Debates of Jan. 29th, 2009

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

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

I am pleased to take part in this very important budget debate. Over the break I had the opportunity to consult with my constituents of Don Valley East to discuss what they would like to see in the budget. They made it clear that a stimulus package must contain measures to protect the most vulnerable in our society, to secure the jobs that we already have, and to prepare Canadians for the economy of tomorrow. Small and medium size businesses wanted access to credit. Before I go into the details, I would like to review the events that led to this juncture.

Last November the Conservatives provided an economic and fiscal update that nearly led to the collapse of the federal government. By all accounts the speech delivered in the House by the finance minister on November 27 had been penned by partisan zealots in the Prime Minister's office with little or no consultation with officials in the Department of Finance. On hindsight it represented the greatest parliamentary boondoggle by a prime minister in Canadian political history. The government was then forced to withdraw its statement when a proposed coalition by the opposition parties nearly toppled the Conservatives. This process was only stopped by a last ditch effort by the Prime Minister when he shut down Parliament prematurely in order to regroup and buy precious time for the Conservatives.

It took this crisis for the Prime Minister to realize that in the midst of a recession it is highly inappropriate to play partisan games, especially at the expense of Canadians who are losing their jobs. In order to survive, the Conservative government has been forced to listen to the official opposition and produce an action plan for the Canadian economy.

In the economic statement of last November, the finance minister claimed that Canada would not be affected by the global economic downturn. He also claimed that Canada would not only avoid a deficit, but it would even generate a small surplus. Quite incredulous, it is not clear why the finance minister totally ignored the advice of his departmental officials or why he was completely oblivious to the signs that signalled both a recession and a potential for a deficit.

A mere eight weeks later, the Conservative government now admits that it is already $16 billion in the hole, well before any stimulus package is even contemplated. That is why the Liberals are demanding greater accountability and so are my constituents of Don Valley East.

The people in my riding made it clear that the budget must protect the vulnerable in our society. They want their pensions protected. They want seniors to enjoy their retirement without fear of the future. They want retraining for the jobs that they have recently lost and better access to employment insurance benefits. They do not want the federal government to sell off public assets to cover for poor fiscal management. It makes no sense to hold a fire sale of public assets and sell at the lowest possible price during a recession.

I know that it is not in the DNA of the Conservative government to invest in social housing, to expand both the working income tax benefit and child tax credit, or to take climate change seriously. However, I am pleased that after cross-country consultation by the new leader of the Liberal Party the government has finally conceded that a stimulus plan is urgently needed and has taken suggestions from the Liberals. This being said, Canadians are deeply disappointed by the economic performance of the government.

In 2006 the Liberal government handed over to the Conservatives a fiscally sound government and an unprecedented fiscal record: a $13 billion surplus; the lowest inflation rate; the lowest unemployment rate; and the best economic record of the G8. In less than three years and against the advice of nearly every economist in the country, the Conservatives embarked on a reckless and irresponsible spending spree. Now the Conservatives have announced that Canada will run a $64 billion deficit over two years. That is $77 billion in the hole.

What does this mean for ordinary Canadians and my constituents, who want to ensure that the jobs Canadians have are value-added jobs? If we translate $77 billion lost into value-added jobs lost, it is approximately 154,000 good jobs which are lost, jobs that pay well. Had the government been more prudent, it would have saved those 154,000 jobs. What would that have meant for the economy? It would have provided stimulus to the economy because the people in those jobs would be spending, contributing to the government coffers and avoiding bankruptcy.

To make matters worse, the Conservatives boasted that they paid $37 billion off the national debt, which currently stands at approximately $457 billion. Now the 2009 budget will wipe out that achievement. The current situation threatens to wipe out any progress of debt reduction achieved by the Liberals between 1998 and 2006. Servicing the national debt is the single largest federal expenditure. It eats up nearly a quarter of the federal expenditure and passes the burden along to future generations of Canadians.

Canadians demanded fiscal responsibility. That is why the Liberal Party is granting only conditional support for this budget. Some of my constituents are asking why the Liberal Party is choosing this path. The simple answer is that we just had a federal election only three months ago. I would rather that the $360 million it costs to hold a federal election be spent on retraining workers, investing in infrastructure or helping new Canadians gain recognition of their academic credentials. Canadians want to see their country succeed. They want the government to apply the same principles of good government that the Liberals gave Canada from 1993 to 2006.

We all remember it was the Liberal government that ended the Mulroney era of deficit financing which almost drove the country into the ground and led the IMF to call Canada an economic basket case. The Liberals inherited a $42 billion deficit in 1993 and successfully restored the country's finances by 1998.

We can succeed, but only if the Prime Minister can resist partisan impulses and concentrate on the economy, Canadians and jobs.

I would be pleased to answer any questions or comments.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting to listen to the hon. member's comments and her rather fuzzy view of history. I seem to recall, when I look back to those dark, cold Liberal years, that $54 billion was basically stolen from the EI program, from employers and employees, cuts in transfer payments for health and social services to the provinces, and a promise to abolish the GST which was quickly forgotten.

Moving to the recent history of our country for the three years that the Conservatives have been in government, what do we have now? Of the G8 countries, we are the only country that has run a surplus over the last three years. Every one of the other countries has run deficits in each of the last three years. The World Economic Forum has ranked our banking system as the number one most secure system in the world.

It is interesting to listen to the comments from the other side. The Liberals might remember that back when they were in government it was so long ago that their leader had not even lived in Canada at that point for 36 years. It was a long time ago.

Now we are in a situation where the IMF and the OECD are projecting that Canada will be the first country to emerge from this global recession stronger than other countries.

I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on those points.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I keep reminding the hon. member when he sits on the public accounts committee that he does not know accounting. If that is the way the government's economic brain thinks, we have to ensure that we really hold it to account.

Let us think about the $13 billion surplus we left the Conservative government. If you do not have money in your pocket now and you are running into a $64 billion deficit, how can you call yourselves an economically responsible government? You are living in la-la land and Canadians have to be extremely careful that they never elect you again because you have run them into the ground.

Talking about the fundamentals of banking, we listened to you guys wanting bank mergers and everything else. Talking about surpluses, it was the CPP that the finance minister wanted to raid. How can you prove yourselves to even be economically sensible?

Talking about the Liberal leader not living in this country, I can assure you that you have no foreign policy.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would remind the hon. member for Don Valley East to direct her comments through the Chair and not directly to other members.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the last exchange shows how much respect the Conservatives have for the Liberal Party for propping them up. It is also lamentable that the Liberals expect they are going to get anything from the Conservatives. One sees that element coming out.

I ask my hon. colleague, what specific tools are in the Liberal Party's amendment to actually change the government's actions? The suggestion that Liberals can kick the Conservatives out of office whenever they want is their own suggestion. It is not an actual fact in the amendment. Also, the amendment does not provide a procedure or opportunity to deal with issues later on. The Liberals are going to support the Conservatives unconditionally over the next number of months. The Liberals will eventually turn against the Conservatives but they will not have any mechanism to actually change things.

If she really believes in change and all the things the Liberals have been talking about, why not make a difference and change?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can see where the hon. member is coming from. The specific tools available to any Canadian are the tools of democracy. The Conservatives will be booted out because they are not people who know how to manage an economy. They have been fudging the figures. They are $16 billion in deficit even before starting the stimulus package.

We will hold them to account, but we all have to be responsible Canadians. The NDP wants to call another election and lose $360 million, which could be used for retraining. This is what everybody is fighting for. They want a stimulus package and that $360 million would be wasted money.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the budget. I first want to thank my fellow islanders for their input at a joint town hall held between the MP for Charlottetown and myself. We appreciated islanders' input and we forwarded that on to our finance people, eventually to the finance minister. Some of that input did get considered and put in but, sadly, a lot of it did not.

I spoke on the economic statement just two short months ago and I have to ask this. On what planet were the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party just two months ago with the economic statement? The Prime Minister was in denial that his policies at that time were leading the country into deficit. Now we know we are in deficit, as my hon. friend said, to the tune of $15.7 billion.

Is the Prime Minister still in denial today that his policies were leading our country into deficit and that his and the finance minister's statements during the election were to a great extent untrue? In fact, they were untrue.

In two short years the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance have taken our country, Canada, and driven it not only to the brink of deficit, but into deficit. Worse yet, because of their spending and their inability to manage the fiscal capacity of the nation, they spent the cupboards bare and the reserves are not there anymore to do what has to be done when a country needs a stimulus package.

We should not be surprised. As we said in previous debates, that is the same Minister of Finance who drove the province of Ontario into deficit and it has been suffering as a result for decades since he was there. Now the same Minister of Finance has provided the same tragedy for Canada as a whole.

As my colleague said, this budget tries to cover up the fact that the government already has a deficit. Economists are saying there needs to be a $30 billion stimulus package this year. The government is saying it will have a $34 billion deficit, leaving the impression that this is the stimulus package. On page 217 of the budget document, we find the government is already in a $15.7 billion deficit because it could not manage the affairs of the nation.

Therefore, there really is not a $30 billion stimulus package, there really is not a $34 billion stimulus package, there is only a stimulus package of $18 billion, which is not enough. I felt I had to draw out that fact. Even with the consequences and the trouble the nation is in at the moment, the government tries to cover up the fact of how it managed the economy in the past.

However, Canada needs an economic stimulus, jobs for today and jobs for tomorrow. One of the areas where we need them the worst is in the province of Prince Edward Island.

I am concerned that the equalization cuts announced by the government in this budget will hurt Prince Edward Island and the principle of the program for the long term is being undermined. Stimulus is needed even more now than it was in the past in those provinces that receive equalization.

Let us look at a few facts that relate to P.E.I. The government announced in its first budget the building Canada fund, which would provide P.E.I. with up to $40 million over four years. However, after two years, only the existing programs, MRIF and CCIP, have been committed. Not one dollar has flowed from the Conservatives' building Canada fund, only political announcement. What we get from the government is mostly smoke and mirrors.

The bureaucratic red tape put on municipalities is of the Conservatives' making. No dollars have been spent, yet the government still runs deficits. Under the proposed new, if I could call it that, accelerated plan with its one-third requirements, it is very doubtful that municipalities and provinces could participate. Again, it would only be political announcements because they would not have the money to put in their share.

Prince Edward Island's fiscal capacity will be further reduced by the budget under the Conservative plan. Like all Atlantic provinces, P.E.I. would have their transfer payment increases, which were agreed upon in November, reduced by up to 50% by 2009-10. P.E.I. would have cuts to health care and social programming as a result of these federal decisions. At an economic time when we really need that money, the federal government is cutting back the funding. That will put the province in the position of having little fiscal flexibility to participate in any new spending for infrastructure, primary industries and skilled training.

Discussions are taking place on the community adjustments fund. As I understand it, there is not one dollar being considered for rural community stimulus. Not one dollar is being considered to stimulate agriculture, which is in real trouble. Not one dollar is being considered for innovative jobs for tomorrow. That is a huge problem.

Agriculture seems to be the forgotten industry in this budget. The government's record, as we know from this file, has clearly been one of failure. However, in Prince Edward Island, for instance, the Conservatives announced crop loss payments of $12.4 million. However, they set up a program that prevents farmers from receiving the money. With farmers facing bankruptcy, $9 million is going to go back to the federal accounts. The program was very poorly designed.

I see the Minister of Agriculture is here. He announced a $500 million agriflex program, which is something we committed to in the budget. However, the previous commitment was $500 million for what could be considered companion programs over four years. Now, it is over five. When one looks at it, the $500 million is not really $500 million; it is only $190 million because of the restructuring of existing programs.

We are seeing too much smoke and mirrors from that government. We need to get that money to the farm community. Worse than that, the agriflex program, as I understand it, will not apply to the RMP in Ontario or the ASRA program in Quebec. That creates huge difficulties for getting that money out appropriately to those farmers on the ground. The budget announced $50 million for increasing the capacity of the slaughter industry. However, how is that going to be designed? Will it only go to the big packers, who already control too much of the industry, or will it go to the primary producers where it can do the most good?

In the budget, there is, in fact, credit availability and more money made to the Business Development Bank of Canada and Export Development Canada, which is a good thing. What about the Farm Credit Corporation? Farm Credit is more difficult to deal with than the lending institutions. There does not seem to be any increased money to that agency, nor a lessening of the credit conditions that would allow farmers to stay on the land.

Those points are very important, as they apply to the farm community. Much more needs to be done. In fact, I had a call today from a constituent in the minister's riding who was very concerned about the lack of response from the Minister of Agriculture on the beef and hog crisis in our country. It has been in disarray for two years and all the government seems to do is extend loans. We cannot borrow ourselves out of debt. We need some real actions that will put us on a comparable footing with our competitors in the United States.

The government's record is terrible and its word is often broken. This party, through our amendment, will hold it to account.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the hon. member for Malpeque complain about alleged cuts to transfer payments. If he had read the budget, he would know that transfers will not be cut back.

This is interesting. When we hearken back to the old Liberal days, and you may recall this, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals tried to balance the books on the backs of the provinces. They cut back transfers by a whopping $25 billion. These were transfers for health, social services and education to the provinces.

Today we have one of the cheerleaders of Mr. Martin's act of cutting transfers complaining about alleged cuts in transfers in our recent budget. How does the member for Malpeque justify that double standard?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, there is no double standard. A comparison could be made between success and failure, the success of the governments of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin and the absolute, utter failure of the Prime Minister and that party, which has driven us into a deficit similar to the Mulroney times.

When we were in government, we put a solid foundation in fiscal capacity under our country. It is because your government spent the country bare by doing away with the reserves with absolutely stupid tax cuts in the GST. Every economist will tell you that—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I remind the hon. member for Malpeque to address comments through the Chair, not directly at other members.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Nickel Belt.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member from the opposition mentioned the word “planet”. I have a question for the member. The Conservative budget, supported by the Liberals, does very little for the people on EI. For example, it does not eliminate the two week waiting period. They have extended EI by five weeks, but a lot of people cannot get on EI because the Conservatives have not reduced the hours.

He also mentioned that the Conservatives did not do very much for agriculture. The Conservative budget, supported by the Liberals, also attacks women's rights. He also said that the budget was full of smoke and mirrors.

Because the hon. member asked the Conservatives about the planet, what planet were the Liberals on when they decided to support the Conservative budget?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, all the hon. member needs to do is look at the record. We Liberals had our feet to the ground and looked at the reality of the state of affairs globally and in our country.

Our party is being responsible. Our country does need stimulus. Yes, there is not enough in terms of the government proposals, and we know it. We too would like to have seen the two week waiting period at the beginning of a claim eliminated so people could receive EI immediately. We would like to have seen the conditions changed so they could draw EI easier, and some of those who cannot now, draw it. However, we have taken a responsible position and clearly, as we said, we can hold the government to account in what it has put forward.

As my colleague and my leader said, we are basically putting the government on probation. Maybe we can push the government collectively as the opposition, and we were able to work together previously, to improve some of the areas in EI and other measures.

However, to take the irresponsible position that you are taking and put Canadians into more political turmoil for six weeks is not the proper way to go.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I again remind the hon. member for Malpeque to address comments through the Chair. I know sometimes things get heated, but if we remember those Standing Orders, I think the debate will run a little more smoothly.

Resuming debate, the hon. Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak to budget 2009 and I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and all the members on this side of the House have talked about the importance of our budget, our economic action plan. But as Canadians know, this is more than just a budget. This is an economic action plan for Canada. This is a plan that will help us, together, weather the global economic storm and ensure our long-term prosperity for the future.

We presented Canadians with a bold, multi-year approach that will provide real support and real results for real Canadians.

The economic conditions that we find ourselves in are unprecedented. That is why our economic action plan responds to this reality and provides the stimulus our economy needs, the jobs our communities depend upon, and puts the money our families and our seniors deserve back into their pockets.

Let me briefly speak to a few specific aspects of our action plan that are particularly important to my responsibilities in western economic diversification.

Last week, I had the opportunity to visit three of our four western provinces. I saw first hand just how out government's investments are diversifying and strengthening our western economies for the future.

In Vancouver, I visited FPInnovations, a forest research institute that is changing the way forestry companies do business in order to stay competitive. FPInnovations is transitioning this important traditional sector for a stronger, more sustainable future. Jim Dangerfield, executive vice-president of FPInnovations, said, “So I…Minister, I really want to thank you and your government for your commitment to this, for your commitment to the forest industry”.

Through innovation in wood products, creativity in pulp and paper, and with the support of our government, we are providing real solutions for our forestry sector challenges.

In Winnipeg, I visited the Composites Innovation Centre and a new Centre for Aerospace Technology and Training, both of which are creating a competitive edge for the aerospace and manufacturing sector.

By investing in centres like these, we are creating high paying, highly skilled jobs right here in Canada. What struck me most is that this new aerospace technology and training centre, in which our government invested, will bring work back to Canada that is currently done overseas.

The Hon. Andrew Swan, Manitoba's Minister of Competitiveness, Training and Trade, said, “--we're looking very, very forward to having you back time and time again as you see the products of the tremendous partnership that we've extended, continued this morning”.

In challenging economic times like the ones that face us today, these types of investments and partnerships are a key factor for job creation, job sustainability and job prosperity.

In Saskatoon, I proudly entered into a $50 million western economic partnership agreement with the province of Saskatchewan which will stimulate the economy by investing in new businesses, new ideas and new jobs. As the Hon. Lyle Stewart, Saskatchewan's Minister of Enterprise and Innovation, said, “Well I think [the minister's] priorities and mine are pretty much in lockstep”.

Together with our four provinces, through the western economic partnership agreements, over $200 million will be invested in the west. These agreements will grow. They will diversify and strengthen the western Canadian economy at a time when families and communities are facing serious challenges and uncertainty due to the global economic slowdown.

At western economic diversification and in our government, our priority is to create new jobs, support new businesses and grow new ideas. As the Minister of State for Western Diversification, I can say with confidence that our government's economic action plan has the tools and the programs we need to ensure that the west remains strong, because I know that a stronger west will mean a stronger Canada.

Small businesses drive economic growth and job creation in the west and they are critical. They are a critical economic engine. Our western provinces are home to an astonishing 800,000 small businesses. That is about 36% of all such enterprises in Canada.

Our small business owners employ about 2.3 million western Canadians, nearly half of all the jobs in the region, and they create an average of 37,000 new jobs every year.

In order to continue our support for small businesses as they start and grow, our government is providing $30 million over two years for the Canada business network. This network oversees the Canada business service centres. These resource centres are on the ground. They offer marketing solutions, business planning and financial services for western business owners.

Our economic action plan also includes significant investments for building our communities. This is a move that creates jobs for Canadians now while providing the growth that we need in the years to come.

Pipes and pavement projects across western Canada have received $278 million through the municipal, rural infrastructure program. Today I am working closely with my colleague, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, to administer the communities component of the building Canada fund.

We are committed to accelerating shovel-ready projects in construction, engineering, science and technology. This will create new jobs and new opportunities in other industries.

What I am most excited about, being from rural Saskatchewan, is our government's $500 million investment in Canadian recreation community centres. We will work hard with our provinces, municipalities and the private sector to identify shovel-ready projects and get moving on these important facilities that mean a lot to our children and to western families and communities.

I know the importance of our community recreation centres, rinks and pools first hand. I spent many weekends watching my own children, my daughters' skating lessons at our local rink.

We are investing in our families and our communities by providing $500 million across Canada to support our community recreation facilities.

These are trying times for Canadians and some of our communities are hit harder than others. Our government recognizes this reality and we are doing something about it.

The $1 billion community adjustment fund will foster new opportunities in the regions of Canada that are most vulnerable. This fund will support communities in their transition from single industry towns into competitive and diversified communities, robust with science, technology, research and innovation.

Our government has played a key role in helping our communities adjust during times of challenge. We are currently working with communities impacted by the mountain pine beetle infestation, so that they can invest in new opportunities and industries to diversify and sustain their local economies.

Our economic action plan for Canada has many measures that will grow, sustain and bring future prosperity to our western economies. My department, along with our Conservative government, will continue to build on our record of results for the west.

We will also continue to build on relationships with our provincial and municipal colleagues to strengthen the economy of the west. The strength of the west in Canada depends not only on meeting today's challenges but also on building a dynamic economy that will create better jobs and opportunities for the future.

Our plan is an action plan that will meet those challenges. It contains priorities for westerners, and these are priorities that westerners asked for and deserve, enabling us to work together. Together we will build a stronger west. We will build a stronger Canada.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister of state for her overview of the advantages of having the western redevelopment mechanism. We in Ontario, particularly southern Ontario, have been saying that kind of mechanism should exist. This budget places that as a priority and I take it, with funding.

Does the minister of state have any problems with the amendment that has been made with respect to monitoring the kinds of progressive investments that are being made, those investments which she has already talked about? Has she any problem with a quarterly report monitoring and assessing the success of those investments?

Can the minister see if that same approach would have a great advantage with respect to the same issues being faced in southern Ontario in terms of creating the kind of stimulus that she has very aptly alluded to in her speech? Action is going to have to be taken to lock into other funds that will invest in infrastructure, innovation, and so on, just as has happened in the economic region for which she is responsible.

Can the minister advise the House that the same experience is going to be brought four-square behind the initiatives that are absolutely necessary for southern Ontario?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the $1 billion that is going to be given to that region is very important. Southern Ontario is going through some very tough times with the auto industry. We all know this is a slowdown in Canada, but these are tough times internationally. Southern Ontario is hurting badly and that fact was recognized. That is why the particular program being introduced in the budget is important. I really appreciate the support the Liberals are giving us with respect to the budget.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the participation of the minister of mtate in the debate today.

I have a question for her specifically about the pine beetle problem in British Columbia as it affects first nations communities.

The First Nations Forestry Council has been very clear that funding has not flowed to assist first nations communities in British Columbia affected by the pine beetle infestation. Now they are talking about 103 endangered first nations communities in British Columbia, endangered not just because of the economic devastation of the pine beetle but also endangered because of the possibility of forest fires.

The money was promised for pine beetle infestation work but that money has not flowed. The first nations have an agreement with the provincial government to get some of that money but unfortunately it has not flowed to the provincial government so therefore none of it has gone to first nations.

In prebudget consultations they requested direct funding to first nations communities. They were looking for $20 million per year for three years to address the environmental dangers created by the pine beetle infestation, including forest fire dangers, and they were also looking for $5 million per year to assist with economic development in those 103 endangered communities.

Can the minister of state tell us if that request has been met specifically by this budget and if there is an expedited way to ensure that the money flows to these endangered communities?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we know that families and communities in British Columbia are going through challenging times. As the new Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification) I cannot tell the House how upsetting it is to see some of the devastation that has happened. That is why in the last budget our government invested a lot of money toward the pine beetle infestation in British Columbia.

Many agreements have been signed through CEDI, a community economic development initiative. Many programs, different initiatives and projects have been brought forward through many communities in northern British Columbia to the tune, I think, of about $33 million. Many projects are in place in these communities and going forward.

In this budget we have also announced an extra $1 billion for the communities that are--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak today in support of the government's economic action plan. This budget will be a test of political maturity. Canadians have been watching with great interest and quite literally praying that we parliamentarians get it right.

This budget is a test of our Conservative government. It is also a test of the Liberal Party, the Bloc and the NDP. More important, it is a test of minority government itself.

What is the standard against which we are being tested? What do Canadians want? How will we know whether we have passed?

Two results are important to Canadians. First and foremost, Canadians want us to work together. Second, we must respond competently to the worldwide economic slowdown. If we do not work together, we will be incapable of any response whatsoever.

We will not succeed if we insist upon a mean-minded lack of trust. If we harbour grudges over past disagreements, if we refuse to even listen to one another, that will be picking up one's marbles and storming off home, and Canadians will recognize that for what it is. We also will not succeed if we play power games, if we all try to be king of the hill, if we insist that this budget must be exactly what we want.

My community of Kitchener has a pioneering tradition of conflict resolution. As a lawyer for almost 30 years I have learned that a good compromise is one where everybody feels disappointed. If any party in the House thinks it will get everything it wants in the budget, then it has failed the test.

Ironically, that is why minority government fails the test. Many good ideas that would serve our country well cannot be pursued because they will offend one party or another. Despite the luck of one or two minority governments 45 years ago, good ideas succeed more in spite of minority governments than because of them.

My favourite example is the abolition of the anti-democratic state funding of some but not all political parties. This excludes many people who would like an equal voice in our politics, but I know that this democratic reform will not pass in this minority government. Therefore, I am glad that the Prime Minister had the political maturity to take it off the table.

Has our government passed the test in this economic action plan? Resoundingly yes. Has our government set aside some good ideas because they were not acceptable to the opposition? Of course. Has our government incorporated some ideas that some of us might have wished not to? Of course.

The government is not going into this by ignoring what our parliamentary partners and others have had to say. We are not trying to be king of the hill. That is not what Canadians want. The government has listened.

This plan is the product of greater consultation than any other in Canadian history. The government consulted with over 680 groups. There were 84 ministerial trips across Canada to gather input. Opposition leaders and first ministers were consulted. Over 70 formal round tables were held to solicit ideas. We heard from business, labour, taxpayer groups, farmers, the auto sector, and the list goes on and on.

The Minister of Finance conducted an electronic consultation with over 7,200 online submissions and over 5,400 emails and letters.

In my own riding I held two round tables jointly with the hon. members for Kitchener—Conestoga and Kitchener—Waterloo. I also held one public meeting with the citizens of Kitchener Centre alone.

A number of New Democratic Party members accepted my invitation to make presentations at our public meeting and their ideas were forwarded by me to the Minister of Finance. Some, like extended EI benefits, more retraining opportunities and greater tax breaks for the working poor, have been incorporated into this budget.

This economic action plan contains many ideas gathered through such consultations, from investments in social housing, roads and bridges infrastructure to modest tax cuts. It includes measures to provide needed financing to businesses and to individuals.

This is an economic action plan to create opportunities for Canadians. Our plan will stimulate housing construction and provide support to business and communities. This budget will take action for aboriginals.

For the first time in Canadian history, southern Ontario, hard hit by this recession, will get an economic development agency to provide seed money for new job creation. This could be called Canada's first knowledge budget. It dedicates almost $4 billion to enhance post-secondary education and Canadian research. I am happy to say this includes $50 million for Waterloo region's world-class cutting-edge Institute for Quantum Computing.

All of this builds on our Conservative government's far-sighted planning over the last three years. Reducing the GST has provided ongoing stimulus that kept us out of a recession while all around us others were failing. Cutting business taxes kept us creating net new jobs. Paying down $37 billion of debt in just three years gives us room to manoeuvre now. Think of what that means. Even after this challenging year with a $34 billion deficit, Canada will still have less debt than when our Conservative government took office. Our economic plan responds to global economic turmoil that worsened so quickly it was referred to as gale forces by the deputy chief economist at BMO.

Since this October, every private forecaster has been amending their forecasts downward almost every week. If any party pretends that it saw this much difficulty coming this quickly, it is kidding the public and Canadians will see right through it. If any party pretends that these problems were created by our Conservative government, it is kidding the public and Canadians will see right through it. If any party pretends that it could have produced solutions more quickly than this action plan in this complex time, it is kidding the public and Canadians will see right through it.

Is this plan completely agreeable to everyone's principles? No. Is it absolutely the best economic action plan that any government in a minority could produce? Resoundingly yes. Does this plan take action to protect Canadians? Resoundingly yes.

Our Conservative government has passed the test. The Liberal Party has also passed the test. Putting aside these humourous little jibes about being on probation, the Liberal Party has responded favourably to Conservative efforts. I respect the hon. opposition leader for admitting, “These measures stand to offer actual hope for actual Canadians”. I further agree with the hon. opposition leader in saying the political system did work. It would disappoint fans of the hon. opposition leader's eloquence to hear him try to claim credit for all the many good things in this budget.

If we all focus on the economy and on protecting Canadians, we can agree that this is not a Conservative budget, it is not a Liberal budget, it is not a coalition budget. This is a Canadian budget.

In my address in reply to the throne speech and on the fiscal update, I invited all hon. members to travel the path through this dark forest of economic peril together with a common focus on the needs and well-being of all Canadians. Through the skilful and generous leadership of our right hon. Prime Minister and the goodwill of the hon. leader of the official opposition, a majority of us have now put a foot on that path together.

I call on the remaining members of the House to join us in a noble consensus in these unprecedented times. It would make all Canadians even more proud of us.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I got the impression that the member was reaching out at the same time as giving a backhanded hit at some of the members here in this House.

I want to refer the hon. member to some price problems with respect to his own riding and the crisis across Canada.

We have learned this morning, and over the past couple of days, that the U.S. government is potentially proposing a bailout, a stimulus package of epic proportions. That stimulus to the economy will have with it a possible condition of no foreign content being allowed. Clearly, the member understands the implications for companies within his own riding. The implications could look a whole lot more, and I do not want to sound alarmist, like the Smoot-Hawley bill of the 1930s which had the unintended effect of raising tariffs and of course seeing the world go into further economic difficulty.

Given the member's concerns about investments within his own riding and jobs, concerns which we all share in this House although we have perhaps a different way of seeing this, will he speak to his trade minister and the Prime Minister and ensure that Canada remains open for business with the United States as it ought to? What will be the effects and impacts of this kind of stimulus? What will that member of Parliament do to ensure that we do not fall back into the malaise of the 1930s?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am aware of Mr. Obama's stimulus package and its impact on Canada. I am also aware, as he is, that the protectionist provision in that package is limited to one or two sectors. It is not a wide-open protectionism. Our industry minister is on top of this file and has commented on it. He is aware of it. He is intent on ensuring that the American government will comply with its international obligations under NAFTA and other trade agreements.

It is interesting to see at this time, 20 years after NAFTA was hotly debated in this country, how important it is to our country to ensure that we maintain that good, open, free trade with the United States. I am glad that my friend on the opposite side of the House is concerned about that, too. I assume he will be supporting NAFTA in any efforts to reopen negotiations on it. Having said all of that, it is premature in that the American package is yet to be finalized.

In any event, our good news budget today provides a great deal of access to credit and financing to the industries in my riding which will help them ride out this storm.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned employment insurance in the context of listening to Canadians' suggestions in the prebudget consultation. He said that the government had delivered by extending benefits by five weeks for people who currently qualify for employment insurance. The fact is that the government has done nothing to expand eligibility for employment insurance in this time of high unemployment. The government has not extended benefits. It has not gotten rid of the two-week waiting period. It has not dealt with the issue of severance pay. It has not expanded the number of people who would be able to collect employment insurance at all.

We know that only 32% of women become eligible for employment insurance claims. We know that only 38% of men in Canada are eligible to make a claim. The government has done nothing to raise that figure. It has done nothing to ensure that other unemployed Canadians can take advantage of a program they have paid into. Canadians know there has been a huge surplus of what has been taken in, in terms of the premiums that Canadians have paid into the EI fund over what has been paid out in benefits.

I am wondering how the member would address that.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the member may have overlooked one or two items that are in the budget. I am going to mention them briefly.

For example, there would be a $50 million allotment over two years to cover severance pay owed to eligible employees of bankrupt companies. This is something new. It has never been done before, to my knowledge at least. It will in fact expand beyond the EI system to give relief to Canadians who may have, unfortunately, been laid off. Also, there will be grants for training for people even outside of the EI system. That will benefit people who do not access EI directly.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for St. John's East and I am proud to do so.

An interesting launching point to start off this discussion is to refer to what is happening in the United States and the protectionism measures in the stimulus package it has developed, not just the current one, but the past one. It also has a series of laws and guarantees in its legislation enshrined to protect its bus industry, its shipbuilding industry and its defence contract that covers a series of different procurements that are important.

One of the glaring examples of why this budget needs to be defeated to propose a stronger budget is a procurement policy in Canada, something that the United States and other countries do, that would be within good faith practices in North America based upon what the U.S. is doing.

We saw this come to a head in my area of Windsor and Essex county and Chatham Kent when a contract for almost a quarter of a billion dollars was recently awarded for a truck to be built for the military. Instead of awarding that contract or putting in the RFP to ensure Navistar would build it in Chatham, it is going to be built in Texas. It is unacceptable when a quarter of a billion dollars of procurement goes out this door to reward people in Texas.

Ironically, in 2002, I was fighting with the auto workers to protect that plant. The Liberal government at that time originally said that we could not do anything to assist or facilitate that plant to ensure it had a future. It denied all those things. It said that we could not do it under NAFTA and it used every excuse. However, it finally capitulated and we were able to successfully keep that plant going until today with a modest investment and that retooling was very successful. The money helped the plant develop for the future. It has had good jobs since that time and has paid for itself in spades.

Workers and their families have been able to live a solid life and donate to the United Way and other causes and actually return the investment to the taxpayers of Canada through income tax. We will now watch that plant go down and be eliminated, while at the same time we will be supporting a plant and a facility in the United States.

There are other examples of that by the current government in its past. The Conservatives have a history of it. The ecoAuto rebate program, for example, which is still in the program the penalty axe back. It is important to note the type of strategies the government does not acknowledge or fix. When that program was put in place it literally had Canadian taxpayers' money going to Japanese vehicles made overseas with the Yaris, in particular, getting the actual incentive.

It is very difficult to support a government that does not plan its position properly. We will see a lot of the stimulus exit this country. We will do what the Americans did when one of George Bush's packages went out, which was basically cheques to Americans. What they discovered was that only 10% of the money went back into the value-added American economy. The rest of the money was either saved or lost in banking scandals or exited the country as other manufactured goods were developed overseas.

The problem with supporting the government right now is that we are seeing a supposed rush to fix the problem that the government has denied for so many years. Over a series of years the government has not only denied but also worked against some of the issues that needed to be fixed. The manufacturing sector, for example, is an obvious one. Over the last five years we have lost nearly 300,000 jobs in manufacturing across this country. It did not just happen yesterday. It has been happening for a number of years in different successive industries.

Without supporting a sectorial strategy, whether it be the textile industry, which we watched collapse in Quebec, whether it be the auto industry in Ontario, Quebec and other parts of Canada, or whether it be the shipbuilding industry of the past, there was no sectoral development. Now, all of a sudden, there will be a solution to these things despite the Conservatives denying it for so many years.

It is important to note that people were setting off alarm bells. It was not just Parliament over the last number years. A motion from the Corporation of the County of Essex, which was passed December 10, 2008, called for the county to forward a letter to the Premier of Ontario and Prime Minister of Canada endorsing the position of the Ontario Mayors for Automotive Investment, as outlined in correspondence dated November 24, 200,8 calling for urgent action to address the crisis in the automotive sector. That was a follow-up to a series of requests in the past.

What happened after that is an issue of credibility and why the government cannot be trusted. On January 17, the Minister of Finance had this to say to the public:

What Dalton McGuinty is doing is the short-term, ad-hoc, subsidy thinking...the kind of old-fashioned thinking that's proven to be a failure of short-term, Band-Aid fixes for specific companies. It is a shell game...certainly for successful businesses that pay their taxes and then watch their tax money being used for specific choices that are made by politicians. Quite frankly, politicians aren't very good at picking business winners and losers.”

He was referring to the auto industry. Now he has changed his tune and says that he will be there but the problem is that the Conservatives do not really understand the situation.

When the county of Essex and others raised the issue of lost auto manufacturing jobs, the government chose to attack instead of putting in an actual plan or having an actual vision. We have seen the jobs disappear. Canada used to be the fourth assembler in the world and we are now down to ninth and losing even more. The government has ignored the reality of what is happening. It is important to note that its divisive nature is what has caused the lack of confidence.

What ends up happening next is that the government scrambles around asking what it should do now. The United States is implementing a bridge loan program. It drops its rhetoric of attacking the industry and driving away the possibility of future investment.

The Minister of Industry gets on a plane and goes down to Washington but does not really meet with anyone. I accessed his travel expenses and it cost $601, plus the cost of the challenger jet. We do not know how much that cost but I am sure it was quite expensive to fly that into Washington. All the minister gets is a document that could have been downloaded from the Internet. This is the actual system that the United States went through. It had open, accountable procedures to go through its automotive investment bridge loan that it was going to do.

We do not have that over here. We have not had a single public meeting. The government wants to put out billions of dollars but does not want to provide any access to the agreement. The only thing the minister has done is to attack workers by insisting that we would have the same conditions in our agreement as the United States.

The minister has given up our sovereign decision to even look at what a package could be. He has said that the senators from Alabama, the senators from Tennessee and the United States Congress should make the decisions for Canada as we put billions of dollars on the line.

What is worse than that is the fact that the government has still not come to the recognition that the year before the United States put $25 billion aside for an innovation research fund for the automotive industry to turn it green. What has happened in the meantime, as the United States has been doing those things, Canada has lost investment opportunities, which is unacceptable. I will point to one of the most successful ones.

Despite the Detroit three getting a bad name with regard to hybrids, they actually have the most hybrids on the market. Investments are happening right now. General Motors, because of this incentive program, is actually building a battery factory in Detroit. It is building the Volt as well, the first electric commercial vehicle that will hit the roads. However, that investment has gone to Detroit and the United States because they actually had an auto policy. Meanwhile, our government has not even had CAPC meetings. We actually passed a call to action plan that was supposed to be implemented back in 2004.

The Conservatives do not need to be supported anymore. Too many workers and their families have lost their jobs, not because they have not been productive, not because they have not gone to work every day and done everything they should and not because they have not had the opportunities, because we have had those opportunities, it is because a government policy was never developed.

Ironically, in this budget the government claims it will come up with one in a couple of weeks. For years the government has said that it actually has a policy and now it says that it will table a policy in a few weeks and that we should trust them. We are supposed to trust them with billions of dollars, with no accountability, no plan, no public meetings, no action, no type of input and, at the same time, it will come up with a plan later on. It is too late.

We need a new plan and that is why we want to replace the government and see workers protected as opposed to being isolated and thrown out of their jobs.