Debates of Feb. 28th, 2008

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Yukon for asking this question.

With respect to aboriginals, a federal government responsibility, we know that they absolutely need additional assistance. There is no indication in this budget that the Kelowna accord will be honoured.

Aboriginal peoples are citizens living in very unique and difficult situations in Quebec and the rest of Canada. These people are grappling with extremely difficult problems and living conditions that are unacceptable for the vast majority of people. Once again, the Conservative government decided to use most, if not all, of the surplus to pay down the debt even though there are such pressing needs—as I mentioned—with respect to seniors, various sectors such as the forestry industry, the manufacturing industry as well as communities affected by these problems. There are also the aboriginal peoples, the group most ignored in this budget.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague shares a seat at the finance committee with me and I have great respect for him, but he is complaining about Quebec not being recognized in this budget and I would certainly beg to differ.

The member has been a strong advocate for older workers. We have addressed that in this budget, with $90 million to extend the initiative for older workers. I am not sure whether the hon. member has not got to that page in the budget yet, but I would remind him that we have recognized this as an issue.

As for suggesting that we have not recognized the serious concerns in the forestry industry, which is certainly one of the major employers in Quebec, there is the $1 billion community development trust, not to help the forest industry, but to help the people who were impacted by the downturn in the forest industry.

As his leader has already expressed that his party will be opposing this budget, I would like the hon. member to please tell me how he will explain to his constituents that he voted against $90 million for older workers.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to answer the question of the parliamentary secretary, I would say that we know that the $90 million he has mentioned is allocated to extending the TIOW program, which is a training program. He is using my riding as an example. Among the workers in my riding who are losing their jobs, many are traditional forestry workers, people who have worked in mills for many years.

The TIOW program will allow some of them to be retrained, but not all. There are many. A pulp and paper mill closed last fall and 550 workers lost their jobs. These individuals will not find new jobs. Many are 50, 54 or 55 years old. It makes no sense to train them in computer technology or to ask them to work in the tar sands. They have families, they are established in a region where they have lived for years. They only needed some money, some help like the former POWA, to survive and to reach retirement. That did not happen. They were told to go get some training and work in another field. That makes no sense for many of these workers.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain for his speech, which, incidentally, was excellent and effectively summarized our position on the budget.

I listened to the budget speech and was astounded by the measures announced by the Minister of Finance. I was awfully surprised, I must admit. I felt I absolutely had to contact some citizens in my riding, to hear what they thought of it.

The first person I contacted was Ms. Beaulieu, who is 82 years old and lives in low income housing. She receives her modest pension and the guaranteed income supplement. I told Ms. Beaulieu that this fine government decided it would help her. I told her that the government just decided to increase the tax exemption to $3,500, if she has any other income. She replied that she has no other income. I told her that if she has no other income, she will have to work to receive her $3,500 exemption. She answered: “Yes, but I am 82 years old.” I told her that, even though she is 82 years old, if she wants to benefit from the exemption the government is offering, she will have to go to work. She does not have a choice. That is what the government is offering. She told me that, for years, the government did not pay her the guaranteed income supplement. She had sent in the form, but never received a reply. I told her it was because she made a mistake on the form. Since she made a mistake, government employees threw out the form and did not call her. She replied that she received only 13 months of payments. I told her that the Prime Minister had explained this to her, that he had said that it was too complicated to pay her back in full. So she asked me if she could do the same thing if she owed the government money. I told her no, that if she did that, I am quite certain the government would find her and that it would not take long.

This lady was so happy to learn that she could go back to work at 82 and that it would take her 15 weeks at minimum wage to qualify for a $3,500 deduction. She was so happy that if the Minister of Finance had been standing right there in front of her, the minister might not have survived. I have to say that she was really not very happy.

I then got in touch with Mr. Lecours. Mr. Lecours lost his job nearly a year ago. Soon he will no longer be entitled to employment insurance, and he will have to go on welfare. Mr. Lecours is 59. He comes from a large family, and he began working in the bush at 16. His father could not afford to send him to school, and he was forced to quit before he had even finished elementary school.

Mr. Lecours worked for 43 years. Today, he has no job because the little sawmill where he used to work closed. I told Mr. Lecours that our fine government was going to help him. That is what the government said in the budget speech. “Really”, he said. I told him that it was true and that from now on, he was entitled to training. He answered that he had not even finished elementary school. I told him, “That does not matter, Mr. Lecours. The government is going to send you back to finish elementary school. You are 59 and you may have made it only as far as fourth grade, so you have at least two years of elementary school to make up. After that, the government is going to send you to secondary school for five years. That makes seven years in total. The government is also going to send you to CEGEP for three more years to get a technical diploma”. We added it all up, he and I: two years plus five years plus three years makes 10 years. He is 59. I told him that he would be proud to have a diploma at 69, that he would be educated. This man was so happy that if the Minister of Finance had been standing right there in front of him, I am not sure the minister would have survived.

After that I spoke to Mr. Ross. Mr. Ross is the father of an average family in Quebec. He earns an average income in Quebec, or $30,000 a year. That is what Quebeckers earn on average, $30,000 or $32,000. I do not remember the exact figure; it may even be a bit less than that. I told him that the Minister of Finance has just given him some good news. From now on he is entitled to put $5,000 into a bank account without having to pay tax on the income generated by that account. He told me, “Yes, but how do you expect me to put $5,000 into a bank account when I only make $30,000 a year. I have rent to pay. I have to pay for food and transportation and I have two kids. How do you expect me to do that?” I asked him whether he could put a little money aside. The Minister of Finance has told him it is important to save money; it is extremely important. He told me that he is not able to save. At the end of the month, he does not have any money left. I told him I would make an agreement with him. I suggested that next year, on January 1, 2009, he should try to have $1,000 in his bank account.

I told him that he was not to touch it before January 1, 2010, if he wanted to earn interest. And I told him that $1,000 would earn roughly 3% in interest, which would give him $30, which is good. He will earn $30 over the year.

I asked him what his tax rate was. He said that with his income and his children, his tax rate is roughly 20%. I told him that 20% of $30 is $6 if he does not touch his $1,000. Mr. Ross will get $6 to buy some shepherd's pie on January 1, 2010. He was so happy to hear that. He was unbelievably happy. Can you imagine?

After that I spoke to Mr. Saint-Jean—

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

If the Minister of Finance had been there—

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Indeed, if the Minister of Finance had been there, he might not have survived. I thank the hon. member for Sherbrooke.

The next person I talked to was Mr. Saint-Jean, someone I know who is not from my riding. Mr. Saint-Jean is a manufacturer in the lumber industry, and his business is struggling and on the verge of closing.

I asked him if he had watched the budget speech. He told me that, yes, he had. I told him that our good Minister of Finance had decided to help him by giving him a tax credit. Mr. Saint-Jean said that he does not pay any taxes because he is not making any money and is nearly bankrupt. I told him that it did not matter, he would be getting the tax credit anyway because that is what the minister said he would do to help Mr. Saint-Jean.

Mr. Saint-Jean was so deliriously happy that if the Minister of Finance had been standing right there in front of him, the minister might not have survived. Am I making myself clear?

After that, I placed a call to Rimouski. Not long ago, the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec went on tour in the region. He did not make any announcements, but that does not matter. The flight cost $5,000, but that is no big deal because at least he visited the region. He told the people in charge of the marine biotechnology research centre, which was created by dint of hard work and investment by the people of eastern Quebec and those involved in research, that the research centre would have to start making money within two years. Is that clear? He told them that the federal government can no longer help them—no longer wants to help them. The centre will have to turn a profit within two years.

But a research centre cannot turn a profit within two years because a research centre is not, by definition, a profit-making venture. No research centre in the world can claim to be profitable. Neither pure nor applied research is profitable. It is an investment. It can lead to business opportunities in a given sector. It cannot be profitable from the start. We all know that. It might not make any money for many years. Nevertheless, research results in new products, new solutions, and new business opportunities in leading-edge sectors.

The good Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec told the mayor of Rimouski that the government could no longer help him and that he would have to fund the centre himself. But the federal government's Minister of Justice is saying there is more money for research and development. Where is this money going? Primarily to the Ottawa region, because there are so many research centres in this region that we have to keep them going.

The mayor of Rimouski was so happy that if the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec had been standing right there in front of him, the minister might not have survived. Are you following me?

On a more serious note, this budget offers absolutely nothing to regions like mine. Not only does the budget not offer anything, but it also completely destroys all the initiatives we have made in our regions over the years to try to develop new prospects and businesses.

I would like to thank the Speaker for letting me know I have only one minute left. Fortunately the Minister of Finance is not standing in front of me, because he might not survive.

This budget does not address any of the expectations or needs of most seniors in my riding. These people would have liked to have seen a minimal increase in the guaranteed income supplement so they could at least live on the poverty line.

The budget in no way addresses the needs of the industries or of people who have an average income of $30,000 or less. Even if I were to give you a tax break, on a salary of $22,000 or $23,000, you would not be paying any taxes.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really liked my colleague's speech, with its hint of irony, as it pointed out the extent to which this budget does not reflect Quebeckers' priorities. It is somewhat pathetic to see the Liberals letting such a poor budget go through and giving the government a blank cheque, so to speak, to continue its disastrous policy.

I know that my colleague discussed this budget with many people from his riding who did not benefit at all from it. I am sure he had an opportunity to speak with students from his riding for whom this budget provided nothing. The Bloc Québécois asked that the scandalous and shameful cuts made by the Liberal Party to post-secondary education transfers, beginning in 1995, be reversed. We were not asking for the moon; we were just asking for these transfers to be restored for our youth attending CEGEPs and universities. They are the future of our society. We asked the government to make up the shortfall created by the Liberals but it did not meet our expectations.

Were the students my colleague met in his riding as enthused as the rest of his constituents about the idea of meeting the Minister of Finance?

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, they are so happy about what they were offered that if the Minister of Finance had been standing in front of them, he probably would not have survived. That is definitely a symptom of the Conservative budget. I call it a symptom, because it is practically a disease.

If we want our society to develop, we must invest heavily in education and training. Telling young people that we will not invest enough in post-secondary education basically means telling people from low income families that they will never be able to access post-secondary education, or complete university or even a college program. We cannot forget that, despite the loan and bursary system, young people still leave university with a heavy debt load. At present, the system does not really meet the needs of our citizens who want to receive training, particularly young people.

The federal government had an incredible surplus. It had the capacity to reinvest in education through transfers to the provinces, but it did not do so. This is unfortunate, since it is our future that is being forfeited by the federal government. It is jeopardizing the future of many citizens who will unfortunately never be able to access post-secondary education.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that, in the last three Conservative budgets, our government solved the fiscal imbalance. Over the past two years, health and education transfers to Quebec rose by $4.5 billion, for a total envelope of $16.7 billion for Quebec.

I hope that my colleague will have an opportunity to reread the budget as it contains some very important items for all Quebeckers such as the creation of a crown corporation to manage employment insurance, in response to the legitimate request by employees and employers to manage their funds. This measure is in the budget.

My rural colleague certainly will be pleased to know that, with respect to the pork and beef industries, there are specific measures to help our pork producers.

Given that there are so many good things in this budget, how can they vote against the interests of Quebec and Canada? Are they that embarrassed to support a good Conservative budget?

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, people here seem to have an exaggerated sense of the ridiculous. The fiscal imbalance has not been resolved. Let us be honest: to resolve the fiscal imbalance, there have to be tax transfers or something the federal government cannot go back on. Currently, if we get a new government and it decides to cut the transfers, then it is game over. Cutting a cheque will not resolve the fiscal imbalance. That is not how the fiscal imbalance will be resolved with the provinces.

Furthermore, my colleague said that the regions should be pleased with the budget. There is absolutely nothing in this budget for regional development. There is zero—less than zero. Not only is there less than zero, but the proposed measures will harm the regions. The government is currently closing research centres. For example, it has closed the research centre in Trois-Rivières and is going to close the one in Rimouski. And yet, these research centres would help us develop businesses. The hon. member cannot tell me that this budget will help the regions and that we should be happy to vote in favour of it. Let us be reasonable.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance on a point of order.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. I certainly hope there was something lost in the translation, because the hon. member on several occasions suggested physical threats against the finance minister.

Not only did he inappropriately point out a member of this House who was not sitting here physically today, but he also suggested that he would not survive, and I will let you check the blues, Mr. Speaker, if you would. I find that very unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker, and would ask that you check the blues and, if so, follow up with appropriate action.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is the hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia rising on the same point of order?

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is very simple. When I was saying that the Minister of Finance might not survive, I meant he would not survive as Minister of Finance. That is what I meant. This has nothing to do with physical harm. We are talking about a minister and we are saying that he is a bad manager. Let us be clear.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber rising on the same point of order?

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to point out that in his point of order, my Conservative colleague referred to the minister's absence from this House, which he clearly has no right to do. This is completely inappropriate.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was clarifying what the hon. member's statement was. To provide that information to you, I had to address the fact that the hon. member had pointed out.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I think we have drifted into the realm of debate. Of course I will have a look at the blues, but we will move on to resuming debate.

The hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my pleasure to participate in the debate. I will say at the start that I plan to share my time, with your permission, with the member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

I want to compliment the Minister of Finance on a budget that has been widely accepted by Canadians and certainly by people in my own province. Over the last day or so we have seen a number of groups, agencies and individuals come out and publicly praise the budget, which we do not often see. They are praising the budget, in some cases elements of it and in some cases the budget generally, knowing that in relatively difficult times we have a fair, prudent budget but one which keeps in mind the needs of all people across the country.

Praise has been heaped upon the minister from student groups, truckers associations, tourism groups, boards of trade and chambers of commerce, et cetera. The only negatives are from the political people. One would expect that. It is a political game and it is not to one's advantage to praise the other, even though it certainly is consoling to see the opposition party in the House praising our budget in the form of supporting it. We are delighted with that.

As I mentioned, the only people against it are people with a political bent. Unfortunately, I saw some negative comments from the head of the fisheries organization, the Fish, Food and Allied Workers, in Newfoundland. No group of people in our province has benefited more from this government than the people involved in the fishery, whether they be harvesters, processors, plant workers, et cetera.

One of the concerns raised was about the changes that would be made to the Employment Insurance Act. There, when we are talking about establishing an arm's length organization to manage the EI account, we are responding to requests from people in industry, requests that have been brought forward year after year. They saw major surpluses building up in the employment insurance fund that were not going back to the people who really should be benefiting from it, the people who pay in, whether it be the employers or the employees.

We committed to address that. It is not in any way taking anything away. It is giving money right back to the people who contribute to the fund, whether they be employers or employees. These are the very people who will benefit from the new move to eliminate this huge surplus and allow the money to remain in the pockets of those who have been contributing to it. That is a very positive move. People should not be playing games with this decision.

Having said that, there are two areas that I want to comment on in my short time. One of them relates to my department and the other my province.

In relation to the department, we, as we would say, did very well. There were major initiatives that we wanted to address, one of them being the Coast Guard.

When the Conservatives became the government two years ago, the Coast Guard was basically inactive and ineffective simply because we saw rust-out in relation to the infrastructure and a lack of funding to even keep the boats at sea. There was no work being done on surveillance simply because enough money was not being put into the regular maintenance of the boats, nor was there even enough money to put fuel in them in order to go out and do the work.

Last year we invested $750 million in the 16 new Coast Guard boats. This year we have in the budget $720 million for one new polar class icebreaker. Not only will it replace an aging smaller icebreaker, but the one we plan to acquire is a new state of the art icebreaker, bigger than ever, to ensure that Canada has a strong presence in the north and that the job can be done.

On top of the funding for the Coast Guard, we saw a major contribution in aquaculture. Aquaculture is becoming a major industry in this country. It is becoming a major industry in other countries in the world. Canada should be leading the way, but we are not. Our expertise is leading the way. Many of the countries that are doing very well have availed themselves of Canadian expertise. We have fallen behind, but we are going to make sure that does not happen in the future. We have to move forward.

An investment of $70 million in aquaculture is significant and with the private sector investment and involvement we are going to see an industry that will certainly be moving forward in this country. It is an industry that can co-exist quite easily with the wild fishery. If we combine both, the amount of employment generated certainly will be significant.

Many of the smaller communities that were devastated by the loss of groundfish, et cetera, have a new lease on life. They are being revived with all kinds of employment, and not employment for eight or ten weeks, but year-round solid employment.

We have made a major investment in our province. The big news coming out of the budget as it relates to our province is a new ferry and the approval of government for Marine Atlantic to acquire a new ferry, a huge ferry that will double the capacity of any boat that we now have.

This will enable the truckers to move goods to and from the island, the fish, lumber, et cetera, without having to worry about lining up on the docks in Port aux Basques or North Sydney wondering how long it will be before they can move. When one is moving fresh product it makes an awful lot of difference as to how long one is going to be parked in a yard somewhere.

This new ferry will also encourage more tourists. Again tourists now have to line up, or they do not even bother to come because they know they will have to wait and wait to get to and from the island. We will have a ferry with the capacity to move anyone who wants to visit that great island of ours.

I find it difficult to think that there are members here who have not visited the great province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is the last great frontier of this country. It is great to experience the friendliness and hospitality of the people, to see the rugged scenery and the beauty. We encourage people to visit and now, as of this year, they will have no trouble getting there.

Some people criticized the fact that they did not see any money for roads. Recently we signed the $430 million infrastructure agreement. This year alone there will be over $100 million spent on roads in Newfoundland and Labrador. We will be starting the major Trans-Labrador Highway with a $50 million investment from the federal government. As this road is completed over the next five or six years, we will make sure that it ties in with the rest of the major highways in the country so that people will be able to travel right through this great frontier.

On top of that, we have money for more policemen in our country. We have money to enable more students of low and middle income to go to college, because 100,000 students across this country will be able to quality for scholarships more so than in the past.

One of the hidden things in the budget is the amount of money in research and development. There are a number of initiatives in this budget to encourage people with innovative minds and the new companies we see springing up to take advantage of science and technology and research and development. It will encourage the great Memorial University and the associated colleges to get into research and development in our fishing industry and other industries also.

I could praise this budget for hours, but I promised to share my time with my colleague and I will therefore end my speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague with great interest. I have had the pleasure of working with him on the fisheries and oceans committee over the last number of years. One thing that anyone who has spent time on that committee knows is that quite often on the political spectrum opinions are like-minded. The committee is always trying to do its best to work for the betterment of those who work in the industry.

That being said, I know that one aspect of the fishery that was brought forward by the minister when he was a lowly MP on the opposition bench concerned small craft harbours. I have not found anything in the budget about small craft harbours. Is the minister disappointed that in this budget small craft harbours seem to have been neglected?

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I assure my hon. colleague and friend that small craft harbours are certainly not neglected.

Back in my first year in the House and my first day on the standing committee I would suggest, I raised the issues of infrastructure and wharves involved with small craft harbours. My initiative encouraged the committee to do a major study which resulted in an extra $100 million being put into the budget. That $100 million ran out last year.

What the government did in the last budget was not only to secure that amount of money on a permanent basis, not for five years as was previously injected into the budget, but on a permanent basis. We added to that an extra $11 million. Last year we added to the base of the small craft harbours budget, $31 million.

One problem we have with small craft harbours is we now have a number of wharves scattered throughout the country, many of them in Quebec and Ontario, that fishermen no longer use, but they are used by towns, recreation groups and marine associations. Many groups would like to have these wharves. Many of the wharves are not being used at all and are falling into a state of disrepair.

It is similar to interest on a credit card. It has been taken away from our small craft harbours funding. What we have done this year is we have added an extra $10 million to the budget, and in fact over the long term we have added a lot of money to address small craft harbours. The focus is to clean them up and get rid of them, so that we can use the money for the real purpose of the wharves that the fishermen need.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There is enough time left for a brief question or comment. The hon. member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I will make a brief comment. The member said that all the groups were in favour of the budget, but the president of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters said:

We received recycled ideas and pocket change at a critical time when we needed tangible solutions.

The executive director of the Cooperative Housing Federation said:

Unfortunately, the federal government's budget failed to deliver on affordable housing for the millions of Canadians living in core housing need.

RBC Financial Group said that this is more about optics than substance.

John Williamson of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation said that this is a spendthrift government.

I have a great deal of respect for the member. I think he is an excellent member. I would like him to keep up the integrity that he always shows. I would ask him to apologize to those organizations when he said that all organizations were complimentary and in favour of the budget.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly to my friend, when I made those remarks, I talked about the groups in my own province that I had heard from. I listed several of them. I listed some groups that were against the budget. Nationally, it might be a different story.

I would suggest to the member that because he is in opposition, and I understand that because I was there myself, he has picked the negatives. We collectively have to start looking at the glass as not being half empty, but as being half full and in fact, it is starting to move toward the top. In another 10, 15 or 20 years with this government in power, we are going to have a great country, despite what we had to deal with when we took over.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak today in support of budget 2008. It has been said before and it deserves to be restated: this budget is balanced; this budget is focused; and this budget is prudent. I would like to extend my congratulations and thanks to the Minister of Finance for his continued fine work on behalf of all Canadians.

We have heard from many sectors that are giving their strong support to this budget. Kevin Dancey, president and CEO of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, stated of budget 2008:

This is a prudent, steady as she goes budget from the government. Coming at a time when the Canadian dollar is strong and the U.S. economy is struggling, the federal budget follows through on the government's commitment to reduce debt while targeting program spending, job creation and encouraging savings by Canadians.

This is a budget that clearly demonstrates financial responsibility.

Mr. Perrin Beatty, the president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce said this:

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is pleased that the budget addresses a number of our recommendations in critical areas such as infrastructure, immigration, creation of an Employment Insurance Financing Board, and education and training.

He continued:

The current and foreseeable Canadian and global economic climate dictates prudence and responsibility.

I would like members to please note those two words “prudence” and “responsibility”. That is what this budget is about. He went on to say:

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce supports the government's commitment to reallocate program spending to higher priority areas and to invest in productivity enhancing measures. Combined with last fall's Economic Statement, which addressed personal and corporate income taxes, as advocated by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the creation of a Tax-free Savings Account will encourage savings, a measure which the Chamber has sought for many years.

The number of positive initiatives in this budget will certainly take more than 10 minutes to outline, but I will do my best to at least start by highlighting some of the great news that this budget contains.

Budget 2008 builds on the success of the two previous budgets and economic updates. For example, the GST reduction from 7% to 5% means $12 billion in savings for Canadians every year from here on in. For Waterloo region with 500,000 people, that means more than $180 million in savings per year. For my riding of Kitchener--Conestoga, it means an additional $40 million is available to be reinvested in the local economy each year.

The current global economic uncertainty cannot be ignored. This government has acted responsibly, decisively and early to ensure that Canada is in the best possible position to weather the storm. Our pre-emptive action in the fall of 2007 and the winter of 2008 to lower taxes, provide targeted support to troubled industries and pay down debt has done just that.

As the father of three and the grandfather of seven, the last thing I want to do is leave those generations of Canadians saddled with the mistakes of the past. Despite 13 years of careless spending under the previous Liberal government, we are working diligently to ensure that we leave things in good order for generations of Canadians to come.

Debt reduction is the responsible thing to do. It helps cut interest costs and stimulates investment. It strengthens our ability to deal with economic shocks and it reduces the share of tax dollars devoted to interest payments. The money we save by paying down debt goes right back to Canadians through our tax back guarantee. Canadians deserve, and they now have been given, a direct benefit from debt reduction. Rather than squandering the surplus, as opposition members charge, we are doing the responsible thing in giving people back their hard-earned money.

Under the tax back guarantee, the government dedicates the interest we save from federal debt reduction each year to permanent and sustainable personal income tax reductions. By 2010 the reductions provided by this measure alone will amount to $2 billion. This makes a huge difference for all taxpayers, not just this year, not just next year, but for every year from here on in.

The current cost of our national debt is $33 billion per year. Imagine what we could do as a country without those huge interest payments.

We all know the relief and freedom we feel personally when a debt is paid off, be it a credit card or student loan or when we finally own our homes free and clear. Imagine the freedom of future Canadians if they do not need to pay for the debt that this generation has accumulated.

Another way this budget looks to the future is in its commitment to invest in public infrastructure. Of the $1.6 billion planned for infrastructure initiatives, my own province of Ontario will receive $515 million.

These initiatives have significant support under the building Canada plan, which includes the gas tax fund, the building Canada fund, the increased GST rebate for municipalities and the provincial-territorial equal per jurisdiction fund. In the Waterloo region these combined programs will result in approximately $63 million of investment in 2009-10 for infrastructure projects.

In their February 26 press release, the Canadian Urban Transit Association said it was delighted that the budget commits significant new support to invest in public transit infrastructure. The allocation of $500 million in 2007-08 dedicated to public transit is a major boost to future access and mobility in Canadian communities.

Extending the gas tax fund as a permanent measure is an excellent response to the ongoing needs for municipal infrastructure investment. “This is a good news budget for transit”, said Michael Roschlau, CEO of CUTA.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the new tax-free savings account. This powerful savings vehicle is another fine example of how this government is showing responsible leadership to Canadians. In the same way that debt reduction is a sound fiscal principle, so too is saving for the future. This measure will make it easier for all Canadians to save.

Through the tax-free savings account, Canadians will be able to deposit $5,000 to grow tax-free, and it will remain tax-free when it is withdrawn. This is a flexible plan, designed to reflect the realities of everyday life. The ability to withdraw money when we need it without tax penalty and the flexibility to reinvest will prove to be quite beneficial for those who choose to participate.

Canadian Taxpayers Federation federal director John Williamson had this to say:

The new tax-free savings account is a pro-growth policy that will encourage Canadians to save, reward individuals and benefit the economy. This is an excellent policy proposal. Canada needs to reward people that save because their investments fuel economic growth and job creation.

For a moment I would like to focus on aboriginal affairs. I have the honour of serving on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, so this area is of particular interest to me.

Ontario will benefit from $660 million in federal investments aimed at strengthening partnerships with aboriginal Canadians through a new framework on economic development, enhanced education outcomes, better health and family services, and first nations water and waste water action plan.

“Advantage Canada” recognized that the most effective way to address the gap in socio-economic conditions faced by aboriginal Canadians is by increasing their participation in the Canadian economy.

In his book, Dances with Dependency, aboriginal author Calvin Helin warns against government initiatives which encourage aboriginals to become dependent on welfare and social assistance. In contrast, he offers this bright perspective:

The aboriginal business sector is expanding dramatically with the number of self-employed Aboriginal people in Canada increasing by 30.7% since 1996.

He concludes:

With the appropriate environment, Aboriginal business is poised to be a major contributor to the Canadian economy.

We know there are fantastic economic opportunities across the country. In particular, the mining and resource sectors could provide new and historic possibilities for many aboriginal Canadians to move out of poverty and dependency, and to become full participants in the labour force and the economy.

Budget 2008 takes another important step to help aboriginal people to make the most of these opportunities by committing to establish a new framework for aboriginal economic development by the end of 2008.

To continue our progress in providing access to safe drinking water on first nations reserves, budget 2008 invests over $330 million over the next two years to extend this plan of action.

I would finally like to touch on the money that has been allotted for international assistance in this year's budget. In my work with the Christian Medical and Dental Society and other international service organizations, I have had the privilege of visiting several countries, including Zambia, Zimbabwe, Nepal, Honduras, Dominican Republic. I have witnessed firsthand the joy in a middle-aged woman's face when she received new eyeglasses and was now able to see clearly.

I have been able to personally use my dental training to improve the health of those who had suffered for years with chronic pain.

Canada is a blessed country and Canadians are world renowned for our generosity and compassion.

I am especially encouraged that budget 2008 provides the resources and direction required to enable Canada to reassert its influence in global affairs.

One of the hallmarks of leadership is knowing how to face challenges ahead with responsible and wise action. I urge all members of this House to give their enthusiastic support to this budget. This budget clearly demonstrates responsible leadership.