Debates of June 8th, 2006

Opposition Motion—The Economy

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I will have the opportunity to ask other questions later in the day.

I feel we are getting off topic. We are talking about education, but that is not the whole problem. Far from it. The problems experienced by industry are caused by competition from emerging countries, including China and other Asian countries.

What can we do to help these people? We need a policy to help companies be more competitive.

I would like to ask this question of the hon. member opposite. How does he perceive the Canadian industry that must face Asian competition? What measures does he propose to improve Canada's competitiveness with respect to Asian markets?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we live in a competitive world and we need to be able to compete.

As a government we can redesign the environment in which businesses work in order to give them the competitive advantage. We can do that by lowering some of the taxes, which is what we have seen in the budget. We have lowered taxes by $20 billion to allow individual Canadians, businesses and corporations to compete.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Halifax West for raising the important subject of Canada's economic well-being.

We share the hon. member's belief in the importance of investing in Canada's prosperity for today and the future. The measures that we have introduced in budget 2006 were designed to promote today's economy and ensure a prosperous tomorrow.

The 2006 budget, in the words of Thomas d'Aquino, president and chief executive of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, commits “to developing a comprehensive, results-focused competitive agenda”.

These glowing words of praise, I believe, result from the wide spectrum of investments the budget contains. It is a budget that recognizes everything from the importance of supporting skills development and learning; from apprenticeship to post-secondary education; from academic infrastructure to research and development; from youth to older workers to new Canadians. It is a budget for everyone.

However, I would like to focus on how it aids and supports the needs of my province of Alberta.

Canada is enjoying a 30-year low in unemployment rates. According to Statistics Canada, Alberta is well ahead of the rest of the country in employment growth, and that is no secret. This high employment rate is good news. The only flip side we are seeing is that employers are watching positions go vacant. There is no question that there is an urgent need for skilled workers.

This is especially true in Alberta where the oil industry is becoming increasingly sophisticated. There is a need for highly educated workers in research and development, as well as skilled workers on the ground, workers who require higher levels of familiarity with technology. Accompanying this oil boom are all the spinoff industries, especially construction where skilled workers are a necessity.

Having visited Fort McMurray recently with the hon. member for that riding, it was brought home to me how critical the situation is. The total revenues of the oil and gas industry in Alberta represent 6.1% of Canada's GDP at basic prices for 2004 and the industry is in desperate need for workers of all kinds.

Budget 2006 addresses those needs. We have targeted support for post-secondary education and university research in recognition of the important roles they play in increasing Canada's productivity and the standard of living of Canadians.

Our support measures, in the words of the hon. member for Halifax West, “strengthen Canada's hard-won global lead in publicly funded research and development”.

The Association of University and Colleges of Canada has endorsed these budget commitments. The association's president, Claire Morris, said:

We are pleased with the budget's support for university research, as well as the government's recognition of the important role that research plays for Canadians. These increases in research funding underline the government's commitment to promote a more competitive, more productive Canadian economy.

The budget also supports a more highly educated workforce by directly helping students through exempting all scholarship and bursaries from income tax, providing a textbook tax credit and expanding eligibility for Canada student loans through a reduction in the expected parental contribution.

The budget also invests $1 billion for provinces and territories to support much needed investments in post-secondary infrastructure and equipment. An institution, such as the University of Alberta, for example, could use this money to improve laboratories and upgrade testing equipment.

In my own riding of Edmonton Centre, the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology has an ambitious and very exciting plan for investing hundreds of millions of dollars over the next 10 years to catch up and then keep pace with the rapidly expanding technology and the ever increasing requirement for more skills in the workplaces of Alberta and the rest of Canada.

As I mentioned, construction is booming in Alberta and the demand for skilled workers is high. Our budget addresses this issue and we will be consulting with the provinces, the territories, the unions and the employers on new measures to promote careers in the skilled trades.

In fact, the measures that we have introduced have been so well received that rather than outlining them myself, I will quote directly what the business manager of Local 183, Tony Dionisio, said:

The cash grant of $1,000 per year for the first two years of an apprenticeship program recognizes the importance of these programs to labour supply. ...The new deduction of up to $500 for tradespeople for the cost of tools in excess of $1,000...also indicates to us that this government recognizes the importance of construction to Canada's overall economic growth.

The budget also encourages the hiring of new apprentices by offering employers an apprenticeship job tax credit of 10% of the apprentice's wages up to $2,000 per apprentice per year.

Once again I will use the example of the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology. Its aggressive and forward looking approach to apprenticeship training has placed it at the forefront of this area in Canada. Seventeen per cent of all apprentices in Canada are trained at NAIT and this budget encourages that excellent performance and contribution.

I spoke of the changes in industries that require higher and higher skill levels. These demands sometimes displace older workers. While older workers perform well in the labour market, some face difficulties adjusting to new demands.

We have committed to undertake a feasibility study of measures to help such workers, including the possibility of income assistance and retraining. Canada needs their talents and experience. Our government wants to see older workers continue contributing to the economy and their own well-being and is committed to looking at ways to do just that.

Budget 2006 contains important measures to upgrade the learning and skills of Canadians but even so, with our changing demographics and aging population, we face a skills shortage. Alberta alone faces a potential shortfall of 100,000 workers over the next decade and over 40% of manufacturers surveyed in Alberta are facing difficulties owing to labour shortages.

At the same time, we have skilled immigrants, both here and those waiting to come into the country, who can help to fill these requirements but are unable to do so because their credentials are not fully recognized. Alberta's petroleum industry, for example, attracts people from around the world whose skills are needed.

We have taken measures to address the situation of putting this untapped pool of skill and expertise to work for Canada. Budget 2006 announced the creation of the Canadian agency for the assessment and recognition of foreign credentials. We will be consulting with the provinces, territories and other stakeholders in the establishment of the agency so that new Canadians can put their skills to work.

Those are just some of the many measures we are taking to promote Canada's continued growth and success. It is a budget that inspires optimism. As the president of the Council of Chief Executives said, his organization looks forward to:

--working closely with the government...to shape a business environment that will inspire Canadian enterprises from coast to coast to 'go for gold' in global markets and will ensure growing prosperity and a well-being for Canadians over the next generation.

We welcome his organization's cooperation, as we do that of all Canadians, in making this a reality.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that he had recently visited Fort McMurray with the member of Parliament for Fort McMurray—Athabasca and that there was a labour shortage there.

The member for Parliament for Fort McMurray—Athabasca happens to be the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. As the parliamentary secretary to the minister for communities, I wonder how he views the position that he took this morning before the human resource development committee suggesting that the Government of Canada should do more to encourage and allow Atlantic Canadians to move to Fort McMurray, Alberta to deal with the labour shortage.

Is that the policy of the Government of Canada? Does the member believe that is how we deal with unemployment in Atlantic Canada?

I did not hear the member mention first nation Canadians, as he talked about the need for more labour in Alberta generally but in Fort McMurray particularly, which is the fastest growing community in Canada in terms of young first nations students. He also did not mention the fact that the Kelowna accord had set aside $1.8 billion for education over five years to deal with the very significant problem and challenge of the first nations community, which would have benefited the country and the community. His government chose not to do that and I wonder how he would respond to that given the labour shortage in Alberta.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on the first question, members on the opposite side have been using that all day. It is a completely disingenuous and twisted approach on what the member from Fort McMurray said. If that is the best they can do in terms of debate this will be like duelling with an unarmed man.

However, I am glad the member talked about the aboriginal situation because the government is in fact doing a lot for aboriginal students in Alberta and in the rest of Canada. Canada's new government is making significant contributions to aboriginal workplace participation, including a five year $1.6 billion partnership initiative through the aboriginal human resources development strategy.

I can actually speak directly to the case of the aboriginals in Alberta. The oil and gas industry, which some members of the House like to criticize, is doing a tremendous job in bringing aboriginals into the workforce. Fully 12% of Suncor's workforce in Alberta is aboriginal. Other big companies, like EnCana, have gone out of their way to include aboriginals in their workforces and to give contracts to aboriginal companies.

NAIT has gone to the extent of equipping trailer trucks, 18-wheelers, that it takes out to the reserves in northern Alberta to teach aboriginal people, young and old, to give them opportunities to participate in the economy of Canada. This government and the Government in Alberta is doing a tremendous amount for natives across Canada.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I am allotted a little more time than when I asked my first question.

When the member says that it is disingenuous, is he taking Alberta as the standard of reference for industry? If so, I will point out to him that industry accounts for only 8% of jobs in Alberta. So, in terms of industry and competition, he did not pick the right jurisdiction. With respect to industry, Quebec and Ontario would be better choices. Enough with all the talk about Alberta. We have heard enough. Anyone serious about dealing with the real problem will look after industry, and, as I indicated, industry is mainly concentrated in Quebec and Ontario.

Therefore, as regards assistance for workers, I will raise two points, starting with the bicycle industry. The ruling party has left the workers in this industry in limbo, by stating that they get $67 less on each bicycle they make. This is encouraging to consumers. But when we put forward a motion on gasoline prices designed to encourage consumers, this government again encouraged an industry which just happens to be based in Alberta. What a coincidence, because that is all we keep hearing about.

Then, the government claims to help industries with a tax cut. I will point out that, in order to benefit from a tax cut, one has to pay tax to begin with. The fact is that many industries cannot benefit from a tax cut because they do not pay tax because they are not making any profits because the government is not looking after them.

My question is this: What will your government do for industry in Quebec and Ontario, so that these people can withstand the Asian competition?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The fact of the matter is that Alberta is contributing to the industry in Ontario and Quebec. For example, between 2000 and 2020, the oil patch will add $885 billion to the Canadian GDP. Suncor alone, one single company in Alberta, has 500 subcontractors in the province of Ontario and many more in Quebec.

They are creating thousands and thousands of jobs and providing prosperity for all of Canada because Albertans, like this government, care about all of Canada and we will do whatever we have to do to support this country.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment that in my riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, small to medium sized business is the backbone of the riding. Trades are a key component. There is indeed a critical shortage with respect to trades. I really like the Conservative position because it is very direct and very meaningful to business and to tradesmen themselves.

I want to ask the hon. member a question. There are a lot of trades in Alberta. What sort of feedback has the member received from business and apprentices, or people considering being apprentices, on the programs that have been put forward by the Conservative government?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a list of quotes that the member may be aware of. However, I do not have time to read them. Let me just say that people like Scott Macivor, chief executive officer of the Ontario Construction Secretariat, Leah Myers, president of Durham College, Peter Woodall, chair of the automotive and motorcycle programs at Centennial College in Toronto, and many people I have met in my own province of Alberta, are thrilled with this budget and what it means for apprentices in the workforce in Canada.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this debate. I thank the hon. member for Halifax West for his good judgment in bringing it forward at this time.

I see that the hon. member for Halifax West is discussing the contents of the debate with the parliamentary secretary for human resources and skills development even as we speak, so I extend congratulations for that level of cooperation, but I have to bring to the attention of the members on the other side the fact that the Conservative Party, when running for office, had committed to something pretty spectacular for students, that being a dedicated transfer. The students interpreted that it could be as much as $4 billion a year. That did not happen.

I have always been of the view that it would have to be a dedicated transfer to the provinces. Perhaps that will be the reason why the government will not end up doing that, but it speaks to the need to provide money to deal with the very specific question of access. I know that the Conservatives speak of the fact that they used the money available to them at year end, as a result of legislation last year, to do infrastructure investment. That is a good thing, but it certainly falls well short of what would have happened had they actually acted on the fall update, as was available to them.

The reality is that students in Canada need significant tuition relief. What was proposed in the last election by our party was that we would make available $6,000 in tuition relief for each student. By comparison, what they got was in fact $80 for book relief. My son at Acadia University in Nova Scotia advises me that this would in fact allow students to purchase half a book--if they could buy half a book.

Also, in the programs that should have come forward but did not and are necessary, according to the proposal by the member for Halifax West, is a proposal having to with programs for first nations, Métis and Inuit Canadians. The reality is that $1.8 billion was booked in the Kelowna accord to deal with education and that has been abandoned by the government. Anything else the Conservatives may say falls well short of what that would have been able to accomplish, not only in the context of resources but also in terms of the consensus that it arrived from.

Also, the programs for Canadians with disabilities would have been a wonderful opportunity to make a significant investment to allow for Canadians with disabilities to enter the labour market at a time of labour market shortages. It is the 25th anniversary of the International Year of Disabled Persons and I would have liked to see something in the budget on that. I welcome it being brought to our attention by the member for Halifax West.

Mr. Speaker, I am advised that I have forgotten to tell you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Labrador.

In terms of access to post-secondary education, the government simply has failed, either to meet the commitments that it made or to honour the commitments that we made. Either way, students would have been a lot better off.

Having said that, I note that skills and skills development also have been mentioned. Again, let us talk about the Kelowna accord offering educational opportunities, both in post-secondary education and in elementary school programs, in which we had collaborated with the provinces to deliver education in the provinces to build a system that would have the kinds of results that were targeted over 10 years. All of that went for naught as the government has refused, so far, to honour that accord.

I bring to the attention of members the fact that in the fall we will be debating a motion that I am bringing forward to allow for families of children with autism to receive support from the government so that they can also contribute to their maximum ability in the labour force.

The next item I would like to speak to has to do with R and D. My hon. colleague from Beauséjour mentioned that in my province of New Brunswick, the province is shrinking in regard to the position in terms of educational achievement relative to the national average, and the space is growing larger.

The reality is that the investment in Atlantic Canada in R and D by the federal government, while it has grown in the last 15 years from a little less than 3% to 5%, still falls short of what would be a simple per capita calculation. If knowledge is the basis of the economy of the future and our part of the country is receiving less investment than others, then we cannot expect to close the gap in terms of prosperity between our region and the rest of the country.

The reality is that on research, as was mentioned by the member for Halifax West in one of the earlier speeches from the government side, during the past 15 years Canada has in fact moved itself into the position of being the country with the most federally funded research in the world per capita. We do not compare with the rest of the world in terms of private sector investment, nor do we compare with the rest of the world in terms of other state investment, but at the federal level we in fact lead the world. This has meant that we have increased funding for the granting councils, for SSHRC and NSERC. The Medical Research Council became CIHR. We have done a lot of innovative things with regard to research.

In the research chairs program, we introduced the idea of a 6% set-aside for universities where the research share in the nation was less than 1%. It meant 120 research chairs for universities that otherwise would not have been able to acquire the same number of chairs necessary to move the region forward. That was not just for Atlantic Canada. That would have been for small universities across the country.

We also introduced the indirect costs program. I think the member for Halifax West identified the indirect costs program specifically. It is so helpful to small universities. If a small university has one or two or three scientists, the cost associated with supporting their work is almost the same as if the university has 25 scientists. The reality is that there has to be a way for the federal government to support those small universities to do the kind of research that is so important for the future well-being and prosperity of the country.

So for all those reasons, I want to commend the hon. member for Halifax West. I think this is one of the crucial issues facing the country in terms of equity, in terms of opportunity that would be available so that no student in the country who would otherwise be able to attend post-secondary education of any type, vocational, academic or otherwise, would be denied for lack of funds.

I think that is critically important, not just on the equity argument but also because it is in the long term best interests of the economy of Canada to have an educated workforce. Either way we look at it, the reality is that the member for Halifax West has brought to the House's attention a glaring omission. The reality is that it should have been there and it was not.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I notice that my colleague has chosen from the vast cafeteria of issues in the Liberal opposition day to speak mostly on post-secondary education. I am glad that he seized on this, because I do have something that I would like his views of and his comment on.

It seems to me that just before I got into politics in 1997, it was the Liberals who changed the method of transfers to the provinces for health, post-secondary education and social welfare. They changed it from the former mechanism or vehicle to the CHST. At that time, that funding transfer went down from $19 billion to $11 billion. It was the most ruthless cutting, hacking and slashing in history of the Canada health and social transfer. It was a 40% cut.

At that time, the post-secondary institutions took a hit. They took such a blow that they are only now crawling out from under it. Only now are they back up to the level they used to be at in being able to provide reasonable post-secondary education.

In my own home province of Manitoba, the universities had no choice but to off-load that burden onto tuition fees and create an untenable situation for students. It created an unmanageable situation in that if we wanted to be ready for the next century, and if communities wanted to be ready for the next knowledge generation, all the kids could do was pay higher tuition fees.

Manitoba froze tuition in 1999. As soon as the NDP formed the government, it froze tuition fees. They are frozen to this day, seven years later, which is really tough. Frankly, it is not working well, because the infrastructure of our universities is crumbling. But we have decided to hang on and keep fighting the federal ruling parties of the day to make them give us our fair share of the Canada health and social transfer so that we do not have to watch the bricks and mortar of our of our universities crumble and we do not have to burden our kids with graduating with something the size of a mortgage.

It is the member's party that started this whole fiasco we have, this crisis in post-secondary education. I want to know how he justifies that in his own mind, because he was sitting around the cabinet table during that terrible time.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will turn it right back to the hon. member and talk about disingenuous. If he cared anything for post-secondary education, he would not have pulled the plug on the fall update last year and those kids would have got the money. He ganged up with the Conservatives to bring the government to power, so he can answer for that.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I have noticed in debate is that some members choose to talk about the budget in response to the motion as opposed to talking about the intent of the budget, which is to deal with, rather a piecemeal political expediency based argument to a vision argument, a long term strategy for Canada and the best interests of Canadians.

What the member talked about was extremely important in terms of adding to the strength that we have to build toward a secure long term future for Canadians.

Would the member care to comment on why it is important for us to be careful not to fall into the trap, like the Conservatives, of using political expediency with an eye on another election and instead governing on behalf of the best interests of Canadians by adopting a long term vision for Canada?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right to point out the necessity of making the kind of investment that the member for Halifax West refers to in the motion, having to do with competitiveness, post-secondary education, and those groups in society that need particular investments, Canadians with disabilities, first nations, Métis, Inuit Canadians, so they can be part of the future of the country in a prosperous country.

There is a recognition that knowledge, skills, investment in research and innovation will be the critical investments in the future. It comes quite naturally that people will talk about those long term investments because at the end of the day, in many cases, it will require resources.

I mentioned earlier that we have moved the yardstick dramatically in terms of publicly funded research in Canada. In our case in Atlantic Canada, we have improved our percentage of national research from under 3% to just about 5%, and we are 7.5% of Canada, but that is not quite enough. Those kinds of investments require a vision to make that investment make sense. This vision is sadly lacking in the government.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to this important and wide-reaching motion. I congratulate my colleague from Halifax West for his initiative in bringing it forward.

There are many important points to make, but I would like to limit my time to several of the issues that are most important for the people in my riding.

One of the things the motion calls for is labour market partnerships. Through the economic and fiscal update of November 2005, our Liberal government had committed $3.5 billion over five years for a workplace skills strategy in partnership with the provinces. These labour market partnership agreements with the provinces would have promoted skills development, improved literacy skills and helped to bring aboriginal people into the workforce. Three provinces have already signed agreements, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I was hoping my own province would be able to do the same. But this initiative is now in limbo.

There was nothing in the budget, and the Conservatives will only say that the issue is part of the fiscal imbalance discussions with the provinces. Given that the Prime Minister's promise on natural resource revenues, also part of the so-called fiscal imbalance issue, has been demoted in his words “to a mere preference”, I would be very worried if I were a premier who had counted on a labour market partnership agreement.

We have heard a lot of bluster today from the Conservatives. They say they are committed to post-secondary education, but their actions speak for themselves. Instead of providing help for tuition costs, they provide a tax credit for $80 for textbooks. Instead of investing in post-secondary education for skills training, the Conservatives have cancelled $3.1 billion in Liberal initiatives to make post-secondary education more affordable. Instead of investing in research, the Conservatives have further weakened our universities and research institutes by slashing research spending.

There are real dangers in this approach. They are troublesome indeed. Not only does it exasperate the regional disparities among the provinces, where some provinces are better able than others, through public and donor support, to fund universities, but it is also short-sighted on the global scene. Not only do Canadians have to compete for ideas with the U.S. and Europe, increasingly we have to watch the emerging economic powerhouses in Asia and Latin America. In Labrador we are already very sensitized to the fact that we live in a globalized world. Domestic, political and economic concerns have led foreign countries to pull back from their traditional military training in Happy Valley-Goose Bay at 5 Wing.

The fishery has faced major market pressure and competition from overseas, not only from Europe but especially from China. Our mining sector does rise with demand in China and India, but also faces stiff competition from Australia, Africa and Latin America. We ignore the challenges of a global marketplace at our own peril.

We have to invest in our brightest minds today so Canada will continue to be an innovative place to work and invest. We need to invest in technologies and research that will ensure primary industries, like those in Labrador, remain competitive and that we add value to our economy through processing and manufacturing. This would be progressive.

Instead, we hear just today that the Conservative government has a policy where it wants to ship our brightest and best to northern Alberta. This is a policy that has been advocated by the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca and the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont.

On a lighter note, this would not be much of a solution because if all of us easterners went to northern Alberta, then there might be a few Conservative MPs who would find themselves on the unemployment line. That is for another discussion.

The motion also calls specifically for targeted initiatives to strengthen skills, job readiness and successful workplace participation among aboriginal peoples. My hon. colleague could well have had my riding of Labrador in mind when he drafted that part of his motion.

Tomorrow I will be attending the high school graduation in Sheshatshiu, one of the two Innu communities in Labrador. Too often we hear bad news about aboriginal communities, but Sheshatshiu is increasingly a good news story. This year's graduating class is one of the biggest in many years.

There is a real awakening to the importance of education and skills development among the Innu, Inuit and Métis communities in my riding. In recent years, we have seen increased participation in post-secondary education and the skilled trades. There are Inuit, Métis and Innu who have gone on to become nurses, doctors, engineers, lawyers, mechanics, carpenters and the like.

The development of the mine at Voisey's Bay has helped many aboriginal Labradorians enter the skilled trades. Not as many as I personally would like to see, but it is a start.

There are other developments on the horizon in Labrador: a massive resurgence in the iron ore mining industry; potential hydro developments; and renewed interest in our proven uranium deposits. If aboriginal and other Labradorians are to benefit from these developments, we have to be in on the ground floor.

For aboriginal people, in particular, the Kelowna accord would have made great strides in this regard. On November 24, 2005, the hon. member for Wascana, then finance minister, committed and booked over $5 billion in funding to meet the Government of Canada's commitments under Kelowna. Kelowna included $1.8 billion over five years for aboriginal education initiatives.

The Conservative government has torn up that agreement and tossed it aside. The money that we had committed is no longer available. The government has done so over the objections of every aboriginal organization in the country. It has done so over the objections of the premiers who themselves signed onto the Kelowna accord. It did so with the complicity of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP in precipitating an early election. I wonder what the aboriginal people in the respective ridings of the members in those two parties must think about what they have been involved in.

The government has put into jeopardy the real progress that Canada and Canadian first nations, Métis and Inuit people were starting to make in terms of educational attainment, skills and employment. I worry about the repercussions of these cuts not only for today, but for the many years and maybe for generations to come.

Strong social programs, including education and training and a commitment to aboriginal peoples, provide the basis for long term, strong economic growth. Few places is this more true than in Labrador. However, the Conservatives have stuck to their fend for one's self ideology. It shows up time and time again in their budget and in their program cuts. They are turning their backs on people and regions, which can use constructive programs. We are looking for a hand up, but the Conservatives only see such programs as a hand out. It is disgraceful.

It is for these reasons that I would urge my colleagues to support the motion put forward by the hon. member for Halifax West.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his contribution, particularly in an area which I think the majority of Canadians feel has been totally neglected and made a non-priority by the government. I am talking about our first nations people and the cancellation of the Kelowna accord. The Conservative government is denying that such an accord even exists, which is absurd.

Our first nations people should be addressed. There are some special circumstances and conditions which should be taken to address the skills and the job readiness for their workplace participation as well. There are enormous opportunities, whether they be in the petroleum sector, the mining sector or in other emerging sectors, such as diamond mines, which will require skills training, et cetera. It is absolutely beyond me that the Kelowna accord has not only been cancelled, but its existence is denied. An enormous amount of money was dedicated by the previous government.

This tends to paint a picture of a value and a vision difference between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party.

Would the member like to comment on the deficiencies he sees in the Conservatives' cancellation and their denial of the existence of the Kelowna accord?

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear and they were again reiterated by National Chief Phil Fontaine yesterday. There was a deal.

One of the hon. members from the Conservatives asked if there was a signature page. The comment was also made that there was no signature page on the health accord, where we transferred $42 billion, but we transferred that money. For a Liberal, a handshake is as good as a signature on a page and that is what was done in Kelowna. The National Chief said so himself. When we make a deal with aboriginal people, we uphold our deal with aboriginal people and other Canadians.

The Kelowna accord offered so much for national organizations. We heard in the aboriginal affairs committee from groups like ITK, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Assembly of First Nations, and we are going to hear from the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and the Métis National Council next week. These organizations already consulted with their members at the local community level, and drafted plans to implement and put into force what was in the Kelowna accord, to meet the objectives and targets that were set out in Kelowna.

The Conservative government, with the help of the NDP and the Bloc, just pulled the carpet out from under aboriginal people. We were left with nothing but our plans, with no fuel to invigorate them or make them meaningful for our aboriginal people at the community level.

There are numerous opportunities for aboriginal people in all parts of this country and in all sectors of this country, but we cannot do it without the resources. Aboriginal people know what is best for themselves and that is what the Kelowna accord offered, an opportunity for aboriginal people to implement and construct the plans necessary, stemming from their own priorities, and implementing them in a way that was culturally sensitive so that we could meet those targets.

This is an opportunity lost. It was an opportunity where we could have bridged that gap, particularly in the labour force and marketplace. It is a sad reflection of the Conservative government's vision for aboriginal people and other Canadians who need it.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Windsor West.

Although NDP members may support this motion, and I guess the question before all of us is how can we not support it, we need to go beyond this motion, with its fine rhetoric, wonderful words, list of important commitments and ask the following questions. Where have the Liberals been? How do they have the audacity and nerve to come to the House just a few short months after an election when people said they were sick and tired of broken promises and empty rhetoric?

Let us not ignore the fact that we have before us a motion that is a shopping list of Liberal hypocrisy. Can we call it anything less?

[An hon. member]

Why are you supporting it?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

A Conservative member asks why we are supporting it. If one looks at the current situation and addresses the need for this country to be ready for the new 21st century economy, obviously the NDP believes, the Conservatives may not believe, in investing in our human resources.

We believe in investing in programs that will help Canadians access this new economy, not spending, as my friend from the Conservative side just said, willy-nilly for the sake of scattering tax breaks and tax credits, as the Conservatives did in its their budget.

We believe in spending according to the priorities of Canadians, so that they can help themselves and create an environment where young people can access education and training to build a future. We need to create economic growth that we all so desperately need, especially given the fact that our birth rate is not growing very much and accepting that we have a serious shortage of skilled labour, and that our dollar is now almost par with the United States, which is having a huge impact on the manufacturing sector.

We believe in strategic investment that grows the economy and at the same time helps people develop their full potential.

It is difficult to support a motion when we feel this frustration with a Liberal Party that feels it can change its spots or colours just like that, on a dime. Let us not forget, when we look at this motion, that it was only about five or six months ago that we were faced with the Liberal government's economic update.

If we look carefully at this motion, we will see that it is very similar to last fall's economic update. There have been years of surprise surpluses and the Liberals saying the cupboard was bare. Then, last November, when they knew an election was imminent and when in fact their own leader said he was going to call an election within two months, suddenly they were able to say the cupboard was no longer bare and provided us with a shopping list of goodies.

They served us up a virtual feast of program initiatives that they could not--

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

You voted against it.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

My colleague from the Liberals, a member on the finance committee who was formerly the parliamentary secretary, again comes forth with this tired old Liberal rhetoric of New Democrats voting against--

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Come on, you guys missed out.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

What, an economic update? Was there a budget? Did I miss it? Were there some new initiatives that we had an opportunity to support with enough time to debate? I do not think so.

All we had last fall was an act of desperation to pretend to Canadians that there were some programs, some ideas that would actually deal with years of disappointment on the part of Canadians and make up for the fact that these Liberals had totally neglected working families over a decade.

Let us be clear. The new suit does not fit. The Liberals would have us believe that they were just a cocoon, waiting to emerge as a beautiful butterfly, when in actual fact they are only the old dung beetle.

Let us be clear with what we are dealing. It is absolute hypocrisy on the part of the Liberals to come forward with a motion with a shopping list of items that they had 13 years to bring to Canadians.

I want to clarify for the Liberal members that we will not vote against the very ideas that we have been pushing forward for years. We will not vote against the need for investing in education for which the NDP has been calling for over a decade. We will not vote against a provision that recognizes that the Liberals cut the heck out of our social programs, beginning with the 1995 federal budget, all in the name of balancing books.

They were always telling us that they had to do this so that we could be stronger for it. They had to kill health care to make it better. They had to rip the heck out of our education system in order to improve it. It does not work that way.

The members are now beginning to be aware of the fact that we have to always be cognizant of our human potential. While we want to ensure balanced books, bring down deficits and bring down our debt, we do not want to drive people into poverty, hunger, desperation, isolation and alienation, because we are so fixated on the fiscal end of things we lose sight of the human potential of this great land.

Let us not forget the kind of human deficit that has been created by these Liberals over the last decade. They talk about how great the economy is, conveniently ignoring the fact that we have seen more children than ever go to school hungry. We are no closer to the 1989 Broadbent resolution to eradicate child poverty, then by the year 2000. Here we are in 2006 with the problem even greater than it was in 1989.

We cannot ignore the fact that there are hundreds and hundreds more food banks in our country today because Liberals chose to put their fiscal management issues ahead of any kind of human development.

We saw this country drop from near the top position in terms of the human development index to the bottom. We saw this country take a dive internationally, and even as recently as a couple of weeks a new United Nations reports shows just how deplorable is the situation.

The Liberal government had many opportunities to address these facts. I especially remember the question of aboriginal people and on-reserve housing. I was there when the Auditor General brought down her report and said that she had never had to write such a scathing report in all of the time she had been Auditor General. She pointed to third world conditions. She pointed to such deplorable conditions that we were the laughing stock of many countries around the world.

It is very hard for us today to accept this kind of rhetorical message from the Liberals, when in fact they had a chance to do so much to make our world so much better.

I would like to now hand my speaking spot over, as I indicated at the outset, to my colleague from Windsor. I thank the House for the opportunity and appreciate the fact that we have, once again, had the chance to address the question of how to create a decent life for working families in the 21st century economy.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague suggested that she and her party wanted to ensure balanced books. I must say that I have seen no indication of that. Was she talking about the past 13 years? It was really 12 years, from November 1993 until January 2006. We keep hearing 13 years and it certainly is not 13 years but that is the interesting math of the NDP perhaps. She said that the NDP wanted to ensure balanced books when there was no indication, never any support from the NDP for any measure taken to balance the books, to make our economy stronger, to resolve the situation we had when our government took office in 1993 with the $42 billion deficit left over from the Conservatives, with terrible unemployment and grave problems across the country.

We went a long way over that period to improve the situation by investing in R and D, by investing in a whole range of areas, but also very importantly by getting the country's finances in order, something the NDP refused to support over and over. What did the NDP members do? They traded these measures for 10 seats and a chance to allow the Conservatives to become the government.

If things were so bad over those 12 years or so, how did Statistics Canada find that the percentage of low income Canadians declined from 15.7% in 1996 to 11.2% in 2004? Poverty declined. How can she possibly say that the reverse happened?