Debates of Feb. 28th, 2008

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the budget. I will share my time with my colleague, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

First, as I listened to the budget speech on Tuesday afternoon, my first reaction was that it was a whole lot of hot air that was far from meeting Quebeckers' expectations, which we, the Bloc Québécois, have been putting forward for some time now.

Over the past several weeks, we have been telling the Conservative government that it would have to make a significant course correction if it wanted the Bloc Québécois to support its budget. Unfortunately, the Conservative Party ignored our demands, even though they were realistic and good for people. Our demands addressed issues that are problematic in Quebec and elsewhere, such as the environment, culture, the manufacturing and forestry industries, job losses among older workers, seniors living in poverty, and discrimination against women in our society.

I read many reactions to the budget speech, some of which were particularly juicy. Ms. Monique Jérôme-Forget, Minister of Finance in the National Assembly, said that the new federal budget did not reflect Quebec's priorities. She expressed her disappointment as follows:

With $20 billion worth of room to manoeuvre, the minister...had plenty of opportunity to announce new support measures for the forestry and manufacturing industries—

However, the federal minister has made choices that do not meet the needs expressed by the Government of Quebec.

She deplored that.

Adriane Carr, from the Green Party, said:

I look at this Conservative budget and I see a big group of ostriches with their heads stuck in the tar sands.

I like that description.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Stuck deep in the sand.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Indeed, quite deep.

The Centrale des syndicats du Québec, the CSQ, also said that the government was insensitive to the difficulties Canadians are experiencing and slammed what it called a Pontius Pilate budget. That is another way of saying that the government is washing its hands of our society's problems and crises.

Mr. Parent, president of the CSQ, says that the budget is also disappointing for seniors:

The Conservatives promised to make the guaranteed income supplement accessible to the least fortunate seniors. The budget completely ignores those promises.

Other reactions are similar. We can say that people are unanimous about the Conservative government because in Quebec, they rather strongly reject the budget.

The Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, or the FTQ, also rejects the budget. It had this to say:

Not only does this budget neglect workers, but in a context of manufacturing restructuring, major economic slowdown, and the increased job losses to come in the manufacturing industry, we seriously question the appropriateness of putting $10 billion toward paying down the debt.

Everyone agrees that it makes no sense to put everything toward the debt and leave nothing for anything else.

This government will be judged on its actions—said the president, Mr. Roy. Alberta, whose economy is overheating, certainly does not need any federal assistance right now. It is the North Shore, Abitibi, the Gaspésie, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and the major industrial centres that need urgent intervention.

According to the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, the CSD, “the Minister of Finance should have gotten new glasses instead of new shoes”. It is customary to get new shoes to present a new budget. But he should have gotten new glasses.

I could go on like this for quite some time, for there are countless quotations. However, I would like to speak to you primarily about the file for which I serve as party critic, one that is very important to me, namely, senior citizens. Tuesday afternoon, listening to the minster speak, I had to ask myself exactly whom the elected members of the House of Commons work for. Do we work for the people who elected us and whom we represent here, or for the big businesses that are generating ever-increasing profits and that exploit people and make them poorer and poorer?

Listening to the Minister of Finance, I was left with the impression that the Conservative government does not care at all about the problems facing many of our citizens. We also have the impression that it has taken ownership of taxpayers' money and is managing it in a way that is unfair to the poorest and least fortunate in our society.

I am thinking about the victims of the manufacturing and forestry crisis, in particular, the older workers who lose their jobs, and seniors who were cheated by the government and are living practically in poverty. Yet the government had the means to ease their situation and mitigate its effects. The billions of dollars of surplus could have been used, in part, to ease the suffering and distress of many of our fellow citizens.

The Conservative government chose instead to pursue its right-wing politics. The far right, whether political, religious or social, is always very distant from human beings and terribly lacking in humanity. The Conservatives' right-wing politics go something like this: they put the entire surplus towards the debt and forget that they owe a debt to seniors. Conservative politics mean increasing military spending considerably in order to continue the war, when we know that war never resolves human conflict. History has taught us this. Conservative politics continue to support the large oil and gas companies in the west, by lowering their taxes. Yet everyone knows that they are major polluters, and that the entire population is suffering and will pay the price in the near future.

I would like to know why the government is helping the oil companies. I have no idea why. Why does it not want to help the manufacturing or forestry industries? Why be so unfair? Why is the government putting all of the surplus from this year, ending March 31, toward the debt? Why does it not use part of these billions in surplus to help men and women, young people and seniors, who are living in insecurity and who are getting poorer and poorer? Why does it not use part of the billions in surplus amassed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to meet the huge affordable social housing needs of all our communities?

We must not forget that these billions in surplus came from taxpayers and do not belong to the Conservative Party. Perhaps it should listen to what the people are saying through the members they have elected. We were elected, just like them.

I would like to talk about my file, which is seniors. Since I became a member, I have travelled Quebec and have visited some regions many times. I have met with the heads of seniors' associations. I listened carefully to their requests and I heard about their needs. These needs are often desperate. We told the government about what seniors need, but nothing in this budget addresses the needs expressed by our seniors.

Everyone remembers that during the last election campaign, the Conservatives officially promised to do right by the seniors who had been shortchanged by the mismanagement of the guaranteed income supplement program. Yet again, there is absolutely nothing about these promises in this budget. Even worse, it goes so far as to tell seniors that they need to work if they want to increase their income. This is despicable, shameful and irresponsible on the part of a government.

Obviously, investing $60 million per year to allow low-income seniors who can work to do so in order to increase their income is nevertheless a measure that will affect some people. However, it will not help the majority of seniors who are unable to work. Imagine saying that to an 80 or 85 year old who receives the guaranteed income supplement, is therefore living below the poverty line—set by a 2004 government study—and needs $1,285 just to reach it. Anyone receiving the guaranteed income supplement is poor. They are told that if they want to supplement their income they will have to go to work. That is irresponsible and a slap in the face for those individuals who worked their entire lives. Today, as a gesture of thanks, they are told to go clean houses or work at Wal-Mart for minimum wage.

I find it curious that the MPs and even ministers in the Conservative Party, and therefore in the government, who come from Quebec and who work in Quebec were unable to obtain from their government what seniors everywhere in Quebec are asking for. Why is that? Petitions were signed, postcards sent and most seniors' organizations supported us on this issue.

In addition, we often hear Conservative members say that Bloc Québécois members are useless in Ottawa—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I apologize for interrupting the hon. member for Repentigny.

Pursuant to Standing Order 38, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Forestry Industry; the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Official Languages; the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, Darfur.

The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. I would like him to respond to certain aspects of the budget including the aid to the manufacturing and forestry industries. We know that the Conservatives' aid to the communities is quite pathetic. It is peanuts compared to what our communities and our people need to survive.

Look at page 125 of the budget plan. I will take the time to read it. The Conservatives think $1 billion ought to solve the problem.

Funding will be accounted for in 2007–08, and paid into a trust for those provinces and territories that identify initiatives before March 31, 2008.

It says March 31, 2008. There is just a month left and the government is saying that the future of these communities—for the little bit that has been given—has to be decided in the next month.

Can my colleague tell me whether it is acceptable for the Conservatives to do such a thing? I think this is unacceptable. They are trying to make sure this $1 billion is never fully spent within the communities that need it. They are trying to limit the expenditures.

Does my colleague agree that the Conservatives are offering peanuts? And, is it acceptable that the future of these communities has to be negotiated in just a month? That is how much time they have to decide whether their future will be better or not so good.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that this is peanuts. I agree with my friend that this is peanuts. Yet I wonder why the Liberals are supporting the budget. That still surprises me.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

You are not supporting it? Actually, you will not be voting.

In my opinion, this is peanuts. The problem is that the money will be allocated on a per capita basis, even though the problems are much more serious in Quebec and Ontario, where 40% of the jobs have been lost. The payments should not have been made on a per capita basis, but should have gone where the problems are most urgent and communities are in crisis.

In closing, seniors in Quebec will remember, just like it says on the postcards. When the next election comes, they will remember, and they will not forget that they were ignored by the current Conservative government.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Repentigny on his excellent speech. Clearly, in his former career, my friend had the opportunity to spend time with seniors. He is an asset to the Bloc Québécois, with his wisdom and other fine qualities.

I am still wondering why the Conservative budget contains a measure like the $3,500 tax credit for seniors as an incentive to work so as not to have to pay tax on $3,500, instead of the $110 a month that my colleague called for in the prebudget studies and the Bloc Québécois called for in its position.

I would like my colleague to explain the situation facing the seniors he dealt with in his former career in Quebec.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

I think that the problems Quebec seniors are facing are becoming more and more alarming. More and more of them are becoming poor because the cost of living is going up, but the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement are not going up by much.

There are still lots of people in Quebec—about 40,000—who are not receiving the guaranteed income supplement they are entitled to, so I think it would have been nice of the government to automatically enrol people over 65 who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. This issue is important to me. I also think that seniors should automatically get $110 more per month just to help them reach the poverty line. I think that is important.

This kind of thing is not just happening in Quebec; 135,000 people in Canada are in the same situation. I think that as we work to help Quebec seniors, we are also working to help seniors in other provinces. This problem is very serious. The number of seniors is increasing—they will make up 28% of the population in 2015. I think that seniors can have a big impact politically, so the government would be wise to pay attention to seniors sooner rather than later.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to the subamendment introduced by our party, the Bloc Québécois. It reads as follows:

That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after the word “contains” and substituting the following:

“initiatives that do not meet the expectations of Quebeckers who have asked that the current year’s surpluses be used to help workers and industries in the manufacturing and forestry sectors, which are facing a serious crisis in Quebec, to help seniors living below the poverty line and help individuals improve the energy efficiency of their homes, calls on the government to implement these measures before the fiscal year ending on March 31, 2008, and deplores that this Budget ignores the fiscal imbalance by not transferring $3.5 billion to Quebec and the provinces for post-secondary education and by not eliminating federal spending power”.

This is a very wise amendment that is in synch with the interests and values of Quebeckers. All this has come about because the Conservative government decided to take the $10.2 billion surplus for the current year. That is why we have set March 31 as the deadline. The government has enough time to act by then. As a Liberal member said earlier, if the government can put in place measures to spend $1 billion on the community trust to help the manufacturing industry by March 31, it can make political choices about how to use the $10.2 billion, other than putting it all towards the debt. That is what the government is doing at present: it is using the $10.2 billion to pay down the debt. It would have enough time and money to respond to the demands made by the Bloc Québécois, as long as it wants to.

That is why the Bloc Québécois did not hesitate to say that the Conservative members—including those from Quebec—who vote in favour of this budget in the House will be acting against the best interests of Quebeckers. Quebeckers of all stripes—from the Liberal government's minister of finance to Mario Dumont, leader of the ADQ and Pauline Marois, leader of the PQ—have denounced this budget.The fact that so many politicians and citizen stakeholders have stood up to denounce the Conservative budget means that the Conservative government is failing to respect the interests and wishes of Quebeckers.

I always find it surprising that Quebeckers sitting on the Conservative benches will do anything to save their jobs or their portfolios. They would rather roll over, sit up and beg for oil companies, nuclear power interests and the military, than help seniors, workers in the forestry and manufacturing sectors and older workers. Once again, they have decided to bow down to their western Canadian colleagues and do the bidding of the powerful lobby that is pulling the Conservative government's strings.

Even sadder is the fact that this is affecting our fellow citizens' quality of life. Some 150,000 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing and forestry sectors. The government would have us believe that all is well with the economy and that jobs are being created, but $25 per hour jobs are being replaced with minimum wage jobs. That is what is really going on. Such is the bondage to which the Conservative Party would have Quebec submit. The Conservatives want Quebeckers to give up good jobs for minimum wage jobs.

That is the truth of the matter: the government is always looking for ways to impoverish Quebec. Vehicle assembly plants in Quebec were closed—thanks to the Government of Canada, there are none left. Now, the only thing the government is doing to help the manufacturing sector is giving $250 million to support auto manufacturing in Ontario. That is the truth of the matter.

Yes, that is hard to accept, especially when men and women lose their jobs, because it makes it hard for families to make ends meet. Some children get nothing to eat before going to school. Some seniors have a hard time paying rent and feeding themselves. That is the truth of the matter.

Indeed, many older people do not have the $1,100 they need to rise above the poverty line. My hon. colleague from Repentigny knows why he is fighting.

These men and women, who worked their entire lives, are no longer able to make ends meet today. Medication, housing, everything is more expensive, but these people do not see their income going up any. That is the truth of the matter.

As my hon. colleague said, 26% or 24% of older people—a large majority of them—will still be living under the poverty line in 2015. What this government is now proposing to them is that they work in order to qualify for a tax credit of $3,500. Once again, this shows contempt for human beings. That is the Conservative way.

We, on the other hand, are well aware of the problem. Thanks to the media and advertising campaigns, they still manage to conceal the hidden side—please excuse the redundancy—of the Conservative Party. That is what is really going on. Day after day, the government remains in place. Perhaps that is the Liberals' strategy. Perhaps they think that by leaving the Conservatives in power, people will ultimately see their true colours. But the problem is that, the longer this goes on, the more people will also see the true colours of the Liberals, which is too bad for them.

While Conservative members from Quebec bow down to their colleagues from the west, the Liberals are hiding under their seats so much do they not dare vote in this House. That is the image they are sending to Quebec society. It is a terrible image of politicians here in Ottawa to be sending to the public. It does nothing to boost the image of politicians.

Once again, the Bloc Québécois cannot just sit back. We have no choice but to stand in this House and vote against this budget, given that Quebec citizens, workers in the forestry and manufacturing industries, are losing their jobs and seniors do not have enough income to make ends meet every month. That is the reality and we cannot ignore it, especially when we consider the salaries earned in this House. The only ones able to ignore reality are the Liberals, who are just sitting back, and the Conservatives, who are adopting measures that run counter to the interests of the most disadvantaged in society.

With this subamendment, the Bloc Québécois is telling the Conservatives that they still have time—until March 31—to act. They have a reported surplus of $10.2 billion. The Minister of Finance said so and it is even in the budget. Rather than putting the whole amount against the debt, the Conservatives should reinvest a sizeable amount, say $3.5 billion, in the forestry and manufacturing industries. With $3.1 billion, they could repay their debt to seniors who are owed arrears of the guaranteed income supplement. They could use $800 million to increase by $100 per month the amount of the guaranteed income supplement payable to seniors.

We must not give up and we must not get discouraged. The Bloc Québécois knows this; we are strong. Election after election, we represent a majority of Quebeckers in defending the interests and values of the people of Quebec. Why? Because we are the only members able to rise in this House day after day to defend the interests of Quebeckers. There is no one else. The Liberals stay seated, the Conservatives rise to defend the interests of western Canada and the NDP is waffling and looking for direction. The Bloc Québécois is the only party able to defend the interests of Quebeckers day after day.

This is why all the other parties will find us in their path in Quebec, whether an election is held tomorrow, the next day, in one year or in 18 months. I am proud to rise every day in the House to say that Quebeckers are well represented in Ottawa by a social democratic party that is not afraid of saying to those who decide to invest everything in the military, nuclear or oil sectors, that it is time to help seniors, workers in the manufacturing and forestry industries and the less fortunate in our society, because they have the means to do so. Together, we are able to create good programs. Once again, the only party that defends the interests of Quebeckers is the Bloc Québécois.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Newton—North Delta.

This budget clearly lacks vision, focus and a plan for the future of Canada at a time when we face significant economic challenges and headwinds. It is more important now than ever to have governments that look ahead, not at this week's polls but on the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead 10 years, 20 years, 30 years into the century.

The fact is the budget accomplishes very little. It tries to appeal to the public in many ways by seeming to address critical issues across a wide span of issues, but without actually investing enough in any given issue or challenge to accomplish the desired outcome.

The Conservatives have brought us precariously close to a deficit position in only two years. The fact is the Conservatives inherited the best fiscal situation of any incoming government in the history of Canada. In a two year period, it has frittered that advantage away by spending like drunken sailors and, at the same time, cutting consumption taxes.

The contingency fund now has been removed from the Conservative economic planning. Next year we are tracking to only a $2.3 billion surplus, the year after that a $1.3 billion surplus.

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

That is because of caused overtaxation.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

The hon. member opposite says that is overtaxation. In fact, it is prudent to have a reserve in place such that when we have crises that are outside of our creation, whether it is SARS, or an ice storm, or an international economic decline or a crisis in the manufacturing sector, we can weather those storms.

We will be watching the actions of the government very closely in the coming weeks and months. We will be holding them to account to ensure the government does not take Canada into deficit once again.

It is important that at a time when the Conservative spending has put us close to a deficit position and at a time when we are entering a period of economic uncertainty, a $350 million election on what is essentially a do nothing budget does not seem like sound economic policy or responsible politics. As a responsible opposition party, we have to apply pressure on an ongoing basis to the government to ensure that it does not put Canada into a deficit once again.

Speaking as an Atlantic Canadian, Atlantic Canadians were relieved that the Conservative government did not attack Atlantic Canada, as it did in the last budget when it killed the Atlantic accord. In the last budget it attacked Atlantic Canada; in this budget it ignored Atlantic Canada. It has gone from a Conservative government that holds Atlantic Canadians in contempt to a Conservative government that is indifferent to the needs of Atlantic Canada, so I guess it is a marginal improvement.

Beyond that, there is no mention of significant investment in child care and early learning. There is certainly very little on aboriginal files. Among its first actions as a government, it killed early child care and learning and the Kelowna accord.

On the auto sector, the government took a step to bring back an auto sector strategy. However, it paled in comparison, in terms of funding, with the Liberal auto sector strategy, which the current government killed upon its election.

In terms of manufacturing, the government took a timid step to extend the two year accelerated capital cost allowance to three years. Jayson Myers, the president of the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, said this about the budget:

They're eroding and diluting the single measure that would have been the most important for both investment and innovation and to do something for the environment.

He was absolutely right when he said the problem was that it took a while for companies to put capital investments in place. Companies take long term planning seriously and three years is not long enough; five years is required.

The budget does not really do a whole lot. It spreads money around a range of issues. The government is trying to look like it is accomplishing something, but in fact it is more about impressions than achieving anything.

I want to speak about not just what the budget did not do, but on what a visionary, responsible government ought to be doing right now.

Right now Canada has a remarkable opportunity to become a global leader in what will be the fastest growing area of the 21st century economy, and that is cleantech, environmental technologies and clean energy.

We are already an energy producer. That gives us an opportunity to leverage on that position, to go from being a traditional energy producer to being a clean energy producer. We should be putting the tax measures, regulatory measures and the direct investment into research and development that we require to make that transition as an economy.

I was at the World Economic Forum in Davos a few weeks ago. The top CEOs, business, political, finance thinkers and leaders from around the world were at that conference. They were clamouring to get into sessions on cleantech, on environmental technologies and on biofuels.

The consensus was that the world was moving toward a global carbon constraint economy, that individual governments would be putting a price on carbon. That is occurring already. France is speaking of a carbon tax and bringing in a carbon tariff. California is moving toward that. It is happening within our own country in fact. Quebec has moved in that direction with a carbon tax. The most recent budget in British Columbia put a very significant carbon tax in place and a green tax shift.

As the consensus becomes international policy, governments that have not prepared for this will go from being environmental laggards to being economic laggards. The same with companies that have not prepared for this. If their carbon footprint is too large, they will be economically uncompetitive.

We should be moving pre-emptively to put a price on carbon. That is why our party, under our leader, has presented the idea of a carbon budget. It would put a price on carbon to ensure that the 700 highest emitters in Canada would have a carbon budget within which live. If they went over that, based on $30 per tonne of carbon, they would pay into a fund from which they could withdraw money for investments in cleantech proposals, clean projects, infrastructure and green infrastructure. It is a very innovative approach. It is the kind of approach any responsible government, which recognizes the environmental imperative and the economic opportunity, would do.

Some of the most successful venture capital firms in the world, like Kleiner Perkins, one of the early stage investors in Yahoo, are putting most of their capital today in cleantech. Globally, companies like Goldman Sachs, the Carlyle Group and others are speaking of the cleantech opportunity. This is a great opportunity for Canada to excel in what will be a highly competitive industry.

It is also going to be an area where we should be deepening our trade and broadening our trade relationships. We should be focusing on China. I speak with a lot of Canadian business leaders who have long-standing business relationships in China. They speak of the business they are losing and the fact that we are falling behind in terms of our bilateral relationship with China because of the Conservative government's approach to China. At a time when we should be deepening the relationship and we should be presenting ourselves and building ties to become the clean energy partner that China needs, we are burning those bridges.

We need to go beyond the meaningless little tax measures designed to buy votes. We need significant broad-based tax reform, focused on building productivity and prosperity.

We need to invest in infrastructure because we have a national infrastructure deficit. It is a recreational infrastructure deficit in some communities and in many communities it is a green infrastructure deficit. We still have too many Canadian cities dumping raw sewage into harbours and into bodies of water. We have a significant crisis on transportation infrastructure and transit. We need to invest in agriculture as it is facing challenges.

The fact is we need a government with a vision. I am looking forward to exploring this vision more when we have questions and answers.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my Liberal colleague to explain that this would take a government with vision, but it has none. He comes from one of the Atlantic provinces and, like he said, there is nothing in this budget for Atlantic Canada. I agree with him, since there is also nothing here for Quebec.

The problem is that he and his party will remain seated, hide somewhere—I do not know quite what—while the government passes a budget that is not welcomed by the maritime provinces, Quebec or Ontario. I am having a very hard time with this.

Considering his fine speech, I am trying to understand—since it is probably an election platform—why, in this case, does he not use this very opportunity to challenge the Conservatives' ideas in an election campaign? That could have been his solution.

I would like him to explain to me and everyone listening how we can possibly not be disillusioned by politics? Indeed, he delivered an excellent speech against the Conservatives' politics, even though he is about to let them get away with them. As a citizen of the Maritimes, he has the opportunity to stand up for his fellow citizens against this government, but he is letting it pass him by.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague's question. However, it is clear that the Liberal Party's responsibility is different than that of the Bloc Québécois or the NDP.

The Liberal Party has a responsibility as the party that formed a government in the past and that will form a government in the future—the near future, I hope. Our responsibility is to be credible, to present clear ideas and to choose the appropriate moment for forming a government. That is not the case for the Bloc Québécois and it is not possible for the New Democrats. Consequently, we are entrusted with a very important responsibility and we take it very seriously.

In the next election, we will present innovative ideas as well as a clear vision and solid platform to make Canada greener, more just and more prosperous. That is very important to us and I very much appreciate his question.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member's critique of the budget. I hear his colleagues describe the federal government as a very frightening far right-wing government. They rail against the policies and budgets of the government in their ridings. However, when they come to Ottawa, they either vote with the government, or they stay in their seats. Which is the real opposition? What they say in their ridings when they talk to constituents, or what they do in Ottawa?

We know there is nothing in the budget for the very poorest people in our society, nothing for homelessness, nothing for affordable housing, nothing for seniors. It completely abandons the manufacturing sector.

Is it a far right-wing government that Liberals will do everything to fight against, which is what they say in the riding, or is it the vote in favour or sitting on their hands when they are in Ottawa? Which is it?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is we consider the consequences of budget votes more seriously than the NDP. In fact, if members of the NDP had considered the consequences of their budget vote that defeated the last Liberal government, they probably would not have followed through on it. They killed a national early learning and child care system. They killed a tremendously important Kelowna accord.

In fact, as a party that has never formed a government, as a party that will never form a government, those members can say whatever they want. We, on the other hand, believe it is extremely important to be a responsible opposition and not to—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to offer the House my response to the budget. For the Canadian public, this is not an exciting budget. As the representative for Newton—North Delta I see two key reasons for this.

First and foremost, this is a document that leans heavily on the past Liberal government for inspiration.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Like what?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

I will be coming back to that.

There was a strange sense of déjà vu on Tuesday, listening to the finance minister deliver policy after policy that first came from the Liberal side of the House. For example, take the gas tax that is proposed to be permanently transferred to the cities for infrastructure. The Liberal member for Wascana announced in 2005, “The Government of Canada will share with municipalities a portion of the revenue from the federal excise tax on gasoline to help provide new, reliable, long term funding to ensure fairness among regions and among communities”. This example is only one of many measures announced on Tuesday that we have all heard before.

Another glaring example of the void of ideas from the government is the fact that since last year's budget, the Liberal Party has called for support for the auto sector. Yet the finance minister refused to act upon it until now. Why this sudden reversal of politics and patience? Because the government has become very nervous by the polls. It has realized that what attracts voters are Liberal policies that make a difference in the lives of people.

For these reasons, the budget is something that is not worth triggering an election over. Although, over the past couple of days many people have asked me why the Prime Minister is finally listening to the demands of the official opposition. My answer continues to be that this is the path with which Canadians are most comfortable. The finance minister was obviously made aware of this in the budget consultations across the country.

The second reason the budget was a disappointment was the fact that the specific priorities of my riding of Newton—North Delta had come up well short in this budget.

In the 2006 election campaign, the Prime Minister made a pledge to put an additional 2,500 municipal police officers on the street. During the past two years, city and municipal leaders and police departments have been appalled by the lack of action. I have raised this matter in the House and in the media as well, but not one cent has been invested toward the election promise until Tuesday.

Now that the money has been committed, it is clear that the amount is completely insufficient to attract enough new officers to make our streets and communities safer. In every city in Canada, local police departments and RCMP detachments are hungry for new recruits. Aggressive campaigns have been initiated to attract the best and brightest. It has come to the point where municipalities are actively competing against one another for new personnel.

On Tuesday, the finance minister offered only $400 million over five years for those additional 2,500 municipal police officers.

I am not a mathematician, but I did some calculations to see how far that money would go. If we break down the $400 million over five years, it works out to $80 million annually, spread out over 2,500 officers. This averages to a rate of pay of only $32,000 a year.

Let us consider the work our police do, the dangerous realities of the job, the long hours and the time away from family. Officers are even being relied upon for mental health counselling on the street, according to the recent Vancouver police study. How can we possibly expect to attract the number of recruits needed with such an inadequate amount of funding?

My riding is also worried about the embarrassing investment in border security. Last year was the busiest year of cross-border traffic that Canada has seen since 2001 and yet this budget only allots enough money for one new officer per entry point.

My riding relies heavily on the smooth flow of goods and people being able to cross the border but since the summer the delays and lineups have been obscene. Business owners, exporters, trucking companies and residents are being forced to wait hours in their idling cars. They have all come to me, desperate for some kind of change. I have raised the issue with the minister in the past, but this budget will do little to relieve their frustration.

Going the other way, the government has stood by silently while the United States dictates its border policy in isolation. We are left with more traffic than our border security can handle but the government has failed to recognize how serious this problem is.

I am also troubled by what has happened to the Liberal legacy of fiscal responsibility. This budget projects a surplus of only $2.3 billion this year and $1.3 billion next year. This is well below the $3 billion contingency fund the Liberals established as a bare minimum to cushion against unanticipated economic shock.

The government's actions over the last two years have left it no room to manoeuvre if the economy continues to falter. We must not allow Canada to return to deficit but the irresponsible policies of the government have put us dangerously close to being in the red.

I sought out the opinions of my constituents of Newton—North Delta and found that there was little appetite to spend $300 million of taxpayer money. If we were to bring down the government, it would cost the taxpayers $300 million to go into an election. I have also found that people are looking for vision from the government, something that it is sorely lacking at this moment.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit puzzled by my colleague's speech in the sense that he talks about the concerns raised in the budget and that the budget does not meet the needs of Canadian.

We have heard the commentary all day long that it is supportable because Canadians do not want an election, but the co-chair for the Liberals' election campaign basically told reporters that the Liberals will provoke an election when they think they can win. The bottom line is that simple.

Why is my friend not willing to address the issues that he feels are important, whether it be poverty, the manufacturing crisis, education or health care? Why are all those people who are affected by those issues disposable because the Liberals want to pick a time when they can win an election as opposed to debating this in a democracy?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if that member and the NDP are so concerned about child care, aboriginal communities and poverty, why did they vote with the Conservatives in the last election to bring down the Liberal government? He should remember that by doing so, we lost the child care agreements with the provincial governments, the Kelowna accord and the Kyoto protocol.

It was because of the NDP. The member for Windsor West and his party should be ashamed for raising this issue.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Windsor West will be recognized on a point of order which I hope is not a point of debate.