Larry Miller

[The Budget, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about the 2005 budget. This is my first speech as an MP representing my constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster.

The most important issues in my riding are no different than those in the rest of Canada: seniors, health care, agriculture and funding for infrastructure. I intend to touch on all these issues and show how the Liberals have continued their tradition of failing Canadians.

Improving infrastructure in Canada's cities and towns through programs like the rural infrastructure fund and the transfer of the gas tax is vital to building strong, dynamic and livable communities. While returning some of the gas tax back to the people who pay it is a step in the right direction, the government has no real plan on how to do it in a fair and equitable manner.

Rural Canadians, simply because of their geography, pay the biggest percentage per capita of the gas tax, but have to battle large urban centres as big as 250,000 people for their share of the funding. The bottom line is that they will not get their rightful share.

The Liberal government has a history of promising a lot and delivering very little. Nowhere in this budget is that more obvious than in the area of its commitment to seniors.

In 2004 seniors made up 13% of our population and that will double by 2030. There are 1.6 million guaranteed income security recipients in this country. My riding has one of the highest populations of seniors in the country. The funding increase to this fund is at most $36 per month and that is not even available until 2007. Additional funding for seniors receiving this fund will barely cover a package of Tylenol.

We in the Conservative Party believe that the commitments to seniors in this budget do not go far enough. It is apparent that the Liberal government does not have the appropriate strategy for improving the lives of Canadian seniors. The Conservative Party would also ensure that seniors have better access to health care and the ability to stay in their homes longer. Seniors should be respected and given the dignity they have earned. We will be watching the government closely to ensure the money is used to benefit seniors and not wasted in more bureaucratic red tape.

Another area of great concern to my constituents is agriculture. My riding is the largest producer of beef and lamb in the province of Ontario. There is also elk, bison and others, just to name a few. All of these producers have suffered tremendously under the weight of the BSE crisis.

This 2005 budget makes no commitment to the agriculture sector and rural Canada to provide aid at a time when Canada's regions need it most. To say the budget failed to meet the expectations of the Canadian agriculture community would be a drastic understatement.

The Canadian agricultural community is in its worst financial position since the Great Depression. Yet, farmers will get no more cash in their pockets this year from the budget's agricultural programs. Our farmers deserve more respect.

Last week's injunction by an American judge that stopped the U.S. border from opening yesterday as planned magnifies why the government's refusal to directly put up front money into a plan to address the severe shortage of packing facilities in this country simply shows a lack of concern. Let it sort itself out, Liberals muse. This problem is not going to sort itself out. It is time to act.

In spite of the minister's acknowledgement that increased slaughter capacity is a necessity, Liberals brag about the September announcement of a $66 million loan loss reserve program that was later downgraded to $37 million. The program is a sham; it does not exist.

The finance minister has once again deceived the food producers of this country by misleading them to believe there was actually $130 million in new money for agriculture. However, when we take away the pre-announced and recycled money, it is closer to $30 million and most of that will not even be available until 2006, if even then.

What the budget should have included but did not was: desperately needed tax deferrals on 2004 income for producers hit by drought, crashing commodity prices and the BSE crisis; tax incentives to increase domestic cattle and other ruminant slaughter capacity; and a provision of direct loan underwriting for the development of increased slaughter capacity, as well as improvements for crop insurance.

The government declared yesterday in the House that it has already sent $38 million to the victims of the tsunami disaster, with which I have no problem. The problem I do have is the government's ever growing disdain for the food producers of this nation.

While spending 30% more on this terrible tragedy than it did on agriculture this year is downright sickening and humiliating to the agriculture sector. This government thinks so little of the future of where its food will come from, but then it does not receive many votes in the countryside does it.

In addition to being a farmer, I am also a father and soon to be a grandfather. When my wife and I were raising our three boys, we made the decision that she would stay home with them. I would like my family to have that same choice, but with the same financial options as those parents who choose to work. However, the government is not going to make that possible.

This 2005 budget contemplates massive spending on a bureaucratic child care program instead of delivering child care dollars directly to parents. This budget contains big, unfocused spending commitments with no plans on how the government intends to deliver funding for a national child care system, opening the way for billions of dollars to be mismanaged and lost in yet another Liberal bureaucracy.

What is worse, the government offered to buy the votes of working parents while snubbing its nose at those who prefer to raise their own children, whether by themselves, a grandparent, a relative, or a friend. It does not matter. Those very parents should be able to make that choice, not the government. They should be able to do that without being penalized financially. The government is simply saying to go get a job and to let it look after the children.

Health care is one of the most important social programs to Canadians. It is an essential contributor to quality of life and standard of living. Canadians deserve to have a family doctor. In towns in my riding and others across this country, there are thousands of people who have to go to the emergency room for care. They do not have a doctor and they cannot get a doctor.

Canadians also deserve shorter wait times. The budget only offers a one time commitment for catastrophic drugs. There is no long term commitment to this necessary measure.

Simply throwing money at health care is not enough. There must be a plan. The one chapter of the Romanow report that has not even been remotely addressed is the chapter on rural health care, which will cost approximately $6 billion. Again, rural Canada takes it on the ear.

The cost of the bureaucracy has grown 77% since 1997 and yet the Liberal tax relief will amount to just $16 next year for low and middle income Canadians. That is sickening in itself. Many of the steps taken by the government do not go far enough or occur fast enough to have a substantial impact on Canadians.

Substantial tax relief for business that would grow the economy, create jobs and enhance government revenues that fund high priority programs has been delayed into the future. This budget is big on promises, big on recycled promises, but very small on substance. Canadians expected more. They deserve better.

[Agriculture, February 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this year's budget proved yet again that the government is ignoring the plight of farmers.

Farmers will get no more cash in their pockets. The cash advances are like finding a needle in a haystack and do not even kick in until next year, if at all.

Two weeks ago the Liberal Party and even the minister voted against removing the CAIS deposit requirement. Yesterday he declared that he would not apologize for it. The March 31 deadline is fast approaching.

The government admits that the program is a disaster and says that it will fix it, but, surprise, surprise, the government votes against any improvement.

Will the minister stop stalling? Will he support farmers and agree to the necessary changes needed today?

[Child Care, February 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Social Development insulted families by saying that “as parents we are all ambivalent about child care because we feel guilty about not spending more time with our kids”. This is demeaning to all parents who choose home care over day care. The minister is telling stay at home parents that if they want any government support for child care, go get a job.

Twenty-eight years ago, my wife and I made the decision to stay at home and raise our three sons. Today one of my sons and his wife are expecting my first grandchild. Will the minister commit to giving my son and his wife that choice but with the same financial benefit as working mothers?

[Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound, February 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this week Sean Edward Sprague, a 15 year old young man from Meaford, Ontario, received the Governor General's Medal of Bravery.

Sean helped rescue a teenager trapped under a wall that had collapsed in a house by digging the rubble with his bare hands for 40 minutes. I would like to commend Sean for his selfless act while putting himself in danger. Sean is a fine example of the youth of the country and the leadership of the future.

I would also like to pay tribute to the city of Owen Sound and the Owen Sound Police Services for securing the bid to host the 2007 Ontario Special Olympics Provincial Winter Games. More than 450 people will come to Owen Sound to compete in six sporting events from February 1 to February 4, 2007.

This is the first time a provincial games has been awarded to a community in the Bruce-Grey area and the first time a community the size of Owen Sound has been awarded the Ontario provincial games.

On behalf of my constituents, I would like to congratulate everyone involved in bringing the Ontario Special Olympic Winter Games to our community.

[Veterans Affairs, February 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, when a country goes to war, it is a big undertaking. From troops on land, sea and air, to the supply ships and crews who provide troops with a means to carry out their mission.

After much urging from the opposition, this government reluctantly spent $1,000 per veteran to supplement their return to Europe for the 60th anniversary of Normandy.

Will the minister confirm that members of the Merchant Navy, who participated in the 60th anniversary ceremonies in May in Murmansk, Russia, will also receive the same $1,000 travel subsidy?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, No. 2, February 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, usually when somebody swears in the House you correct them. I heard the hon. member across the way use the words “rural Canada”. Normally, coming from that side of the House they are swear words. Rural Canada has been ignored by the government for so long.

I have heard some members today talk about high taxes. High taxes affect everyone in this country, but they affect rural Canada more than any other place because of the different obstacles. Even the minister pointed that out.

Judging by the lack of spending in rural Canada over the years, it has been totally ignored. One thing that really hurt rural Canada and me specifically was the announcement by the government that when it came to infrastructure, the definition of small communities was 250,000. That is totally ridiculous. It is a blatant mockery. At first I thought it was just a sick joke. It is the same as taking a rural Canadian out to his barnyard, knocking him down in the manure pile and then stepping on his shoulders to make sure he gets good and dirty.

Rural Canada is short of funding for roads and bridges. On health care, there are doctor shortages. We hand over our cheques. For a long time the government reduced the funding that went to health care which hurt rural Canada a lot. After a lot of pressure from this side of the House the government finally agreed to put some of that money back in. That is good, but it hands the cheque over to the province without any direction.

I want to know what the government will do to address that rural Canada which the member across the way mentioned. Frankly, rural Canada is sick and tired of being used, bruised and abused.

[Supply, February 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for her comments and for her support of the beef producers in her riding. She spoke about something that we are all aware of in our ridings, especially in rural Canada, and that is the number of bankruptcies. Farm families have lost everything because of the ongoing BSE issue.

Before I ask her a question, I want to remind her that it is not only happening in Quebec or in her riding. It is happening across the country.

Getting back to the CAIS debate, we have all heard in our ridings from farmers that the CAIS program is not working. We have heard about the difficulties with it. I know the minister has been working on it, but it is never fast enough.

I attended a chamber of commerce meeting last night at which there were a number of accountants. Not only have we heard a lot of farmers speak to the difficulties of it, but I had two or three accountants tell me that it was a nightmare. They asked what I could do to fix it.

Does my colleague from the Bloc have a recommendation or suggestion on how we could fix some of the problems with the CAIS so it would make it easier for even accountants and professionals to deal with it?

[Foreign Affairs, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, a 47 year old man, who is the father of two and a graduate of Queen's University, is being held in a Libyan prison after receiving a life sentence in 1998 for helping a group that works toward democratic change in Libya, which is under military dictatorship. According to Amnesty International, Libya's human rights record is horrendous, with reports of torture, death in custody and other punishments on political grounds.

Will the Prime Minister be raising this issue with Moammar Gadhafi when he visits Tripoli later this month?

[Main Estimates, 2004-05, December 9th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, there are two issues here tonight. First, there is an erosion of democracy. Something that has been running rampant here a way too long and a way too fast, and the Liberals do not seem to care or recognize that at all. By not accepting the committee's recommendation, it is totally unacceptable. This is the way democracy is set up. We have the committee structure. It is meant to work. I do not think the minister should do anything but accept that.

Second, it is a continued waste of large volumes of Canadian taxpayer dollars, $400,000 alone by the Governor General. This is not an argument tonight about whether the Governor General should exist or not, although that is an argument that a lot of people in Canada are talking about, it is a waste of dollars that we are talking about.

I relate back to a comment from my colleague across the floor on the gun registry. There has never been a bigger financial lie told to the country than the gun law. My question to the hon. member from the Bloc is on the value and quantities of these dollars, and how we could have spent them. It is a figure that is fast approaching $2 billion, and as my colleague said earlier, we have not saved any lives.

We have taken the dollars and wasted them. There are items about which I would like to ask my Bloc colleague. How many MRIs does she think the dollars, between the Governor General and the money wasted in the gun registry, could have bought? How many nurses salaries could it have paid for? How many students could have had their tuitions paid?

I know that doctor shortages in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound are atrocious, as bad as any place in the country. Just think how many doctors could have been hired for rural Canada. Dare I say, rural Canada? After all, we know that rural Canada means nothing to this government.

Does the hon. member think that the money we could save here, the $400,000 and the money wasted in the gun registry, could have been spent in much better ways?

[Iraq, December 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has ignored the situation in Iraq and abandoned its obligations to the Iraqi people in order that they might enjoy the same democracy as Canadians do. Now the government has decided to send unarmed Canadian men and women to oversee elections in a place that is constantly under fire by insurgents.

My question is for the Prime Minister. What is the government going to do to guarantee the safety of the Canadians he is sending into this international hotbed?