Ted Menzies

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I am flattered that the hon. member feels that we are close enough friends that she can comment directly to me.

In response to the hon. member's comments about the deficit in 1993, I have heard that argument, a rather hollow argument, for the 13 years that the Liberal government was in place after the horrific takeover in 1993. A big part of the turnaround was because of Michael Wilson's budget. I would suggest that because of a free trade agreement, which the Liberals voted against and then decided that maybe it was a good deal, things started turning around. We appreciate the fact that they accepted the deal for the benefit that it was for all of industry, all of Canada.

Although we have been handed a good set of financial books, unfortunately, it is on the backs of overtaxed Canadians. I have trouble believing that government has better ideas on how to spend money than individuals. It is plain and simple for me: leave money in people's pockets and let them run their own businesses.

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to share my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Abbotsford.

It is with great honour that I rise in the House today to speak in support of the budget. I also want to recognize the hon. finance minister, who has put a great deal of effort and thought into this, including the thorough consultations he went through with industries and individuals before the budget was brought to the House. That is reflected in the many tax cuts and benefits to Canadians. I would suggest that this is the best budget the House has seen in over 13 years.

Twenty-nine different tax cuts are in the budget. Once again, we have never seen this kind of returning of dollars back to Canadians, back to where it belongs, instead of the overtaxing we have seen in the past. The cost to increase the exemption amount is $1.08 billion, and that is returned to Canadians. There will be $2 returned to taxpayers for every $1 in spending. That is a fundamental change in direction in this government.

We see more tax relief in the budget than the last four Liberal budgets combined. It focuses on spending, not on slashing spending but making necessary spending more effective. Canadians have asked us for that and they have asked the finance minister to ensure he follows through on it.

We have respected the five priorities, which we talked about during the campaign. How novel to have actually delivered on what we promised. The Conservatives are all about delivering on our commitments. Budget 2006 certainly speaks to those priorities.

There will be $20 billion in tax cuts over a two year period. As a result of these measures, my home province of Alberta will pay $1 billion less in taxes in 2007. My constituents in the riding of Macleod, those whom I have met with and those who have written and emailed me, are happy with this. They want to see more money left in their pockets so they can make the decision of what to do with it.

The budget has $1 in new spending for every $2 that delivers tax relief. This budget delivers more than twice as much tax relief as it does in spending. The 1% cut in GST is another one of our promises, which delivers a tremendous amount of effect to this whole industry. Every Canadian will feel the effects of the 1% cut in GST.

We have promised to pay down the debt by $3 billion. A lot of our dissenters would accuse us of not looking after our fiscal house. We have set aside $3 billion to continue to pay down our debt. That is fiscally prudent financing.

Let me bring this back to my riding and my former livelihood of farming. We watched farmers out in front of Parliament in the last few weeks, protesting about the serious crisis in which the grains and oil seeds industry found itself. I want to acknowledge, for the finance minister, the appreciation farmers in my riding have shown for the $1.5 billion that the budget brings to agriculture. This will help them in a time of need.

The government will not abandon them. The government is looking at a long term future, but it also recognizes that in the short term, we need to help this sector get through. We need to work hard at the WTO to ensure that we get rid of the domestic support programs, like we see in the United States and the European Union, that impact these farmers so greatly.

In the meantime, this is what we will provide to farmers across the country. One billion dollars will be added to transition into an effective program that separates farm income from disaster relief. That is forward thinking on this Conservative government's behalf. We recognize that these two programs, which were tied together in the old CAIS program, did not work. We need to recognize that they need to be separated.

Also, our Minister of Agriculture recognized, because the CAIS program did not work, that many farmers were receiving letters asking for their advance payments back. In recognition of that, he has provided a grace period. The money they have in their hands can be used to put in this year's crop. Then we will deal with it at a later date, when we come up with a better program for CAIS. Also, doubling the interest free cash advances to farmers will help them get cash to buy their inputs for this spring. Farmers are pleased, and this is only one sector of Canadians who are happy with the budget.

The other sector is the families and communities. The government is investing in child care for example, a $100 a month credit to any parent with a child under six years of age. In my riding that is important. People in rural Alberta and in rural regions across the country do not have access to day care facilities.

The former Liberal government's universally accessible day care program was nothing more than a slap in the face to rural Canadians. There was no accessibility to ranch families living west of Fort Macleod. How would they find a day care facility within a two hour drive of their home? This provides the answer. We admit that this will not pay for all the day care and assistance needed, but it helps. No one said that the government was going to pay to raise people's children. This is not our plan. Also, we will invest $250 million to create more child care spaces, and we will create those spaces because they are necessary.

The budget offers $500 to encourage our children to become physically fit, to be aware of the importance of staying fit and healthy. It is an encouragement to get children out and to become active. That is a big cost in a large family. The government recognizes that.

The child disability benefit has gone from $2,044 to $2,300. That impacts a lot of disabled people. It is a benefit that many Canadians will acknowledge.

We will invest $52 million in our Canadian cancer strategy. There has not been one member in the House who has not been affected by cancer. This is a very important place to focus our research money.

I have five first nations reserves in my riding. We have put $450 million into aboriginal women, children and families, cleaning up water and building houses on the reserves. The one initiative that is new and inventive is recognizing that almost half of our first nations people live off reserves. With that recognition, we are adding $300 million to assisted housing off reserves. This is in conjunction with the provinces. Plus we will invest $300 million in the territories.

Again, the cut in the GST impacts seniors, students and farmers. Every industry and every individual will see the benefit of the GST cut.

I have not spoken to the benefits in the budge for students, small businesses and the apprenticeship programs, but my time is up.

[Multiple Sclerosis, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, multiple sclerosis is an unpredictable and at times disabling disease of the central nervous system which affects Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

May is Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month. I am honoured to help kick off the 30th annual MS carnation campaign this year. Tomorrow, volunteers from the MS Society and I will be pinning carnations on members of Parliament to help raise awareness of this campaign. It is a tradition that has been followed on Parliament Hill for many years now.

This weekend volunteers in over 280 communities across Canada will be selling carnations to raise money for MS research and services for people with MS. In the past 30 years the program has raised close to $45 million to fund MS research and services.

I encourage all members of the House and all Canadians to join me in supporting the MS Society to help make a difference for individuals and families living with this disease. Together we can find a cure.

[Darfur, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I thank my hon. colleague for his intervention, his comments, and also for sharing with us some of the thoughts and ideas from some of the faith groups across this country. I am sure a lot of these groups are tuned into this debate tonight and are proud of the fact that their names were mentioned and that their concerns are passed on.

I have some concerns about some of the comments, not necessarily that the member made but that were made earlier, that we were not doing enough in actual food aid. I want to remind some members who may not have been in the House earlier that the Minister of International Cooperation announced an additional $10 million in food aid. We were, before that, in fourth place as the highest donor of food aid. This is a critical factor in these people's lives to be able to actually stay alive.

We see how some of these people are starving to death and the lack of food is a very critical part of that. It is very important that we continue that aid. Comments were made earlier about the amount of aid that has actually happened and been delivered. We still rate Sudan as one of the top 25 priority countries and I think that is most important.

There have been some comments about the difference between peacekeeping and peacemaking. Until the government of Khartoum is willing to address these in a real manner, would the hon. member care to comment on how we can effectively make peace if the government involved is not willing to accept a peacemaking process?

[Darfur, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, it is unfortunate that we do not have more time to respond to questions.

Capacity certainly is an issue. I do not think anybody is going to argue the point that we need capacity to help these people.

Regarding the hon. member's question about the debt forgiveness issue, I think that is the next step down the road. These people need food right now. As I spoke about earlier, our contribution of an extra $10 million is specifically for food so these people can continue to survive. Then we need to step in and expedite the peace process.

As a further step, we can then look at whether we address the debt forgiveness or how we further help these people. There is going to be a tremendous opportunity to help these people. There is a tremendous will in the Conservative government to increase aid. We spoke about it in our campaign and we will follow through on that commitment. It will be most interesting to see what our budget will bring for us tomorrow.

[Darfur, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I would beg to differ with the comment about indifference. I think we learned from that disaster. What we learned is the fact that this country and many others through the United Nations, through our responsibility to protect, need to step up.

I mentioned in my speech how much we have committed. In fact, I emailed a friend of mine at the World Food Programme today to get a person to person feeling for whether it felt we were doing enough. That person's comment to me was, yes, Canada is one of the leaders. We were in fourth place as to our contributions to the World Food Programme. With the extra commitment of $10 million, which the Minister for International Cooperation announced this evening, that increases us. In fact, it may take us up a level from that.

These people need that immediately. We cannot watch them starve. We are not being indifferent. We are stepping up and we are ensuring that they have food to eat. We are being part of the peace process. We are encouraging and working on that. This is a role that Canada can play. We have the expertise to work on that. Through this debate tonight, I hope we will come up with some better ways to participate in that peace making process.

[Darfur, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin.

It is with great interest that I rise to participate in the debate this evening on the devastating state of affairs in Sudan, particularly in Darfur. I am also looking forward to hearing the views of my colleagues. We have already heard many of them from all sides of the House with respect to what is happening in that region and also with respect to the knowledge that these members of Parliament have gained through their great interest in what is happening there.

As we all know, the ongoing conflict has taken an enormous toll on the people of Sudan. With a population of approximately 42 million people, more than two million, mainly women and children, have died. Six million Sudanese have been forced to flee from their homes. In Darfur alone,it is estimated that two million people are internally displaced and more than 200,000 have fled next door to Chad.

Canadians are deeply troubled by the human suffering in Sudan and this concern is truly international. Canada must, therefore, continue to work closely with the United Nations and with the African Union to find a sustainable solution to this problem.

I am pleased to say that Canada is very much a part of the international efforts to secure peace and stability for the region and to provide much needed assistance that is saving lives.

Much of our current support is directed toward achieving a peace agreement in Darfur, one that is acceptable to all parties involved. For example, the Canadian International Development Agency has provided support for the comprehensive pre-peace agreement, an important initiative to stabilize the region and bring peace and prosperity, not only to Sudan but also to the African continent as a whole.

Last year, at the Oslo Donors' Conference on Sudan, Canada committed $90 million over two years to support the implementation of this peace agreement. As the minister announced earlier this evening, it is also pouring $10 million, as part of that agreement, immediately into helping the efforts of the world food program, help that is urgently needed to feed the people of Darfur.

We have been working with our partners to deliver humanitarian assistance to all parts of Sudan to address the needs of people affected by this civil strife.

In May 2005 Canada announced a further $170 million in technical and military assistance in support of the African Union mission in Sudan. Of this, CIDA manages $120 million used for helicopters and transporting troops and equipment for operations in Darfur, and to supply fuel for these aircraft.

As members can see, Canada is working hard to help the people of Darfur and throughout Sudan. These commitments are critically important and they will help to reduce violence, save lives and achieve peace and security in Sudan. This will in turn help to ensure international peace and security.

The road to peace and development in Sudan has been long and it has not been easy, but we must continue steadfast in meeting this all important goal. The people of Sudan will need our help and Canadians will be there to support them in their efforts to achieve peace and rebuild their country.

I am proud to say that the Government of Canada is fully committed to helping the people of Sudan, working in partnership with our Canadian and international partners.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, April 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the hon. leader of the government for taking the opportunity to recognize the leadership that the Prime Minister has shown in finally getting a resolution to a long term challenge that has faced the country for years, and that is the softwood lumber challenge. It is interesting to hear how members opposite keep affording the House leader the opportunity to remind them how great a deal this is for all of Canada.

I also want to recognize the Minister of Transport for his leadership in bringing forth this piece of legislation. Although I do not have any international bridges in my riding, I wonder if the hon. leader of the government could explain this opportunity. He talked about four bridges in his riding. Could he give us some indication of the discussions he has had over all these years while waiting for the opportunity to actually move forward on this? Could the member please elaborate?

[Canadian Cattlemen's Association, April 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate a respected rancher and constituent of my riding of Macleod, Mr. Hugh Lynch-Staunton of Lundbreck, Alberta on his recent election to President of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association.

Mr. Lynch-Staunton comes from a family of distinguished individuals. His father was lieutenant governor of Alberta and his cousin John recently retired from the Senate of Canada.

He is undertaking a great role in ensuring Canadian cattle producers have the best environment possible to make a profit from the market. Under Mr. Lynch-Staunton's leadership, the Canadian cattle industry continues to work with this government to ensure that trade with the United States and other countries will soon be returned to normal volumes, traditional before the first case of BSE in May 2003.

I, as the member of Parliament for Macleod, look forward to working with Mr. Lynch-Staunton and the 90,000 beef producers across Canada to return to a normal market situation.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the enthusiasm with which people are responding to the Speech from the Throne has not allowed me the opportunity to stand and speak yet in this 39th Parliament. I must start off by congratulating you, Mr. Speaker, for the honour bestowed on you and I am sure you will do an excellent job.

I also want to talk about how honoured I feel that the constituents of my riding of Macleod have allowed me to come back to Ottawa to represent their views. However I cannot represent their views properly if I do not stand and question the hypocrisy that we are hearing from members of the former Liberal government.

We have brought in a very concise document with some actual priorities. One of the main items is accountability and we are hearing questions from that side of the House on accountability. We do not need to go into the record of the lack of accountability in the former government.

What is wrong with making five priorities, focusing on five priorities and getting the job done?