Debates of Jan. 28th, 2009

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

It is absolutely incredible to hear such a thing, Mr. Speaker. They are scratching each other's backs and would like to know if we will interfere. No, we are not going to interfere with their love-in. I would point out, however, that the person who just asked this question is the same person who slashed cultural programs, defended the cuts in major cultural programs in Quebec and Canada, thinks it is a damn good idea to re-enact the Battle of the Plains of Abraham and is very pleased with herself. We, however, do not want to hear about it. She can have it.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would appreciate it if you could look into the use by the member for Outremont of language that sounded unparliamentary to me.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

A point of order has been raised about the language used by the member for Outremont. I was listening to the English translation and it was unparliamentary in the translation. If the member would like to withdraw that, we could deal with this expeditiously.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I clearly recognized the frustration in the hon. member's comments as he was starting to get a little out of hand. I am glad he was taken to task for that.

We in the House, especially those of us in the opposition, are putting Canada and all Canadians first. If we look at the turmoil that is going on in our country and the challenges facing us, the last thing we need is to find ourselves in an election. The member has the option of a coalition.

I appreciate the interest in trying to ensure Canada works. We have made a decision to support the government conditionally. Given the conditions that we have put on the government and the fact that we are putting the government on probation, does the member not think that it would be a reasonable thing for his party to support as well?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

What breathtaking arrogance, Mr. Speaker. The Liberals have put the Conservatives on probation. What a joke. They are all trembling in their seats.

That is from a former head of Status of Women. She is supporting the Conservatives in their dastardly plan to withdraw from women the right to go to court and demand the right to have equal pay for work of equal value. What a shame.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speeches given by the leader of the NDP and by the deputy leader and member for Outremont, and I have to say that they are almost perfectly in line with what the NDP has always advocated with respect to comprehensive social justice programs. I should note, respectfully, that they are repeating in these speeches what was set out in the platform of the coalition that we supported. I would also remind this House and the hon. member that a large part of Quebec premier's agenda for the last first ministers meeting can also be found in a unanimous motion by Quebec's National Assembly.

Now that he is familiar with the Bloc's amendment to the amendment, I would like the hon. member to tell me, on behalf of his party, whether they intend to support the Bloc's amendment to the amendment, given that it is almost a carbon copy of what he himself said earlier about the rights that should be recovered—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. A short answer from the member for Outremont, please.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the amendment to the amendment talks first about maintaining the right of women to settle pay equity issues in court and goes on to talk about things the NDP has traditionally supported, we will have no problem supporting with enthusiasm the amendment to the amendment moved by the Bloc.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity to rise today to discuss budget 2009, Canada's economic action plan. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, it is also a great pleasure to share my time with the hon. minister, the member for the beautiful riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent.

It has been said that a crisis presents a moment of opportunity as well as great danger. The global economy is in the midst of a crisis, a crisis of capital, a crisis of credit, and most troubling, a crisis of confidence. While the epicentre of this financial crisis is the United States, its impacts have been global, on countries large and small, from China to Iceland. No country has been spared. However, our American neighbours have suffered the brunt. The human cost has been staggering: 2.6 million Americans lost their jobs last year, the worst job losses seen since the Second World War.

Canada, a major player in the global marketplace, has not been immune. In the last two months of 2008, we saw 100,000 jobs disappear. Behind the numbers are 100,000 worried faces, 100,000 difficult talks around the kitchen table, talks that will likely and unfortunately become more frequent in 2009.

In all this it is important to maintain perspective, difficult as it may be at times. The fundamentals of Canada's economy have remained strong leading up to the crisis of today. We as a people and as a government have made the prudent decisions to ensure our strength.

As Don Drummond, chief economist with the TD Bank, bluntly remarked the other day, “We have to hasten to remind ourselves that we are not the country that tanked the rest of the world. The rest of the world tanked us”.

Indeed, anticipating a faltering American and global economy, our Conservative government took preemptive and aggressive action to cushion the blow in October 2007 in our economic statement. Reading verbatim from page 7 of that document, available online for all to see:

--[T]he world economy is experiencing turbulence and increased uncertainty.

Given this global economic uncertainty, now is the time to act. Our strong fiscal position provides Canada with an opportunity that few other countries have--to make broad-based tax reductions that will strengthen our economy, stimulate investment and create more and better jobs.

The economic statement would go on to detail a package of $60 billion in tax cuts, consumption, personal and business, that would help protect Canadians through 2008.

As the IMF World Economic Outlook declared in April 2008:

A package of tax cuts has provided a timely fiscal stimulus.... [The Canadian] government's structural policy agenda should help increase competitiveness and productivity growth to underpin longer-term prospects.

Supporting that assertion is the plain fact that despite the significant job losses we have suffered in the last two months of the year, Canada still managed to create over 98,000 net new jobs for 2008 alone. As comforting a statistic as that may be, we must be under no illusion; all it is is a statistic, a historical fact.

The crisis has grown. The danger to Canada, its economy, the jobs it sustains and the families those jobs provide for has grown at a pace much more rapidly than anyone was predicting.

Enter budget 2009, Canada's economic action plan, a plan to stabilize and protect our economy for the short term while growing it in the long term. It is a plan informed by unprecedented exhaustive consultations with Canadians to a degree that has never been seen previously in our history. Never before has a government attempted to make the budget process as open, public and inclusive as it was for budget 2009.

I am proud to say that at the request of the Minister of Finance, I was personally engaged in this process. We invited the ideas of provincial and territorial governments, economists, academics, labour and non-governmental organizations. We sought out the input from everyday Canadians through online consultations and town halls. We formed an economic advisory council of private sector business leaders, some of Canada's pre-eminent business minds and most successful business leaders, who unselfishly gave of their time out of a desire to help their country in a time of tremendous need; a desire I believe that is shared by most members in the House.

We wrote to all members of Parliament, regardless of party affiliation, and asked them to provide a written submission reflecting the priorities of their communities, from Saint John to Montreal, from Thornhill to Saskatoon, to Victoria. We listened, we heard and now, after careful consideration, we act.

Canada's economic plan is so named for a reason. It reflects consensus, not ideology. It promotes the interests of people, not the bureaucrats of government. It is Canada's plan, our ambitions for today and the future ahead, ambitions both short and long term that will represent substantial costs that will cause Canada to fall into a deficit position. We do not enter this without concern. That is why we have put in place a plan to return to surplus. That is why prior to the current turmoil our Conservative government paid down $37 billion in debt. That is why we are laying out a five year plan to move back into surplus as the economy recovers.

Many Canadians recalling the legacies of deficits past will have reservations and concerns, and I understand that. However, before making a judgment, they should also read budget 2009, as taxpayers and as good citizens. They can read it online at wwwbudget.gc.ca, or call their local MP's office to obtain a copy.

Combined with the 2007 economic statement stimulus measures the economic action plan in budget 2009 is estimated to boost real GDP by 2.5% and create or maintain about 265,000 jobs by the end of 2010. This budget will be voted on soon by the learned members of the House. It is an absolute duty for all members to read the document and make an informed decision in the best interests of the Canadian people, not the narrow lens of partisanship.

I firmly believe that in doing that, this House will endorse budget 2009 and turn the crisis of today into the opportunity of tomorrow. We as a country have faced challenges before and we will face them again, but we are a strong people, resilient, tough and determined. We work together when times get tough. We grow stronger and more confident. We will endure the difficult times today with the promise of a brighter tomorrow.

This is a shared responsibility of all members of this place.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I did what the member requested. I read the document. The problem is it tells a much different story as compared to the government propaganda.

The fact of the matter is, and we have been saying this for some time and our leader said it today, that when the government came to power it had a huge surplus. It spent the cupboard bare. Through the reduction in the GST, which took away $12 billion a year, it destroyed the ability of the federal government to have the reserves to be able to do something real in terms of a stimulus package. I want to get the facts straight. The Conservatives are trying to leave the impression that this year there is about a $30 billion stimulus package. That is what economists have called for. The government is budgeting $34 billion and expecting that will leave the impression there is a $30 billion stimulus. In the budget document on page 217 it says there already is a deficit of $15.7 billion. Therefore, there is really only $18 billion worth of stimulus in the budget.

Is the minister and the government trying to hide the fact that they have already put this country in a $16 billion deficit hole before we even start to do stimulus?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Malpeque, Prince Edward Island, the home of my favourite oysters, by the way.

The hon. member talked about spending and the surplus that the Liberals claim they had. In fact, we have heard something about a contingency fund many times. A contingency fund is only as good as the legislation that creates it. I would remind hon. members that there was never a contingency fund created by the former Liberal government, nor by any government, I believe.

We all know that it is ludicrous to suggest to Canadians that paying down $37 billion of Canadian government debt is wasting money. That is what has put this country in the enviable position it sits in today, the leading fiscal balance in the G7. That is what the leadership of this government has done.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question to the parliamentary secretary is quite simple.

Yesterday, the Quebec finance minister, Monique Jérôme-Forget, who is a Liberal, a federalist, stated in her comments on the budget that Quebec will lose hundreds of millions of dollars because of changes made by the federal government to the equalization formula submitted to the provinces in 2007. Today, the Premier of Quebec, Jean Charest, a Liberal and a federalist, made the same comment. I would like the parliamentary secretary to tell me whether or not the federal government, the Conservative government, has changed the equalization formula without consulting the provinces.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to that is no. Consultations have taken place with all provincial partners. I spoke about that when answering questions during question period.

This government treats all provinces equally. That is why we brought back a balanced approach to equalization, so no provinces could claim that they were winners and no provinces would feel that they were losers.

I can give the member the facts. Quebec's share of equalization has increased 37% through this government. They are pretty hollow suggestions coming from the hon. member saying that it has been decreased. This government recognized that some provinces were falling behind. It recognized that and balanced that.

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

There are several reasons why I wanted to take part in this debate on our government's economic action plan. Naturally, I wanted to take part as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, but also as minister responsible for the Quebec City region. I would also like to congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Finance, on the outstanding work he has done over the past three months.

I am proud to have the opportunity to talk about our plan, which is made up of five important components for Canadians: home purchase and renovation, better roads, better bridges and new jobs; not to mention tax cuts, job protection and help for Canadians looking for new jobs, and assistance for research and development in leading-edge sectors and for extending high-speed Internet across the country.

A number of aspects of this debate bear directly on the effectiveness and the strengthening of our federation.

More than three years ago, our government adopted the open federalism approach, which respects provincial jurisdictions and recognizes the strengths of all the regions and their contributions to our country. Our economic action plan is in keeping with that openness to the provinces and territories.

Open federalism is based on the idea that our federation is not static, but is constantly evolving in order to respond to the changes and the realities of the 21st century.

This new approach enables the federation to take on the challenges facing the provinces and territories. Open federalism pays off for all Canadians. Managing intergovernmental relations therefore plays a critical role in keeping our federation running smoothly.

I do not need to reiterate the magnitude of the economic and financial challenges we are facing. The Minister of Finance covered that very effectively in his speech, as did other hon. members.

It is in that spirit of consultation and cooperation that our government plans to take on the greatest challenge we face today: strengthening our domestic economy. To that end, we have put in place a process to promote united action. The approach highlights the key role that intergovernmental relations play within our system of government.

We have held extensive consultations with individual Canadians, the provinces, the territories, municipalities large and small, aboriginal communities and many other stakeholders.

On December 17, the Minister of Finance met with his provincial and territorial counterparts in Saskatoon. Then, on January 16, I had the pleasure, along with the Prime Minister, of again meeting with the provincial premiers and the territorial leaders to find some common ground on how to stimulate the Canadian economy.

During that meeting, the political leaders of this country agreed to work to implement a number of these measures, their primary objectives being to strengthen the national economy through new, significant investments, ensure continued access to credit. and protect pension plans in Canada. In order to help workers and the unemployed, they agreed to amend two chapters of the agreement on internal trade, which will facilitate full labour mobility.

They agreed to take immediate action on infrastructure and to accelerate project financing for the 2009 and 2010 construction seasons.

Our economic action plan offers a concrete follow-up to the measures agreed upon by the premiers and the territorial leaders on January 16 to make significant new investment through budgets in order to support the economy in the short term as well as prepare it for long-term challenges.

With the budget presented by the Minister of Finance, our government has committed firmly to this path and we hope that our partners will do the same given the results of the meeting with the premiers and the territorial leaders.

Indeed, I am pleased that we already have the support of a number of provinces, including British Columbia. Premier Campbell has described our action plan as positive, laying the foundation for a more productive and competitive future and creating and maintaining jobs in Canada.

Canada's economic action plan will stimulate the economy by pursuing the following goals: investing immediately in infrastructure; cutting taxes and freezing employment insurance contributions; stimulating housing construction; improving access to financing and strengthening Canada's financial system; introducing measures to help Canadians; and supporting businesses and communities.

As a minister from Quebec, I would like to draw attention to certain advantages to my province in this economic action plan.

In 2009-10, Quebec still benefits from sizeable federal transfers which will continue to grow in the long term.

There is a provision for a total of $17.6 billion for 2009-10, that is $700 million more than last year and an increase of close to $5.2 billion since 2005-06. This increasing long-term support helps to ensure that Quebec has the necessary resources to provide essential public services and contributes to the achievement of shared national goals, particularly in the areas of health care, post-secondary education and other important components of Canada's social safety net.

This overall assistance includes such things as $8.3 billion through equalization, or an increase of $3.5 billion; $5.7 billion through the Canada health transfer, or $196 million more than last year; $2.5 billion through the Canada social transfer, which is over $373 million more for Quebec.

Moreover, Quebec will receive $116 million for worker training as part of a commitment to provide $500 million in new funding to the provinces and territories each year starting with 2008-09.

Since it has been in place, this government has provided Quebec individuals and businesses with $40.1 billion in tax breaks.

During this fiscal year, and the next five, the additional tax cuts set out in our economic action plan will provide individuals and businesses in the province with tax breaks of $4.2 billion, for example in the form of income tax reductions, help for families with children, an age credit and a temporary home renovation tax credit.

Quebec will profit from $1.9 billion in improved employment insurance benefits, and $4.5 billion to maintain the low level of EI contributions in 2009-10 country-wide.

The province will receive its share of the $4.5 billion over two years earmarked for infrastructure projects, particularly improvements to the road system in the greater Quebec City area, and to various water and sewage systems.

Other initiatives are specific to the province. The Coast Guard will receive 98 new vessels and will see renovations done on another 40. This initiative will benefit Quebec City, the site of the regional Coast Guard centre for the province, as well as Davie shipyards, where some of the work can be carried out.

Another two million dollars will make it possible to draw up plans for the future of the Quebec City Armoury.

Some $12 million will be invested in 2011-12 and 2012-13 in infrastructure in order to boost tourism by promoting international cruises on the St. Lawrence and Saguenay Rivers.

Beyond the important measures it contains, I believe the real significance of this budget is greater than the economic benefits it will generate.

That brings me back to the idea I expressed at the beginning of my speech. This economic action plan is a tangible example of our willingness to work together with our partners in the federation to take on the daunting challenges of these turbulent times.

It is based on our government's close consultations with all sectors and in all regions of the country. It reflects our determination to face adversity with confidence and optimism without losing sight of the difficult task that we are already tackling and will see to the end.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, as the Liberal leader said today, we will support this budget on a conditional basis. I have some concerns about the budget and specifically about how the budget allegedly assists people who need help the most.

I want to ask the minister three specific questions, the first two about EI. First, I received an email today from a constituent, which is titled, “47 days and still waiting to see if I'm even approved for EI”. People across Canada who are losing their jobs are being told that the processing time for EI, which was averaging 28 days, has gone to 40 days. Is it acceptable in this period of economic uncertainty that people need to wait that long?

Second, we heard that the government will freeze premium rates. Last year a crown corporation for EI was created, the major purpose of which was to set premium rates. Is this an indication that the government has abandoned that new crown corporation?

Third, on the national child tax benefit, does the minister think it is fair that somebody making $40,000 a year receives $436 but a family making $20,000 gets nothing?

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

With regard to employment insurance, our government's commitment is very clear. Our objective is to help workers who are in trouble, who will bear the brunt of the economic crisis. Significant amounts have been invested to increase eligibility for employment insurance and also to provide training to those who wish to choose another career path. These are significant amounts and they were already announced in yesterday's action plan.

I am confident that my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, will ensure that workers hit hard by this crisis will obtain help from our government.

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

Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is quite simple. Yesterday, Quebec's finance minister, Monique Jérôme-Forget, and today, the Premier of Quebec, Jean Charest—both known as staunch federalists—stated that the federal government unilaterally changed the equalization formula from what was submitted to the provinces in 2007, which will deprive Quebec of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Earlier, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance if it was true that changes to the equalization formula had been made unilaterally, without any consultation. His answer was no, but the Premier of Quebec and his finance minister say that it is indeed the case.

Who is telling the truth? That is my question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. With respect to how equalization is calculated, I would just like to say that the Minister of Finance met in Saskatoon with all his provincial colleagues before the holidays. He apprised them of the changes to be made to the equalization formula.

That having been said, Quebec's Minister of Finance described the approach at the time as a reasonable one. In a nutshell, Quebec will continue to receive larger equalization payments.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I ask this question of the minister in my capacity as the NDP critic for forestry. Two years ago, $200 million was promised by the government to fight the pine beetle. To this date the money has not materialized. Now in the budget there is no mention at all of dedicated spending to deal with the pine beetle problem. This is just one example of critical spending that is not in the budget. I would like to ask the minister when this promised money will be released?

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

As is known, the government honours its commitments. The government announced a package to deal with this particular issue, and it will deliver on it.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the budget. Our leader and members of our party have spoken and we have come to the conclusion that the budget contains some positive and some negative elements.

On the positive side, we see substantial funding for training, for example, and for social housing. On the negative side, we see substantial deficiencies in certain areas, and I will speak about those shortly. Examples of that are the flow of money to infrastructure and deficiencies in employment insurance.

However, at the end of the day, after much consultation, our leader came to the conclusion that the Liberal Party would support the budget, subject to a very important amendment. We would hold the government to account and require it, on condition of our support for the budget, to provide quarterly very substantive reviews of the progress or lack of progress that had been made in implementing the budget, under the headings of supporting the vulnerable, the jobs of today, the jobs of tomorrow, regional fairness, and we do not want a permanent deficit.

In each of these areas we will require detailed information provided by the government. The timing will be such that this information will be provided close to a day on which a confidence vote is possible. Should the progress not be satisfactory or should the government not be willing to implement changes that the situation requires, then we would be able to propose a motion of non-confidence.

We are insisting on this partly because, for us, the budget is inadequate in certain areas. I also think it is important to say that we do not have a lot of confidence in the government in terms of its goodwill when it comes to certain aspects of its budget. I am thinking particularly about the Prime Minister's behaviour in the past when he did not support significant government intervention for social housing or even infrastructure.

It seems as though his motivation is based on the fact that he does not want the government to be defeated. And so, as soon as this has been passed, it is possible that the government's willingness to do what it says it will do in the budget, will be limited. That is why we are insisting on a quarterly report, to ensure that the government does what it says it will do.

That is the general body of our approach.

I now turn to a few of the different elements in the budget. However, before I do that, I will give a bit of a timeline. It has been a long and twisting road that has brought us to this point.

In September the Prime Minister told us that if Canada were to have a recession, we probably would have had it by then.

In October the Prime Minister told Canadians that there were a lot of good buying opportunities in the stock market. Since then, the stock market has plunged precipitously.

In November the government tabled an economic update that said things were still fine and that the government would run nothing but surpluses for many years to come. That was just two months and a day ago. In that two month period, we have gone from nothing but surpluses to a deficit of $64 billion over a period of two years.

Then, in December, at the request of me and the member for Kings—Hants, the government updated its forecast and it showed that we were in a recession and that we were headed for a deficit of around $6 billion. That was before spending any money at all on a stimulus package.

It has been a long and torturous path. One day the Prime Minister speaks of the land is strong. A couple of weeks later he speculates on depression. One day it is surpluses forever. Two months later it is a deficit of $64 billion. This is not a government that has managed the economy with a steady hand on the tiller. It is not a government that has conducted fiscal policy in a prudent fashion. On those grounds alone, one might have cause to question the budget, and certainly that will cause us to examine the government's behaviour with great care. However, past management is not sufficient to vote against the budget. Our leader has set out his various criteria and it is according to those criteria that we form our judgment.

One of the very important aspects of the budget is infrastructure. I do not think that it would be controversial to say that everyone in the House wants a large part of the budget to be dedicated to infrastructure, and there are many reasons for that. If we can quickly invest in infrastructure, it would create many jobs. These infrastructure projects create a ripple effect. Not only do they create jobs in the short term, there is also the fact that Canada has a deficit of more than $100 billion in all types of infrastructure: roads, bridges, rapid transit, etc. There is no question about that. The United States has a large infrastructure program.

It is important for the cities as well as for the rural areas in Canada.

In rural areas in particular access to high speed Internet is critical to life. In urban areas it may be more public transit. Across the country, in one form or another, the need for infrastructure is crucial.

The problem we have is that the government has not been able to deliver on its infrastructure commitments of the past, and I think everybody agrees on that in principle.

At most, in terms of the building Canada program, the government has delivered 20¢ of every dollar it has committed and it has tied up the process in red tape. It has required so many different environmental and other approvals. It has rigid rules regarding municipal and provincial financing.

Perhaps bureaucratic or political lethargy is causing the government to sit on billions of dollars under a mattress in Ottawa. For whatever reason, the money has simply not flowed.

We are now in the middle of an economic crisis, perhaps the worst in a generation or more. Projections of falling employment over the next 12 months are in the neighbourhood of 250,000 even 350,000 jobs. There is an urgency to get money out the door to employ Canadians who have lost their jobs or those who are at risk of losing their jobs. It is not acceptable for the government to commit to billions of dollars of funding and deliver perhaps 20¢ on the dollar.

That is why we proposed a gas tax mechanism which was more flexible, where the modalities were already there, where there was not necessarily a one-third, one-third, one-third cost sharing. The trouble with that is the municipalities will have to pay one-third and they have no money so the project will not happen. That is why, in terms of our monitoring mechanism, a critical part of that monitoring will be to see whether the infrastructure money actually flows. I can assure the House that we on this side of the House will be watching that like a hawk.

The second element is employment insurance.

Employment insurance is always important. On the brink of a major recession, or even in the middle of a major recession, and I hope it is the middle but perhaps it is the beginning, in the course of that major recession employment insurance becomes all that more important. This new employment insurance has not before been recession tested with the reforms or program changes of the mid-1990s. We have not had a real recession since that time.

A number of important concerns have been raised by my party and by other opposition parties which the government has addressed to a certain extent, but has not addressed, in our view, to an adequate extent.

The government has increased the length of the benefit period by five weeks, and that is good and nice. We do not object to that. If someone is already receiving employment insurance, that is a good thing. However, the government has done nothing to increase access to employment insurance, and that is a critical issue. Let me illustrate.

With the five week extension to which the government has now committed, a worker in my riding of Markham—Unionville would have to work 630 hours to qualify for a maximum of 45 weeks of employment insurance. A worker in Vancouver would have to work 700 hours or more to qualify for a maximum of 41 weeks, whereas a worker in Flin Flon would have to work 420 hours to get up to 50 weeks of employment insurance.

Maybe that would be all right at a time when there was not a significant recession, or maybe it was better in the past when there was less mobility from one place to another. However, at a time of major recession when unemployment and job losses are proliferating in Ontario, for example, traditionally the industrial heartland of this country, it is not acceptable that someone in my riding would have to work 630 hours to qualify as compared with far fewer hours for people in other parts of the country.

Therefore the government ought to have moved to significantly reduce those numbers of hours of work and perhaps to standardize the number to somewhere in the neighbourhood of 400 hours across the whole country, either permanently or at least for the duration of the recession. That would have been a very positive move, because those who have contributed to the employment insurance system deserve to have access to it at their moment of need.

The other concerns I will not enter into in detail, but there have been suggestions that the two-week waiting period be reduced or eliminated.

There are also unacceptable delays in receiving one's employment insurance cheque. I think that is an administrative matter, and it is important to put into the system whatever resources are necessary so that people do not have to wait unduly for their cheques.

I would like to talk a little about tax cuts, but before that, let me talk very briefly about agriculture and a little about jobs for tomorrow. In this area this budget has been at least somewhat inadequate, if not worse than that.

I am told by those who know much about the agriculture sector that this budget has indeed been woefully inadequate in its efforts to provide stability in farm income. I know that many parts of the agricultural sector in certain parts of the country are going through extremely difficult times. This budget has not done enough to address those problems, and I am sure my colleague from Malpeque would not disagree with that statement.

Furthermore, I am also concerned about what are being called “the jobs of tomorrow”. We must not only protect today's jobs, but we must also create new jobs for the future, especially since there are not enough jobs for today.

We must therefore make education more accessible to more people and promote training. We must also invest in the jobs of tomorrow through a research and innovation program. I think the budget is severely lacking in these two areas. Considerable funds are being allocated to training, but I think the budget is weak in two specific areas: first of all, funding for post-secondary studies and second, funding for research and innovation.

I have talked about delivery problems. At least on paper this budget is strong on training, but it has very little to support post-secondary students. Particularly at a time of a weaker economy, the needs of post-secondary students, because they have lower incomes and a lessened ability to get jobs, are probably more acute than they are in normal times, so some support for post-secondary students, particularly those from lower-income backgrounds, would have been appreciated at this time of economic difficulty across the country.

There is very little for the research and innovation agenda, for the creation of brain power. There are a lot of bricks and mortar, a lot of buildings, a lot of roads. Well-known journalist Chantal Hébert said last night that it is a 1970s budget. It is full of shovels, and bricks and mortar, and roads, but has very little on brain power. The economy of the 21st century needs buildings and roads, yes, but it also needs brain power, innovation and a new capacity to generate the ideas, the new services, and the new BlackBerrys of tomorrow, and there is virtually nothing there.

It is almost as if we will have all these spanking new buildings, transit systems, roads and laboratories, but no people there, no funding for the research or the activities that will actually generate the ideas. That is a weakness of the budget.

I think I am nearly out of time, but I would like to talk briefly about the fact that some fears have been raised about tax cuts. Large, permanent tax cuts would only lead to major, permanent deficits, which no one likes. However, this is not really a problem, because the tax cuts are not very significant. Thus, this should not be a major concern.

In fact, as Jack Mintz pointed out today, the alleged tax reductions are not as large as one might think, because the government is claiming credit for tax cuts on things that are already built into the framework, and the actual tax cuts that are new in this budget are substantially less than the government claims.

The last point I would make is that we do insist on a return to balanced budgets over the medium term. We have concerns that the government wrongly includes revenue from asset sales in this budget, wrongly includes reductions in government spending without saying what they are, and makes very rosy assumptions about a return to a balanced budget. For all these reasons, we in the Liberal Party deem this budget marginally passable, but only on the condition that it be subject to very strict and very detailed quarterly reviews and be subject to confidence votes.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, in its final report this January, the expert panel on securities regulation recommended a single securities regulator. This government has stated that it will work together with provinces and territories to come to that conclusion, that is, a single securities regulator. The member's party has stated in the past that it would be in support of that idea. I would like to get his opinion on that.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the past I have said that in principle I do support that idea.

I would make three very quick points. First, I do not see a sense of urgency. The global crisis originated in the United States, where there is a single regulator. It is worse in the U.K., where there is a single regulator, than it is in Canada with our alleged thirteen. It is a good idea in principle, but I do not think it is a matter of urgency.

Second, at a time of economic crisis it is very important that provincial and federal governments work together in a harmonious spirit to address the real issues and challenges they face. I think to generate a big fight over this issue at this time is not a good idea.

Those are only two reasons. They are probably enough.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member says that the economic update in November was deceptive. The hon. member claims that the Conservatives have mismanaged the surpluses that accumulated under his government. He says that the government cannot be trusted and that the budget is replete with red tape. He has serious doubts about delivery of the infrastructure moneys. He says that the deficit reduction plan is unrealistic. He has claimed that it is improbable that proper accounting was applied to the asset sale bookings.

The hon. member says that his party believes in child care and that they support women, yet there is nothing for child care in this budget, and this budget actually repeats the offensive attack on pay equity contained in the November fiscal update. The hon. member says that his party believes in a green economy, yet this budget is one of the worst budgets for the environment in recent history.

One could go on and on. This budget does not have anything on a national housing strategy or on meaningful EI reforms. If the hon. member and his party truly believe in these programs, as he claims, why does he not do the right thing, defeat this budget, and actually enter into government that really and truly will deliver these programs on behalf of Canadians, instead of just talking about them?