line is that the current government will even create divisions in agriculture as a result of the budget. The Conservatives aim to put in place a price-support insurance program, but only for western farmers, with nothing for the backbenchers here in Ontario or Atlantic Canada. Do they not know that we have a livestock industry right across this country? Our livestock producers deserve that price-insurance program as well.

In conclusion, the budget is an absolute failure in ensuring economic growth and meeting the needs of Canadians.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it pretty rich coming from that member of Parliament from the Liberal Party to talk about our government downloading costs. He was a member of that government, which downloaded $25 billion onto the provinces. He was a member of that government, which took $57 billion out of the EI fund. He was a member of the government under the decade of darkness, which starved our military and sent them to Afghanistan in green uniforms. My goodness, where has that guy been living?

I would like to ask the member to reconsider his thoughts on what we are doing to help Canadians. We have created over one million jobs since the recession. We are coming to a balanced budget. The member should also remember that it was his party under Pierre Elliott Trudeau who took the country down into the depths of deficits year after year.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, oh my gosh, are we really going back that far? The current government and the Mulroney government have added so much to the deficit. Since the government came to power it has added $169 billion to the deficit. The finance minister should be called “deficit” because that is what he has produced.

If the member wants to talk about what the previous Liberal government did, I was proud to be a part of it. We balanced the books. We had nine surpluses. We turned over a $13 billion surplus to the current government, which blew it in a matter of time. We had the biggest health accord in Canadian history. We put in place the infrastructure programs for this country. We increased research and development. We improved the education system across Canada through scholarships. I am running out of time, but the list is a lot longer.

That member should stand and say “thank you, former Liberals, for what you have done to this country because you gave us a foundation”, but which the current government has undermined.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear quite a bit of passion in the House.

I would like to turn back to the budget and ask about funding dedicated to something that is important to my riding in British Columbia, the Pacific salmon. There is no mention of what the government is putting toward salmon. The government spent $26 million on the Cohen inquiry, an inquiry that I think was needed and for which I lauded the government in 2009. That inquiry listened to hundreds of interventions and witnesses, thousands of submissions, and produced 75 good recommendations that are worthy of attention. Yet, in the budget, there is not a single dime being put toward those recommendations.

What does the member think of a budget that does not dedicate any funding toward something in the government has already invested $26 million in?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is that it is absolutely shameful. The government does a lot of tinkering and has a certain number of pet peeves and is trying to cater to a certain area. Conservatives do not govern for the country as a whole.

In terms of Pacific salmon, I understand that industry relatively speaking. I used to be chair of the fisheries committee and toured the salmon industry in western Canada. It is a very important economic contributor.

The report is a good one. Those recommendations would build that salmon economy in the west for the future, but the Conservatives ignored it. They did not look at it, which is an absolute shame. But the problem is that there are so many other areas they did not look at either.

I should make one point on broadband because we heard a lot about that from the other side. The CEO of Xplornet, Allison Lenehan, expressed concern about the announcement of a federal broadband program in the budget this way: “We are concerned that the government may be trying to fix a problem that does not exist.... The only thing standing between rural Canadians and faster speeds now and in the future is spectrum, not funding and not technology”.

I ask the government to take note of that statement that maybe the problem is not funding but getting spectrum to the right company.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to express a few thoughts on what I believe is one of the most lacklustre budgets introduced in the House of Commons for many years.

I cannot help but reflect on what the leader of Liberal Party has talked much about over the last 12 months, the importance of the middle class. That is something that Liberals believe the government has been negligent on. We have seen, and continue to see, a growing gap in economic benefits for the hard-working middle class compared to the elite in Canada. The government needs to start focusing more attention on improving the conditions of our middle class. This is where the government has fallen short again.

I am concerned that the government seems to be more interested in the politics of budgets than the practicality of the benefits of having a solid budget, even in-between elections. It seems to be more focused on wanting to deliver the big punch, possibly in next year's budget, at a substantial cost to Canada's economy this year. Ultimately, the government talks about a balanced budget, but it is all talk because the government has not delivered a balanced budget. The government talks about it, but does not necessarily understand the best way to achieve a balanced budget.

Let me highlight something, because we have very limited time to share our concerns regarding the budget. I would like to look at the bigger picture. In this budget the government is highlighting its attempt to reach budgetary balance. We need to recognize that when the Conservative government took the reins of power, when Paul Martin was prime minister of Canada, he handed over a multi-billion dollar surplus. This Conservative-Reform government turned that multi-billion dollar surplus into a multi-billion dollar deficit. That was even before the recession.