This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!

House of Commons Hansard #59 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was seniors.

Topics

Bill C-46--Canadian Wheat Board ActPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I thank the government House leader for his submissions on this matter, and the hon. member for Malpeque for his further submissions.

We are going to hear now from the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food on the same point.

Bill C-46--Canadian Wheat Board ActPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Battlefords—Lloydminster Saskatchewan

Conservative

Gerry Ritz ConservativeMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Malpeque is throwing a little obscure argument into this. If we actually look at Bill C-46, the whole issue is changing section 47, not working within the framework. When we are seeking to change section 47, there is no need for discussion. There is no need for consultation. There is no need for a farmer plebiscite or for a further vote.

The hon. member for Malpeque is being disingenuous, which is as polite as I can be, in saying that we need to have all of this in because section 47 calls for it. We are not changing anything within section 47. We are changing the whole darn thing, so it is a different argument altogether.

Bill C-46--Canadian Wheat Board ActPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Again, I thank the minister. I am quite prepared to review the situation and get back to the House. I thank the hon. members for their further submissions on this matter.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup on a point of order.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the debate, before oral question period, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages was delivering a speech. She still had some five or 10 minutes remaining, and everyone hoped that she would finish her speech, or that she would at least be present, if she had nothing further to say, in order to respond to questions from the opposition and other members of this House.

At the very least, the Minister of Canadian Heritage should be present in the House to finish her presentation and, above all, to answer questions from the members of this House.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

It is unfortunate, but this happens from time to time. It is possible that, after oral question period or when debate is interrupted, the member who was speaking may have left and not return.

However, it seems that the problem is solved—this time, at least.

The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for questions and comments.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that the minister suddenly appeared after our remarks.

Many requests from the cultural sector went unanswered in this budget.

I would like the minister to tell me why, for example, there is no $50 million increase for the Canada Feature Film Fund, and no $300 million increase in the Canada Council for the Arts budget. What about creating the $10 million documentary feature film fund that the cultural community is calling for? What about reinstating full funding for the museums assistance program, or reinstating the Canada Council for the Arts grants for the theatre touring and special initiatives program? What about getting rid of the GST on books?

Clearly there are a number of subjects and sectors that the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages should have convinced the Minister of Finance to include in his budget. Not one of these measures is in the budget.

Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us what she will do to resolve this issue? Because it is rather scary that the cultural sector, which is very important in Quebec and Canada, does not get more attention from this government.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Louis-Saint-Laurent Québec

Conservative

Josée Verner ConservativeMinister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. In our 2006 and 2007 budgets, our government put forth a series of measures to provide assistance to the arts and culture community. For instance, there was the $50 million for the Canada Council for the Arts. In fact, it was $20 million for fiscal year 2006 and 2007 and $30 million for this year. The $30 million has been made a recurring amount to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Canada Council for the Arts.

Another example is the $30 million allocated for festivals across the country. In particular, I was very pleased recently to announce substantial financial support for some major festivals which have earned great honour for us in the international community: the Luminato festival, the Montreal International Jazz Festival, the Just for Laughs Festival, the Quebec City Summer Festival and the Quebec Winter Carnival. When the sponsorship program was cancelled under the former Liberal government, the carnival was left with no means of assuring its financial survival. I was pleased to announce $160,000 for the Quebec Winter Carnival. Those are only some of the measures that were taken to support the cultural sector.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

An hon. member

Oh, oh!

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Josée Verner Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

I will be pleased to answers questions from the member, provided that I am not constantly interrupted. I am available to provide answers.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Susan Kadis Liberal Thornhill, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member why she cut funding for advocacy in the women's program. How can she justify this? Why are she and her government continually putting regressive ideology that is not in the best interests of women in Canada before what is in their best interests? Why is this happening with the government in the 21st century?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Josée Verner Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, I imagine if the member had taken the time to read it, she would have found that in the 2008 budget our government has made a commitment to bring forward a national action plan to promote gender equality, something the Liberal government did not do. It was our government that did it.

Our government has also increased the program budget for Status of Women Canada by nearly 76%. It should be recognized that between 2002 and 2006, until we took office, the program budget for Status of Women Canada hovered around $10.2 million, with occasional, barely noticeable increases or decreases.

It took a Conservative government to increase the budget to enable women to obtain concrete results and to fund more projects to help women obtain their fair share in our society, reach equality with men and achieve the objectives they have set in their lives. That is the intention of our government.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Susan Kadis Liberal Thornhill, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to rise in the House today to provide my comments on the Conservative 2008 budget.

I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Oak Ridges—Markham.

As a result of the two year spending spree by the biggest-spending finance minister in Canadian history, there is not much to this budget. After only two years of Conservative government, the cupboard is bare.

The government has spent nearly every penny and has left no room for error. If the U.S. economy continues to worsen or if Canada faces a crisis such as SARS, we will most likely be plunged into a deficit again.

Simply put, for the next two years Canada has no contingency if things go wrong. The question becomes, is this due to gross fiscal mismanagement or is this by design? Either way, the situation Canada now faces is very worrisome and bears serious, close monitoring.

Recent media stories featured Conservative strategist Tom Flanagan crowing about: “tightening the screws on the federal government...boxing in the ability of the federal government to come up with new program ideas...The federal government is now more constrained”.

The writing on the wall is clear. The Conservatives have depleted the federal reserves and totally washed their hands of national standards only to let each province do its own thing, thereby abrogating their responsibilities and the integral role the federal government must play.

Instead of using the tools of the federal government to help Ontario transition through these economic challenges, the Minister of Finance goes on brutal, repeated, unprecedented attacks. The government is failing to fulfill its national role to help our struggling economy.

Our manufacturing sector is suffering. Sales have plummeted to a three year low. Canada's trade surplus has shrunk to its lowest levels in nearly a decade.

Despite taking marginal measures in budget 2008, the government has gone on the attack and the finance minister is outrageously trashing the investment prospects of the Ontario economy by suggesting in a public speech that Ontario is “the last place” in Canada to start a business. Ontario deserves better, much better. How does the minister expect investors to respond to his egregious comments?

Canadians would expect that with the livelihoods of families at stake the minister would be responsible and do his part to help them. I hope other provinces are taking note, because they could be next.

These are the words of a Thornhill constituent who happens to be a Conservative and who wrote to me about what the minister said in his recent attacks:

Your accusations regarding high taxes without recognizing other bigger problems associated with the slump in manufacturing is foolhardy. Time to be a deeper thinker regarding the manufacturing woes of the province of Ontario”.

The government's indifference to Ontario's economic troubles goes all the way to the Prime Minister, an economist by training, whose idea of economic advice is reportedly to tell a group of soon to be unemployed auto workers in Kitchener to move to Alberta. That is no solution. It is divisive. It is offensive. It is certainly not leadership.

It is typical, however, of the Conservatives' hands off, head in the sand, “laissez-faire, I don't care” approach to the economy and other issues such as the environment. Our federal government should be doing more to stand up for Ontario in the manufacturing sector, not undermining it.

The Conservative government lacks the vision, the leadership and the will to address our critical infrastructure deficit, including investments in public transit that our cities desperately need and are crying out for.

The government does not understand how critical these investments in public transit infrastructure are to growing cities such as my riding of Thornhill to combat the congestion we face. Every day, Thornhill residents are faced with the challenges of traffic congestion sucking the life out of our economy and quality of life, polluting the very air we breathe and impacting on the quality of life of every citizen.

The Yonge Street subway extension is the one critical investment for my community of Thornhill and York region that will make a real, significant and lasting impact, yet it was not in budget 2008. That is sadly lacking and very ill-conceived.

I wholeheartedly agree with Markham Mayor Frank Scarpitti's assessment of the budget's investment in public transit, when he states:

They fell dramatically short on rapid transit funding. The federal government needs to wake up to the idea that we need to have an infusion [immediately] of capital dollars. We cannot continue to take baby steps as it relates to infrastructure and rapid transit.

I have been a vocal and persistent advocate for investment in public transit and infrastructure since I was a city councillor, and a constant advocate for greater federal investments in public transit since I was elected as the member of Parliament for Thornhill. In the previous government, I strongly supported the establishment of the gas tax transfer for cities and making it definite, making it a permanent federal program. If the government needed to steal ideas, at least it stole a good one.

Canada is the only G-8 country without a national transit strategy. While the government has said that it is working on a strategy, it has stated that we will absolutely have no new funds.

It is important to understand that the first recommendation of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for a national transit strategy was new funding. It will be interesting to see how the government implements a national transit strategy, when it finally gets around to it, that does not burden municipalities with a new layer of bureaucracy and no financial support or partnership.

When it comes to public transit, the Conservative government has more excuses than credibility. The government has utterly failed to work with Ontario on its MoveOntario 2020 program. It failed to make the partnerships that are integral to the success of Ontario and other provinces in Canada. Of the little funding it has committed to transit in the last two years, it has taken its sweet time in delivering it. The money for the Spadina subway extension is still sitting in a bank account accruing costs and creating unnecessary and irresponsible delays. This extension is needed. The Minister of Finance, the Conservatives, any federal government should understand that unequivocally.

The Conservatives take no responsibility for their failure to deliver. Instead, they play the politics of division and the blame game, which is very counterproductive and very disappointing, certainly to the residents in Ontario and to all Canadians.

The Minister of Transport is blaming the Ontario premier for having partisan interests. The Minister of Finance is unjustifiably calling the mayor of Toronto an isolationist. More name calling.

Mayor Hazel McCallion practically had to wrestle the Conservative government to the ground to get her cheque for the Mississauga rapid transit system after a year of bickering and foot dragging by the Conservative government. So much for a new era of cooperation that the Conservatives were supposed to be shepherding in. This is another Conservative broken promise.

My colleague from Ajax--Pickering has pointed out the government's hypocrisy on transit. During the city of Ottawa's municipal elections in 2006, the then president of the Treasury Board took the unprecedented step of withholding $200 million in federal funding for a light rail project in Ottawa even though the approvals of seven departments of the federal government, including his own, had already been secured. That is unfathomable.

The Liberal caucus has proposed a bold and innovative plan to address public transit, our roads, bridges and water treatment plants which are important across the country. We have a balanced approach that would use the surplus to pay off our national debt, as we had before, and our infrastructure deficit. That is the difference between the Conservative government and our previous government and our future.

In this year's budget, we would have spent $3 billion on debt repayment to bring our debt to GDP ratio down to 25% by 2012 and invested the remaining $7.2 billion in infrastructure and transit, like the province of Ontario's MoveOntario 2020 program and the recently announced B.C. transit plan.

While debt repayment remains a key Liberal priority, we cannot and must not allow our communities to suffer, leaving a legacy of crumbling bridges, congested roads and a record-breaking number of smog days. There is too much at stake for Canadians.

U.S. senator, Joe Biden, likes to say that his father taught him, “Show me your budget and I'll show you what you value”. Let us look at the budget and see how much the government values protecting the health and safety of Canadians.

Of the 2008 initiatives for protecting the health and safety of Canadians, the government spends a total of $209 million, which accounts for about 3.5% of all spending. That certainly does not sound to me or to Canadians like a government that values protecting the health and safety of Canadians at all.

There is at least some money being put aside toward Canada's safety system for food, consumer products and health products. I hear my constituents' concerns about pesticides in their food and the safety of toy imports and baby products. Canadians need to know that the products they use meet the highest of standards. I am concerned that the $113 million set aside over two years will not be enough for such important safety concerns.These concerns deserve and warrant the appropriate allocation of funding and attention. I will definitely be following the progress of this initiative very closely.

Thousands of products coming across our borders every day could potentially harm Canadians. My constituents consistently tell me that they want to be certain that the regulations on food, consumer products and health products meet the highest standards.

I frequently hear concerns about the secretiveness of the Security and Prosperity Partnership and the fear that it may result in lower safety standards. I have raised the issue directly with the Minister of Health to ensure that we not only maintain our high standards in this area but we take even greater steps forward to improve and strengthen them.

Canadians and Thornhill residents will not forget that the government campaigned on health care as being one of its top priorities and yet, in this budget, protecting the health and safety of Canadians only accounts for 3.5% of 2008 initiative spending. However, the government's Minister of Health is the same Ontario minister who gutted our health care system, closed hospitals and fired nurses. Unfortunately, it may not be surprising that the government has spent so little of budget 2008 initiatives on protecting the health and safety of Canadians.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments made by the member for Thornhill and was struck by the fact that she did not once mention the environment. Climate change is the biggest crisis of the 21st century and yet the government's fiscal plan, as presented in last week's budget, does nothing to take meaningful steps to address this problem.

I suppose a few people in the Conservative government would not be surprised by that since the Conservatives are still denying the science of climate change, but as a member of the Liberal Party and the official opposition I would have hoped that the member forThornhill would have at least recognized the importance of the issue.

On Friday, I had the great privilege of being invited into the classrooms of Miss Johnson and Mr. Shea at Our Lady of Lourdes Elementary School in Hamilton Mountain. Some of their students had written to me earlier to urge the government to take concrete actions to fight climate change. We had a lively discussion about the environment and they told me what they were doing to fight climate change. They are in the process of undertaking the certification to become an ecoschool. They are having litterless lunches, planting trees, composting, picking up and recycling litter and turning off lights and computers when they are no longer needed.

However, they also had some really strong suggestions for what the government ought to be doing, and that is governments at all levels. Municipally, they wanted to see an anti-idling bylaw, a pesticide ban and a limit on the amount of garbage that people could put at the curb.

Provincially, they wanted to see an extension of GO Transit. They wanted the closure of coal-fired plants and standards to reduce the packaging around products.

Federally, they wanted to see initiatives that supported solar energy, wind turbines and fuel efficient cars.

This budget does not mention any of those initiatives.

A show that is currently on TV is called Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader? On behalf of the students at Our Lady of Lourdes, I would like to ask the member for Thornhill whether she is smarter than a seventh grader and, if she is, can she commit today that she will vote against this budget that lets down an entire generation of young people who recognize what the government does not, which is that climate change should be our number one priority?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Susan Kadis Liberal Thornhill, ON

Mr. Speaker, I did reference the environment in my speech but I guess the hon. member did not hear that particular point.

I have been a champion of banning pesticide use for several years now. As well, these important and needed infrastructure and transit needs go directly to the environment, to the smog and to our quality of life. Again, we can only expect photo-ops from the Conservative government. It is very good at making splashy announcements but it is not very good on delivering.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, we usually expect trash-talking from seven-foot basketball players not vertically challenged finance ministers. That is a slam dunk for the hon. member.

I want to ask the hon. member about this trash-talking that is going on by the vertically challenged finance minister. Does she think that it is a useful exercise for the financial challenges that Canada faces but, in particular, what Ontario faces?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Ken Epp Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not sure of the appropriateness of referring to a member's physical appearance. I am very afraid that if the member ever starts attacking me for mine I am in real trouble. Therefore, I think you should ask the member to retract this and perhaps pick on people his own size.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I think the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood realized his error because, of course, when he referred to the Minister of Finance as vertically challenged, he is the same height as the Speaker. I may look taller when I am standing up here but not when I am beside the Minister of Finance.

I do not think it was particularly insulting. I know the hon. member for Scarborough--Guildwood will try to avoid such references in the future.

The hon. member for Thornhill has the floor.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Susan Kadis Liberal Thornhill, ON

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. It is particularly shocking, unprecedented and totally unbefitting for a federal Minister of Finance to continue railing with these sustained and unprecedented attacks on Ontario, particularly at a time when so many people in the manufacturing sector and elsewhere are suffering.

One would think that this is a time when he should be taking measures and speaking in a way and encouraging others to help Canadians in Ontario and Canada.

It is really unfathomable and it should not be accepted. I think everyone in the House should condemn it and not give a comfort level to this type of an attack that is highly inappropriate, non-productive and actually destructive.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Lui Temelkovski Liberal Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the budget today.

Last month marked an important milestone for me, but it was not the budget. Forty years ago, on February 24, 1968, I arrived in Canada at the age of 13. In one month, I would say “no English” and in two months I would say, “no speak any English”. Today, I am an elected representative of the largest riding in Canada. There are few countries in the world where a newcomer, who arrived without a command of either official language, could find himself commenting on the national affairs as an equal alongside parliamentarians whose roots go back much further. That is one reason why Canada is a blessed country.

I intend to use this opportunity to speak to the budget, a budget that will undoubtedly impact the lives of millions of Canadians.

It should have been a budget that would prepare the Canadian economy for the hard times forecast for the near future without losing sight of the responsibility we have as parliamentarians to help ordinary Canadians get through those hard times. We cannot ignore the demands the economic downturn is placing on the federal budget, nor can we ignore Canadians in need of help.

I would like to focus my remarks on a few issues that I feel are important as they relate to the budget.

Events ranging from the high Canadian dollar to the U.S. economic downturn to high energy prices are adversely affecting the Canadian economy. Canada, as a trading nation, has long depended on stable international markets and this economic situation should concern us all.

Many dynamic manufacturing, life sciences and high tech enterprises have operations in my riding of Oak Ridges—Markham. These enterprises employ hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of people in the area. Plus, the local economy in my riding is tied to the largest economy of the greater Toronto area in southern Ontario. Many constituents, like Canadians across the country, are not sheltered from the effects of an ailing economy.

The impact of the economic downturn on manufacturing in Canada has been especially troubling. More than 130,000 Canadian manufacturing well-paid, high-tech jobs have been lost in the last year alone. If current economic trends continue, more jobs may be lost. For this reason, it was important for the budget to invest in Canadian families.

However, It fell short in several areas. I would like to focus on immigration, trade, health care and infrastructure spending.

I will start with immigration. Of the more than 200,000 newcomers who choose Canada every year, many settle in the major urban centres in Canada that are home to key industries. Many settle in my riding. Just last month I played host to a group of about 50 new Canadian citizens eager to contribute to our society.

The budget announced several measures to modernize the immigration system and streamline the process so that we can swiftly address our labour needs. As important as it is to improve processing, we also need to assist people once they are in Canada. It is important that we tailor programs to meet their needs and help them to integrate successfully into Canadian society.

The budget does not address foreign credentials. According to the Gandalf Group survey of the top 1,000 companies' executives in Canada, recognizing foreign credentials is one of the measures executives are looking for the government to implement. The government's decision to create a foreign credential referral service a few months ago fell short of addressing one of the major challenges facing new Canadians.

During the last election, the Conservatives promised to set up an agency for foreign credential assessment and recognition. Instead, they announced that Service Canada offices would do little more than refer people to provincial credential offices.

Turning to trade, we have learned from the firsthand experiences of many witnesses, who have testified at the trade committee, that Canada needs to diversify its trade relationships. It is never a good idea for business to put all its eggs in one basket. The same holds true for a country like Canada with so many vital export industries. That is why we are exploring the pros and cons of a trade agreement with South Korea in committee.

The business community has been requesting that we strengthen our representation in India and China. The Liberal Party has promised to harness business, community and research links through the creation of a south Asian foundation of Canada. Much like the Asia-Pacific foundation of Canada, its south Asian foundation counterpart would help Canada tap into the growing dynamism of the Indian subcontinent.

Such measures, designed to foster trade diversification, would help strengthen Canada's competitiveness over time. The government has chosen to concentrate on the Americas, but vision is needed for Canada to remain competitive in the “Asian century”.

Moving on to health, Canadians expect parties to work together to improve health care. This is especially true in minority government situations. It is especially true if we are to steer Canada's public health care system through tough economic times. As the vice-chair of the health committee, I am reminded weekly of health care challenges, from wait times to doctor shortages.

According to the Canadian Medical Association, almost five million Canadians do not have a physician. I have raised this issue with the health minister in committee. We have to find ways to continue to address these shortcomings, but the budget fails to do so.

The party opposite campaigned on wait times but dropped the ball in this budget. The budget sets aside funds for health and safety initiatives, but wait times are not among them.

Finally, on infrastructure spending, my party would have budgeted $3 billion a year as a contingency reserve to protect us from deficits or times of need, such as natural disasters. This budget left us with projected surpluses of $2.3 billion for 2008-09 and $1.3 billion for the next year, well below the $3 billion contingency fund that Liberals consider the bare minimum to address economic shocks.

As the representative of some of Canada's fastest growing municipalities, such as Markham, Stouffville, Richmond Hill and King, I know firsthand how important issues relating to roads, public transit and energy supply are to ordinary Canadians. When I speak to constituents in my riding, traffic congestion often comes up in conversation.

We can remain fiscally responsible by allocating a portion of government surplus to debt reduction while also allocating money to fix Canada's infrastructure. However, this budget leaves Canada with few additional contingency funds, owing to previous spending patterns and tax cuts.

It is ironic that the government chose to attack our prudent finance plan, claiming we would drive Canada into deficit. This is to distract from its own financial mismanagement, its own program spending and tax cuts.

These are some of the shortcomings in the budget, as I see them.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member opposite on his diligence and hard work, and the successes that he has achieved in his 40 years since coming to Canada.

I am glad he is here in the House representing his constituents. He has highlighted for all of us the number of blessings that we have in this great country.

I was a little disappointed, though, to hear him use the word mismanagement when it comes to the fiscal record of this government. I would hope that he would not see the fact that we paid down $37 billion of national debt as mismanagement. He alludes to the plan of his party to pay down $3 billion per year. I am not a chartered accountant, but I do know that $37 billion over three budgets is somewhat in excess of $3 billion per year.

I would like to ask the member this question. Does he not feel that it is good financial management for this government to pay down debt? This is similar to a person who has a debt, perhaps a mortgage on his house, and who would try to reduce that debt. We are reducing the cost of the interest for future generations. For years and years that debt cost will be reduced by the fact that we have reduced our national debt by $37 billion.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Lui Temelkovski Liberal Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

Mr. Speaker, when I mentioned mismanagement, I mentioned it in the context of the Conservative government saying that the Liberals have been big spenders and have not been able to balance budgets.

On the contrary, we had eight consecutive balanced budgets with surpluses in the past. This is the only area where I am mentioning mismanagement.

In terms of repaying the debt, I am in agreement as most Canadians would be, that it is very prudent to make sure that we repay our debt. It is also equally important to make sure that we do not repay our debt and forget about the people who need the programs. We have to make sure we have a good balance when we are dealing with the two issues together.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, last week the head of the TSX said of the income trust decision, that it has knee-capped the industry and has hurt our reputation abroad.

The Minister of Finance made a speech in Halifax last week. He said that Ontario is the last place to invest in Canada. This morning's Globe and Mail says:

Outlook darkens ahead of bank-rate decision...Canada's gross domestic product actually contracted in December, the first time that had happened in a month since September of 2006...Canada's economy limped into 2008 at the slowest rate of growth in 4 1/2 years--

Does the hon. member consider the decisions made by the government to trash talk the Government of Ontario and the people of Ontario, the income trust decision which literally knee-capped a $35 billion industry, and the so-called management of this economy, to be anywhere close to competent?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Lui Temelkovski Liberal Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood mentions two good points. When the Minister of Finance for Canada stands up and trashes one of the largest provinces in the country, I do not call that responsible government.

Even if that were true, the Minister of Finance is the man who is supposed to be selling Canada, not only to Canadians but right across the world. He must find ways to make that a little bit sweeter, not put so much vinegar in his speech, especially when it comes to speaking about a province such as Ontario which has been so prosperous in the last 10 years.

There has been somewhat of a change in economic fortunes in the last couple of years. It is coincidental that we have a change in government federally, but maybe there is some truth to it. I will not put vinegar into my words and say that it was totally dependent on the new Conservative government that a downturn is happening, but we--