Debates of Jan. 30th, 2009

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to the budget. I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

Leading up to the budget speech, I talked to many people in my riding. Sadly, the issues that many people raised are simply not addressed in that speech. One of the things we had heard, and I am paraphrasing, is that people were looking for a budget that would protect the vulnerable. They were looking for a budget that would safeguard today's jobs. They were looking for a budget that would create jobs of tomorrow. On all counts, the budget has failed to do that.

I want to talk about some of the specifics I heard from people in my riding. Sadly, we will be going back to tell them that their expectations will not be met.

Money for housing is talked about in the budget, but the kicker with it, as always, is it requires matching funds. We were looking for innovative strategies that talk about some of the problems we see in some of our rural communities.

We were hoping the needs of rural communities would be addressed in terms of the diversity of housing and the kind of transportation infrastructure required for those communities. In the urban communities we were looking for money for retrofitting existing stocks of housing and some creative solutions towards homelessness. Because this money will be funnelled through the provinces and will oftentimes require matching funds, those houses simply will not be built in many of our communities.

There was certainly some mention of agriculture in the budget, but again it fell short. British Columbia has a different kind of agricultural economy than the prairies, for example.

We were looking for money that would support training for small and middle-income farmers, training on business and management development and basic production information. We were looking for support for community organizations, which are working towards increasing self-sufficiency for backyard and urban gardeners. We were looking for buy local initiatives, initiatives that talked about government procurement of local agriculture, initiatives that supported community-supported agriculture and initiatives that supported local processing facilities. Sadly, those were not in the budget either.

A community adjustment fund was announced in the budget, which would look at assisting communities like mine, where forestry is in transition. In the past the community development trust fund failed to meet the needs of forestry workers. Many of the forestry workers in my riding are in their late 40s or early 50s, so the transition fund did not work for them because they were not 55. For some of the transition projects that were funded, there was no requirement that forestry workers needed to be employed.

The community adjustment fund has no criteria outline saying that it will directly benefit forestry workers or manufacturing workers, and that is a critical piece. It is fine to stimulate the economy and provide some service to some of these projects, but it is the workers who are hardest hit who really do need the attention.

Much has been made about infrastructure. My community would welcome infrastructure spending. The problem with it is that municipalities have a really difficult time coming up with their share of the money. Some of our municipalities are heavily reliant on single industries. Those forestry sector companies are struggling with profitability.

What is happening is municipalities are looking at a potential reduction in their tax base. They simply will not have the funds to contribute towards infrastructure projects, despite the fact that we have a critical infrastructure project in most of our communities.

We talked about the RCMP today. We had hoped to see in the budget a firm commitment to honouring the contract that was signed with the RCMP, honouring those wages that were part of that signed agreement. Sadly, what we heard is no. The government will not honour the agreements with the RCMP officers.

We do have solutions. One person in my riding put together a number of initiatives and she talked about community investment funds. She talked in particular about a community investment fund that would build national capacity. This could be a community fund that would be an incubation fund, that would build practical know-how, share best practices and models and expertise, facilitate communication, outreach support and do pilot projects that benefited the local economy directly. That was absent in the budget.

The last element that was absent from the budget, and probably the most egregious, is employment insurance. We have heard the Conservatives say in the House that they have invested in employment insurance by adding five weeks onto the claims. That is great for the workers who qualify and I applaud that initiative. However, in my riding the sad fact is that many people have run out of employment insurance. They are forestry workers and they have not been able to work enough hours to qualify for a new claim. Adding five weeks simply will not help them out.

For every $60 the government provided in corporate tax cuts, it provided $1 for the unemployed worker. That ratio of 60:1 is simply not acceptable.

Yesterday the Minister of Human Resources said, “We do not want to make it lucrative for them to stay home and get paid for it, not when we still have significant skills shortages in many parts of the country”. Tell me how lucrative it is for workers when the average employment insurance cheque is in the mid $300 range. I would challenge the minister to live on $300 a week in today's economy.

I have limited time so I will not be able to quote extensively from a couple letters, but let us put a face to what it means to be unemployed right now in Nanaimo—Cowichan and many other parts of the country. I have a letter signed by the United Steelworkers, the Truck Loggers' Association, Coast Forest Products Association, Forest Industrial Relations, and others. They wrote:

--28% of the current Forest Industry Unionized employees have worked less than 420 hours in the past year. And 39.6% have worked less than 700 hours.

These workers simply will not have enough hours to qualify for employment insurance.

Doug Morgan, whose story is typical of many, wrote:

I live on Vancouver Island in BC and work for Western Forest Products.... I have worked there for 28 years and I am 51 years old. I am writing this letter in hope that I can let people in government have a clear understanding of the crisis that the employees of this industry are in or are about to be in.... I have five weeks of Employment Insurance (EI) remaining on my claim and have not worked enough to have enough hours to start a new claim. The mill that I work for, as are most of the mills, is working only when they have to fill orders that they can get in these poor economic times. When my Employment Insurance claim runs out I will have no money coming in at all. With a mortgage to pay and a child about to go to college I have to find work some way to get by.... With the average age on the coast in this industry being 50 to 60 years old many employees of this industry are in or are going to be in the same situation.

He went on in the letter to talk about what should have happened in this budget. There should have been a reduction in the number of hours needed to qualify. There should have been a waiving of the two-week waiting period. There should have been a reconsideration of the benefit rate.

Tell Mr. Morgan that it is more lucrative for him to stay at home. I would challenge members of the House to talk to their constituents who are in that situation where they will not qualify, or where their claims are running out, or where there are no other jobs in those communities because they are heavily reliant on forestry, for example. Tell them how they are going to benefit from this budget when they cannot even qualify to begin with.

I am going to touch briefly on first nations. Earlier today during oral questions I talked about the fact that the estimates tabled by the minister this week clawed back money out of infrastructure and put it into seriously underfunded education. The big issue is that there is money announced for infrastructure and for other programs, but the big issue is whether or not that money will actually reach communities. Will it get on the ground for community members? Whether it is housing, education, or water, the budget simply does not make firm commitments of getting the money to where it is most needed.

Aboriginal women and the National Association of Friendship Centres have been left out in the cold. Aboriginal women are not mentioned in this budget, nor is the National Association of Friendship Centres, yet it provides a very valuable service to a significant number of urban aboriginal people in this country. That is a grave oversight.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way mentioned some of her disappointments with respect to agriculture in this budget. I think it is important that we recognize what this government, the agriculture minister and the Prime Minister have done. She talked about farmers in her riding wanting more information. Farmers in my riding have lots of information. What they need is access to markets so that they can get the right price for their product.

That is what this government has been focusing on. Bilateral trade agreements that had not been signed for a dozen years have finally started to roll out under this government. Just this January we had an agreement in principle with Hong Kong that will double our market share to $26 million in the beef sector. There is $145 million for the advancement of the Canadian bio-based economy. There is $134 million for commercialization of new bio-based products. There is $22 million for AAFC research and development projects. That is the history of this government. There is $500 million for new agriculture and agriculture flexibility.

Can the member explain how she is actually going to vote against that?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question, but it also shows how out of touch the government is with the realities of farmers across this country.

The farmers in British Columbia are not like the farmers on the Prairies. We talk about western alienation. I can see that it is alive and well when we see agricultural policies when it comes to British Columbia. For many of our farmers, although trade has increased, real farm income has decreased. We also see that many farmers in this country have to work off farm. They need off-farm income in order to survive. The member talked about increased markets, but these farmers are barely making a living.

I want to see some real investment in some of the small farmers in this country. I want to see some real investment in government procurement policies that say that we will buy local. I want to see some real investment in local processing facilities. The current and previous governments' failure to recognize, for example, chicken processing and some of the meat regulations has meant that the farmers on Vancouver Island have had to get out of the business. They have to ship their livestock over to Vancouver. That increases stress on the livestock and increases the farmers' costs. We want to see some meaningful small farm policy.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, as a former president of our local aboriginal friendship centre, I am delighted the member raised the lack of mention of those centres in the budget.

I want to ask her about an issue related to self-governing first nations. There is $50 million in the budget for the north, for housing, but it is for everybody. Some of that is intended for aboriginal housing, but it does not say how much or how they would get it. In the south, it is specifically targeted at $400 million for on reserve, but in the north, it is not specified.

This happened the last time around. Our first nations were incensed that the government had not treated them as governments and did not give them the money directly. It flowed through other governments. I got a furious phone call from a vice-chief yesterday saying that once again there is $50 million for the public at large, but there is no sense that it is going to be delivered directly to self-governing first nations. There is no sense of how much is for them.

They are once again incensed that although they are now governments as approved by this Parliament they are not being treated as governments and they are not getting the money to directly flow to them. It is good that the much needed money for housing is there, but it is the process which they are very upset with.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the reason the New Democrats will not be supporting this budget.

Regarding the friendship centres, I just want to point out to this House that Canada's 118 aboriginal friendship centres have not had an increase in their budgets since 1998. Once again, there is another budget where there is no mention of them.

When it comes to self-governing first nations and housing, there are a number of problems with aboriginal housing as it is mentioned in this budget. First of all, it carefully does not talk about the fact that in the past the money that has come out has been strictly for market housing. We do not know if this money is going to be targeted for market housing. It does not talk about the process on how, in particular, self-governing first nations will access that money. They should rightly control that money.

Given past experiences on how this money is or is not rolled out, we do not have confidence that this money will actually build houses in aboriginal communities from coast to coast to coast.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the budget. Similar to other members who have expressed such in the House, I also reached out to my constituents. I have also been receiving a lot of phone calls and emails from other people across the country who are concerned about what is not in the budget and what has been cut from the budget. It is well known in the House that I have a great interest and long-standing work in the area of the environment. Despite the fact that I heard a lot of concerns from my own constituents about there being no more funding for health care, no more funding for advanced education, much to my surprise, by and large the largest number of concerns expressed to me were that the highest priority they set for the budget is that they want more money to address climate change and protection of the environment. What I intend to address in the budget debate today is the shortfalls in that area.

The hon. Minister of the Environment has described the budget as setting a new high watermark for eco-funding. In assessing whether the budget actually merits this accolade, let us recall the responses made to the economic and climate crises--and I remind the House we are not just in an economic crisis; we are facing also a serious climate crisis--by other jurisdictions and authorities.

President Obama, in his first month in office, provided clear leadership by announcing measures to forge a new greener economy for his nation, a stimulus package that doubles the generating capacity of the United States renewable energy over three years to power six million homes; the financing of retrofitting of two million homes to save low income earners the average of $350 a year; the retrofitting, not the sell-off, of 75% of federal buildings to save the government $2 billion a year; loan guarantees to leverage $100 billion in private investment in clean energy projects. He cleared the way for new rules to require production of more fuel efficient and cleaner cars, unlike Canada's government which missed the deadline. He also dedicated $600 million for new federal fleet cars.

Germany has enacted a law that requires power distributors to purchase electricity from renewable sources for a fixed time at fixed rates above market prices. In other words, it is giving a leg up to the new green economy, as much as a seven times higher price for solar power. Germany now generates the most renewable energy worldwide and the largest production of solar panels and wind turbines in the world.

We are letting these businesses pass by. They employ one-quarter million people and a $400 billion revenue stream for this sector, four times the figures since 2000.

The International Energy Agency has called on all governments to include green measures in their stimulus plans. “If governments are spending money for a stimulus package”, it says, “why not spend it on renewables?” Its executive director said, “It stimulates the economy in the short term and in the long term it is sustainable. It kills two birds with one stone”. Although perhaps not the metaphor an environmentalist might prefer, we get the message.

This week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, business people and economists alike voiced support for reduced reliance on dirty fossil fuels and support for green industries capable of creating jobs as the preferred path to ease the difficulties faced by businesses and workers alike.

The United Nations Environment Program has launched a $4 million green economy initiative to get the global markets back to work. This initiative, funded by the European Commission, Germany and Norway, will deliver within two years a package for use by all governments to help make this transition. I hope that the government pays attention to this package.

According to the UNEP executive director, “The financial fuel and food crises are part of a much wider market failure which triggers deeper environmental impacts coupled with an over-reliance on finite fossil fuels”. That renowned international organization recognizes that we face both an economic crisis and a climate crisis. Its intent is to mobilize and refocus the global economy toward investments in clean technologies and natural infrastructure. It has called for new creative, forward looking and transformational thinking. Instead of pouring more investments into the same old extractive short-term economy of yesterday, UNEP is advising nations, including ours, to move investments toward a new green economy.

Such an economy would be based on three pillars: valuing and mainstreaming nature, employment generation through green jobs and green policies, and the use of instruments and market signals to accelerate the transition to a green economy.

How do these brave, bold initiatives to start the economy and save the planet compare to the measures in the budget tabled before us in Parliament? The Minister of the Environment has advised we must read the budget in the context of the fall 2008 throne speech. That speech, coupled with policy and law reforms slowly being revealed to us, suggests a dramatically different path than that taken by President Obama, other nations or international institutions of the world.

Our federal government is granted extensive powers to forge bold new directions for reviving the economy and sustaining our living environment, powers that if exercised in a timely and effective manner could drive change for the better, trigger major shifts in investment and provide hope to Canadians for a sound and sustainable future. Counted among those important powers are the spending power, the taxation power and the regulatory power. Let us not forget the regulatory power.

The question we must ask ourselves in assessing whether we will vote for this budget is whether the government has actually used its taxation and spending powers in the budget to show leadership to establish a new high-water mark for the environment. Has the government followed the path of its G20 partners and delivered on its commitments to unleash a new greener energy future for Canada?

True, there is some evidence of new language and a tinkering at the edges of the old-style economy. Some of Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars are to be made available to them to renovate their homes or cottages or to build a deck. Some additional dollars would be set aside for the home energy retrofit program. Those with cash to spare to do both may potentially be rewarded with both a grant and tax relief.

Perhaps less of the pie has been allocated to those at the bottom end of the prosperity gap. Regrettably, no moneys are allocated for retrofitting the large rental housing stock.

What else is missing from the budget? Let me share just a few examples brought to my attention by my constituents, by renewable energy experts and investors, by energy efficiency entrepreneurs, by transit authorities and by respected scientists, simply to name a few I have consulted or who have contacted me.

With regard to transit, a stated priority of the government is to get workers to their jobs in a cleaner, less smog-producing way. Despite the valuable contribution public transit makes toward this goal, not a single dollar is specifically committed to transit, and this despite a cost analysis by the Canadian Federation of Municipalities that for every billion dollars invested in infrastructure for transit, over 11,000 full-time jobs are created. Perhaps a few of the 167 priority transit projects identified by the Canadian Urban Transit Association as ready to go may eventually win the lottery and be funded under building Canada.

What about the clean and renewable energy economy? The budget purports to be transforming Canada into a green energy economy. Close to $1 billion to develop and test so-called clean energy technologies singles out carbon-capturing sequestration, which has already received $1 billion and even more from the provinces, yet zero new dollars are budgeted to incent the development, and most important the deployment, of renewable energy, save possibly support for one windmill on Prince Edward Island.

What about climate change? It is among the most pressing challenges of our time. How many references are made in the budget to this issue? There is just one, occurring when the government touts nuclear power as the singular solution to Canada's energy security and climate change goals.

Regrettably, what the government has done through streamlining is cut the very institutions that can develop the innovative transition and move it forward.

It has done nothing on water, despite calls by the first nations of northern Alberta and by leading scientists of Canada.

I call on the government and I call on the members of the House not to support the budget. We need to be forging a new green economy.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the House today we have listened to speaker after speaker from the NDP tell us what was not in the budget. Notwithstanding the fact that they were invited to participate in the preparation of the budget and were invited to give their input, they chose not to participate much at all. In fact, a couple of weeks before the budget had even been presented, they were telling the Canadian people that they were not going to support the budget That in itself is curious.

Now I am listening to all the things they say are not in the budget. Making a shopping list is easy once they have the budget.

All these things are now a matter of Hansard, and when this debate is over, I would ask members of that party to present a priced list of all of the things they brought up and tell the Canadian people how much money the things they say are not in the budget would actually cost. I would ask that they be honest and just do it.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is necessary for me to price the costs of addressing climate change. That has been done very thoroughly by the experts in the federal environment department.

I have the big tomes that have been held back and finally released to the public. They document the major costs we are going to face and the liabilities, as yet unassessed, for the failure to address air pollution, the failure to address our depleting water resources, and the failure to address climate change.

Where in this budget is there any action to generally reduce the liabilities we are unloading on future generations?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the member for Edmonton—Strathcona. I believe there are about 67 women sitting in this House, and I am very surprised that the Liberals, among others, are choosing to support the budget, as it contains a measure that, as a women and a parliamentarian, I feel is completely unacceptable. In the budget, the economic statement and the throne speech, the Conservative government has repeatedly stated that it will not reverse its position and will continue to insist that the right to pay equity be a negotiated right.

Since when is a right negotiable? A right is a right. People have to demand it and secure it using the means available to them. I would like the member for Edmonton—Strathcona to tell me, as a woman and a parliamentarian, how she interprets the Liberals' support and the Conservatives' stubborn refusal to address this issue that affects women.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too am deeply disturbed at the lack of respect shown for women in this House. I too have received a lot of calls from constituents who are deeply concerned about this matter. We thought that we had made progress in Canada, that we were an advanced nation and that we were actually going to show equality for both sexes, men and women, in Canada. I am deeply disturbed not only that it was raised in the fiscal update but that the spectre is also raised again in this budget, and I am deeply disappointed that the Liberal Party has chosen to ignore that.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brought up environmental issues in her speech. Does she think the government should work with members from all parties to ensure that our economy can adapt to the new environmental challenges before us?

We have feedback loops that are on the precipice of actually coming to pass. They would have a huge impact on our environment and on our economies.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the environment critic I was looking forward to working with all the parties and to implementing a new green economy. Regrettably, the budget does not allow us to do that. We will simply be tinkering at the edges.

One of the tools I mentioned was that in parallel with the budget's fiscal and taxation measures, we must have regulatory measures that would move us to this new economy. Regrettably, from rumours we are hearing, that trigger for better investment and for a cleaner economy will not be available to us either.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the economic action plan presented by our government on January 27.

Before I begin, Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that I will be splitting my time with the member for Peterborough.

I would like to take a moment in my first speech in the 40th Parliament to thank the people of Kitchener—Conestoga for their continued faith in me and sending me back to Ottawa to represent them. I would also like to thank my wife, Betty, and our children, Gavin, Benj and Arja, as well as their families. I am incredibly blessed and could not do what I am doing here without their love and sacrifice.

This afternoon I speak on behalf of the residents of Kitchener—Conestoga. As was mentioned earlier this week by my colleague, the hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo, we undertook, along with the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, a series of round tables with community leaders. From local governments to non-government organizations, from local businesses to multinational corporations, from agriculture to engineering to recycling, a diverse group shared its views. Each of them brought forward very valuable ideas as to what they felt were the most crucial economic issues needing our attention.

Participants were unanimous that expedited infrastructure spending, investments in housing, access to credit, support for new and traditional industrial sectors and building sustainable labour markets were the most credible choices to provide stimulus. There was some divergence over the relative priorities within that list. Municipal government representatives focused their conversations on the importance of infrastructure renewal and an expedited process for approving projects as a means to inject stimulus. Business leaders focused on the tightening of credit as a threat to Canadian business and jobs.

The sessions were remarkable for the lack of tunnel vision participants brought to the table. There was near uniform agreement that in the Canadian economy a balance of all these priorities must be found.

There was significant conversation regarding what should be included in the umbrella term “infrastructure” for funding purposes. Beyond the traditional roads, bridges and crossings, there was broad support for the inclusion of other necessary investments, including green energy initiatives and broadband access for rural areas.

A report from these prebudget consultations was then compiled and presented to the Minister of Finance. It is very obvious that our finance minister was listening because many of the suggestions that we received from these participants have been reflected in this government's economic action plan. Let me say that this plan presented by our Minister of Finance on Tuesday has been received very well in my constituency.

I am happy to say that my Waterloo region colleagues and I were not the only ones to engage Canadians in consultations regarding the unique challenge facing Canada's economy. The budget that we debate today is the result of the most comprehensive and inclusive prebudget consultations in Canadian history. I would like to extend my congratulations and thanks to the Minister of Finance and his parliamentary secretary, the member for Macleod, for their continued fine work and leadership on behalf of all Canadians.

Canada is being hard hit by a global recession that started in the United States. Businesses in my riding are being impacted negatively, manufacturing job losses have increased, and the demand for EI benefits and retraining opportunities have increased.

Our economic action plan addresses the need for extended EI benefits and enhancing the availability of training opportunities for those who have lost jobs.

By extending the work-sharing agreements by 14 weeks, more Canadians will be able to continue working. The $1.8 billion directed toward increasing the availability of training opportunities will go a long way toward addressing the needs of many who have lost jobs in sectors which are very unlikely to ever return to the levels of employment opportunity they once experienced.

The strategic training and transition fund would support the needs of individuals who do not qualify for EI training, such as the self-employed or those who have been out of work for a prolonged period of time.

Other initiatives such as those targeting student summer jobs and the initiative for older workers will address specific demographics of those affected by this economic downturn.

The apprenticeship completion grant of $2,000 will help to address the critical need for skilled labour, a problem which will only get worse unless young Canadians are encouraged to enter these worthy professions, and community colleges are equipped to train them.

That brings me to the commitment of our government to provide $2 billion for the acceleration of new projects at our post-secondary institutions. Mr. John Tibbits, the president of Conestoga College, has been persistent in his call for greater emphasis on skilled trades training. Mr. Tibbits has the honour of being the leader of a college that for 9 of the last 10 years has been named the number one publicly-funded college in Ontario.

Mr. Tibbits had the following to say about our economic action plan, “We're very pleased with the Federal Budget. Our Federal Members of Parliament have listened to our concerns through pre-budget briefings. The budget responds directly to those concerns”.

I am very proud to say that Conestoga College is situated in my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga.

One of the points I noted from our consultations was that, regardless of their sector, participants clearly recognized the long-standing need for municipal infrastructure renewal. This government understands that and will accelerate and expand recent historic investments in infrastructure with almost $12 billion in new infrastructure spending over five years. This provides Ontario with its share of $4.5 billion over two years for roads, bridges, buildings and broadband, and accelerates payments for infrastructure projects in Ontario.

I am happy that our government has provided more than $1 billion over five years for the southern Ontario development agency program to help workers, communities and businesses in the region. In fact, Stratford mayor, Dan Mathieson of the Southwest Economic Alliance, said, “This budget is good news for southwest Ontario. It is good news for our communities, for our citizens and for our economy”.

We have heard from many sectors that are giving their strong support to this play. The mayor of Kitchener said, “It is good news for the municipalities. That is probably an historic event in terms of the acknowledgement by the federal government that there is going to have to be a partnership as we deal with the infrastructure deficit that municipalities have been talking about for some time”.

Our government is doing the right thing by cutting taxes and improving access to capital for the financial system. Since coming to office the government has provided $78.3 billion in tax relief to the people and businesses of Ontario. Budget 2009 will provide an additional $9.1 billion in tax relief. We have also made $13 billion in additional financing available to crown corporations, such as CMHC, Export Development Canada and the Business Development Corporation, and increased their flexibility and capacity to provide capital to small business.

Our government will also provide Ontarians with $1.3 billion through a temporary home renovation tax credit which will provide meaningful tax relief to help Canadian homeowners make improvements to their property while promoting broad based economic activity.

There is an additional $407 million in support for first-time homebuyers through the $5,000 first time homebuyers tax credit to assist them with the costs associated with the purchase of their first home. The $5,000 increase of RRSP withdrawal limits will also assist first-time homebuyers in purchasing a home.

Budget 2009 also provides $225 million over three years to Industry Canada to develop and implement strategy on extending broadband coverage to communities that are not currently served, beginning in 2009. Canada is one of the most connected nations in the world with the highest broadband connection rate among the G7 countries. However, there are still gaps in access to broadband, particularly in rural and remote areas. Our government is committed to closing the broadband gap in Canada by encouraging development of rural broadband infrastructure. Much of my constituency is comprised of rural areas, some of which do not yet have access to broadband Internet.

I have heard concerns about this gap since my election and I was very pleased to see this addressed in this year's economic action plan.

Another provision which brings great benefit to the Waterloo region is the $50 million grant to the Institute for Quantum Computing. The institute is a world leader in research and teaching in the field of quantum information, a discipline that opens opportunities for the development of new technologies and opportunities for the creation of jobs.

Canadians sent the Conservative Party, led by our Prime Minister, to Ottawa with a strengthened mandate to steer this country through a worldwide economic crisis. They did so knowing that this is a government that is not afraid to make hard choices and it is not afraid to lead by example.

This economic action plan is what we need in these uncertain times. For all of us who have been sent here to represent our constituents in the House of Commons, we can never forget that we are here to represent those who have entrusted us with the serious responsibility to examine the issues and then to make the right choices.

It is my sincere belief that the budget represents the best possible plan to lead Canada through the troubled waters of the economic storm and that as we work together as a nation we will emerge even stronger than we are today.

May God keep Canada glorious and free.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the member's attention to an article in The Mississauga News yesterday which reads:

Not only is the cheque not in the mail for Canadian municipalities, but the instructions for writing the cheque aren't even written yet.

Even though federal politicians trumpeted the billions in infrastructure dollars for cities in the federal budget announced Tuesday, municipal officials are still trying to determine just how the money will be dispensed.

It is unclear to what degree matching funds from the provinces and cities will be required, whether money will be distributed on a per capita basis or through applications, and exactly what kind of projects will be eligible.

What assurances do we have from the government and that member that the $12 billion infrastructure money will flow to those communities that need it, like my own community of Mississauga--Streetsville? In Mississauga, we have already put together a long wish list of projects that include the revitalization of Civic Square, fixing fire halls and libraries, repairing roads, covering extra costs and the long-awaited rapid transit system.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was a pretty long list and I am not sure I will be able to cover all of her questions.

In our budget consultations in my riding of Kitchener--Conestoga, we met with many of the mayors who represent the Waterloo region. Each mayor was very confident that as we sit together and work in partnership, as I said earlier, we will be able to meet the challenges in front of us.

As it relates to the timing of this, all of us in this chamber know that for the budget to be implemented it needs to be voted upon by members in the House to give it support. I thank the member opposite for indicating that her party will be supporting it.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his remarks, the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga did a magnificent job of listing the challenges that are facing small businesses, workers and families across his riding and, of course, across Canada.

Thunder Bay--Superior North has serious problems in the forest industry and the budget has absolutely zero in it other than a tiny amount for marketing and research and development money for forestry. There is nothing for loan guarantees and nothing for targeted investments. We have a mill in Marathon that is at risk. Terrace Bay and Schreiber have lost one paper machine. Nipigon, Red Rock and Dorion have lost two mills. Greenstone has lost two mills and the forest work that goes with it. The list goes on.

I am an NDP member and a proud one, and I am a small business person. I would like to ask the hon. member why we seem to be about to replicate the worst deficit in the history of Canada under the Mulroney government of $42 billion to $45 billion. We are headed that way now. Why are we giving $60 billion in tax cuts to large corporations but only $1 billion to EI workers who are in desperate trouble?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member noted in his remarks the challenges facing the forestry industry. I would like to point out that there are all kinds of initiatives in the budget that are targeted toward helping the forestry industry.

As well, there are EI benefits that will help retrain individuals and provide funding for those who would not normally qualify for EI benefits, those who may have been out of work for prolonged periods of time.

However, as it relates to the forestry sector, let me point out some of the initiatives that our budget includes. We are supporting the forestry sector with $80 million over two years for the transformative technologies program. It is important that the money we invest not just simply go toward continuing to do business as we have always done it, but that it go toward investing in technologies that will make all of our industries more competitive and more efficient. That is why we have extended the capital cost allowance for all manufacturing and these kinds of industries.

I would return a question back to my colleague. How can he not support many of these initiatives that we have put in for the forestry sector which will clearly help the forestry sector through this difficult time?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to speak this afternoon in support of this budget, a tremendous economic action plan for Canada, a great action plan, very timely and something that I think is roundly celebrated by Canadians east to west and north to south.

On December 22, I had the honour of hosting an economic round table in Peterborough and I had a number of local stakeholders come in and make specific recommendations on things that they would like to see in our budget. A number of the recommendations were not just outstanding recommendations that were incorporated in this budget, but they demonstrated that our finance minister and our Prime Minister were listening when we were handing in reports from everyday Canadians and incorporating those suggestions right into the budget.

I just want to refer to some of the suggestions that I heard.

Bryan Cathcart from Cathcart Trucking came forward and spoke on behalf of small business. He recommended reductions in small business taxes. I refer to the budget brief and I look at supporting small business. I look at, for example, increasing the amount of small business income eligible for a reduced federal tax rate by 11% to $500,000 from the current limit of $400,000. This is real money back into the pockets of small business so they can employ people, continue to be prosperous and invest in our communities.

Increasing access to credit was mentioned by a number of people who were there, including Jay Amer from the GPAEDC who spoke about our small businesses having a difficult time getting the credit they needed to conduct and grow their business. We look, for example, at the Canada small business financing program and the Business Development Bank of Canada, those extensions that we made specifically in this budget tremendously improved their ability to support small business. We see that once again that on this issue the government was really listening.

We had seniors' representatives there as well. Ralph de Groot, who is a retired superintendent of the RCMP, came forward and made specific recommendations with respect to the tax burden that seniors are facing in Canada and talked to us about how we might be able to help seniors so that they can meet their bill commitments and live the way they have become accustomed. We see in this budget that one of the major moves is to increase the age credit by an additional $1,000. Our government increased the age credit from $1,000 to $2,000 in budget 2006 and now we have increased it by another $1,000 effective in 2009.

What does this mean? How will this benefit seniors? What did Mr. de Groot's advocacy win for seniors? This benefit will benefit 2.2 million seniors who will now be eligible to receive up to $961 in annual tax savings. That is a lot of money for seniors in my community and that money will help them. In effect, $961 is what many of them make in any given month.

We have already introduced pension income splitting, something that was incredibly popular among seniors in my riding. We also changed the age limit from 69 to 71 on RRSPs. We further reduced the mandatory amount that must be withdrawn when converting RRSPs to RRIFs, something that seniors have been really concerned about, especially given the decline in the market. They wanted to be able to leave their money in and we are allowing them to do that. Once again, the concerns brought forward by Ralph de Groot were listened to in our budget.

The Peterborough Real Estate Association came forward. Barb Criegern and Carolyn Mills talked about the need for the government to assist homeowners and to assist real estate through what could be a difficult time. They talked about retrofit programs. Obviously the new home renovation tax credit, which this government brought forward, is something I am immensely proud of.

We now have a program where Canadians can improve their homes: green retrofits, improvements to their kitchens, maybe they have a new addition to the family so they need to renovate a bedroom, or maybe they want to finish a basement. For all of these things the government will now play a part, if they make that investment soon.

Those things will stimulate our economy because we know those inputs, whether it is lumber or drywall, are all made in Canada, which is a real stimulus to the economy. At the same time, the government will have a hand in helping everyday Canadians pay for renovations on their homes, to update their homes, to make them more efficient, to make them greener and to make them much nicer.

We have a lot of old housing stock in a city like Peterborough. This will help us retrofit those homes and really assist those homeowners.

They talked to me about the ability to leverage the RRSP investments toward the purchase of a home. That was specifically mentioned in the budget. One used to be able to take $20,000 of one's RRSP and draw that down to put toward a down payment on a home. For years, the Real Estate Association has been coming forward asking for it to be indexed and moved to $25,000. There is a specific member of our caucus who has worked very hard on that. That indexing is in the budget. This will help people buy homes and it is something that is roundly celebrated by real estate agents from coast to coast.

We now have the first-time home buyer's tax credit. Barb Criegern and Carolyn Mills of the Peterborough Real Estate Board talked at length about how we could assist first-time home buyers. That is a big market and it has the ability to really keep homes moving. If we can continue to assist people to move from rental to ownership, especially at this time of historically low interest rates, anything we could do in that regard would certainly be helpful.

The new tax credit of $5,000 tax credit with a net value to them of $750 is in the budget. This is the government helping first-time home buyers to enter into the real estate market at a time when we need people entering into the housing market so we can keep the economy rolling.

Judy Heffernan of the Peterborough Community Futures Development Corporation and Jay Amer talked to me specifically about the eastern Ontario development program. They had a recommendation to double the funding of that program because it had leveraged so much support and created so many jobs. That was a $10 million-a-year program. They were advocating to take that from $10 million and move it to $20 million. Our government did substantially more than that.

We have created the new southern Ontario development agency. That is a $1 billion investment over five years, and it is about time. Regional economic development has existed from coast to coast to coast but not in southern Ontario. It has been an item of fairness for us. We looked at it and thought about how much more investment we could leverage and how many more jobs we could create in southern Ontario if we had a fund like this. They were looking for another $10 million, but they received $200 million per year. We outdid their expectations by about 20 times.

However, that is not all we did. We also re-extended the eastern Ontario development program, so that $10 million fund is still in place for the next two years. We have the new SODA program, the southern Ontario development agency. That is going to create jobs and investments. We still have the eastern Ontario development program and that will be administered by the CFDC in Peterborough, Judy Heffernan and her associates, who do a tremendous job in attracting investment and creating jobs in Peterborough.

The president of Sir Sandford Fleming College, Tony Tilly, came to talk to me about a new skilled trades centre of excellence that the college would like to build. However, it really has a difficult time accessing the money that it needs to build the infrastructure. I have had conversations with the presidents of Brock University and the University of Windsor. I know the member for St. Catharines is here, a real advocate for Brock University.

What have we been able to create in the budget? What have we been able to lobby for? We did not only invest billions of new dollars in infrastructure, and that should never be diminished. We also created a new $2 billion fund for post-secondary institutions and that $2 billion will build the facilities that will create the great minds of tomorrow. This new skilled trades centre for Sir Sandford Fleming College will train the tradesmen of tomorrow. This is going to build the strong economy that Canada is going to need.

I could talk about this budget for hours because there is so much in it that is good for my community and every community from coast to coast to coast. However, I see that my time is up, but I appreciate the opportunity to speak in emphatic support of this great budget.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, what is the vision in the budget? A member from Nunavut yesterday asked about great vision, great potential projects that would get the north off diesel energy.

The Conservative member suggested we have put forth the facts on science. Therefore, I want to put forward the facts set out in annex 3 of the budget: cuts to the granting councils in 2009-10, $17.7 million; in 2010-11, $43 million; and in 2011-12, $87.2 million. I want to get those on the record. The member said that improving infrastructure for science was good. This morning two professors complained that it was no good if at the same time the research professors and research staff who would use that infrastructure were decimated.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the budget makes several very significant investments into science. For example, the board of Genome Canada has come out today specifically applauding budget 2009 for the commitments it makes in support of Genome Canada. Hundreds of millions of dollars per year over the next several years will go in support of that very important institution.

We are supporting scientific research in our country because we want to be a leader in the world.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the speech given by my hon. colleague from Peterborough and, if I understood correctly, there is a consistent theme running through this budget: only those who are rich, who already have money, stand to benefit from it.

Older people who unfortunately have to rely on the guaranteed income supplement do not have RRSPs or RRIFs. Nor can those older people enjoy a tax cut of $900 a year, because they do not pay taxes. This budget does nothing for such people.

People who do not have adequate housing, who live in tents in Edmonton—as the hon. member should know—cannot benefit from the government's renovation program.

How does it intend to help our poorest citizens, men and women alike? I am speaking on behalf of all Quebeckers and all Canadians. There is more to Canada than just Ontario.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

That is right, Mr. Speaker, Canada is not just Ontario and that is why our government does not discriminate between regions. This is why the new southern Ontario development agency is such a great advancement made by the government because of its fairness for Ontario.

The member specifically mentioned seniors and talked about housing for seniors. I reference page 14 of the budget in brief. The member can look at where it specifically details $400 million over two years for the construction of social housing units for low-income seniors. This is on top of the 7% increase last year in the guaranteed income supplement. It is on top of the amount of money that we have allowed seniors to earn before we claw anything back from pensions.

Last, we know that the over 800,000 Canadians have removed been completely from the federal tax rolls, the overwhelming majority of those are low-income seniors. I know the member does not want us taxing low-income seniors, and we are not.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the member is asserting, that the budget continues moneys for research, I have heard from two senior researchers, one working in the area of neuroscience, the other in Arctic research, who say what is happening is the money for actual researchers and students is being yanked and given over for the purchase of equipment and buildings in the Arctic, neither of which are very useful if there are no people to use them.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, college and university infrastructure is useful. I know the member has the University of Alberta in her riding. There are $2 billion for new infrastructure for colleges and universities. The member should vote in support of the budget because it will help people out right in her own riding.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

I am pleased to participate in this debate. First of all, I wish to state that this budget is completely unacceptable and that Quebeckers agree on two things. The budget does not respect the consensus of the National Assembly of Quebec, which passed a unanimous motion containing several points. I would like to remind members that the motion addressed several points, including two very important ones: maintaining the equalization system—that is, not changing the formula—and not proceeding with the implementation of a pan-Canadian securities commission. The unanimous motion of the Quebec National Assembly is supported by a great number of people and there is a broad consensus in Quebec on this matter.

As the member of parliament for a riding hit hard by various cuts to the manufacturing sector, I note that this budget does not contain significant measures to support workers who have lost their jobs and who must make great efforts to find employment in a sector and an area where, every month, a plant closes or finds itself in trouble.

I would like to mention that, since 2005, the riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry has lost almost 3,000 jobs concentrated in a regional county municipality where the economy was based on a manufacturing sector with good, well-paid jobs and unionized workers. Their wages were spent on goods, houses, renovations, and taxes and kept the economy rolling in our area. In our city, the closing of the Goodyear plant alone eliminated wages worth $85 million last year. To have a better idea of what this means, imagine motorcycle and watercraft vendors, renovators, builders, retailers as well as all merchants and contractors affected by the elimination of $85 million in wages. And I have only mentioned Goodyear.

Just two weeks ago, Rio Tinto Alcan announced the early closure of its factory. The community was preparing for the closure of the Beauharnois factory, but only in two years' time—the time it would take for the community, economic development players and elected officials to come up with solutions that would enable workers to find other employment. But now, everyone is caught a bit off guard by Rio Tinto Alcan's unacceptable decision. Good, salaried jobs are being lost in the city of Beauharnois. This city has seen its factories leave one after the other and in the past two weeks has learned that 250 workers will be out of work.

I do not want to make a defeatist speech because our region is bursting with very dynamic stakeholders, players and elected officials who are capable of attempting to re-ignite the local economy, of rolling up their sleeves and of trying to entice investors and promoters to our area, which has its assets. It is the only municipal port in Canada; there is a highway and there are trains. We are well-situated, but it will take us more than one or two years to build the infrastructure and attract new businesses.

While we are waiting for the elected officials and the economic development players to do their work, we must support the workers who have lost their jobs because they had decent salaries that allowed them to buy consumer goods and meet their financial commitments.

Following the recent Rio Tinto Alcan closure, 50 of the 250 workers were hired by an agency.

The unionized Alcan workers in Beauharnois made that compromise so that the plant would not have to close its doors for another two or three years, as they were promised. They were willing to make those compromises in their collective agreement and, unfortunately, agree to an agency. Since then, there have been two classes of workers in the plant.

Despite the union's compromises—as I said—nothing stopped Rio Tinto Alcan in Beauharnois from reneging on its commitments and hastily closing the plant. Some 50% of the people hired by the agency were former Goodyear workers. These workers have now been through two major layoffs in two years. That is very tough for people to handle.

I do not know whether the members are able to close their eyes and imagine what they would do if they lost their jobs tomorrow. They would no longer be getting paid, and they would have to wait two weeks before collecting employment insurance benefits. We make reasonable money, so we can save a little. But for factory workers, even those taking home a good wage, it is hard to save money.

Nowadays, in my riding, workers call to tell me that, unfortunately, they did not work enough hours to qualify for employment insurance benefits. That is why I think that the unemployed are one of this budget's glaring omissions. The government may be using other measures or services to stimulate the economy, but the unemployed have nevertheless been forgotten and they need support during this crisis.

I would like to provide two specific examples in an attempt to reach the members opposite. We hear a lot of numbers and statistics, but this is about human beings, about people who are appealing to us, the members who live in ridings that are economically dependent on manufacturing.

I want to share some stories with you, but I am not going to make the same mistake that the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke made before the holidays, when she read emails from her constituents. She read them in their entirety, even though they contained racist, discriminatory, completely unacceptable, unparliamentary language. In spite of all that, the member took the liberty of reading them in this House. Needless to say, the disparaging comments in the emails were directed at the Bloc members. I will take the high road and summarize the emails I received, because Bloc members also get blasphemous emails criticizing the Conservative government and members. But because we behave responsibly and respectfully in this House, I will not follow that member's example. I hope the Speaker will soon make a ruling prohibiting such unparliamentary practices.

I would like to tell you a story about employment insurance that touched me deeply. A single mother came to my office to tell me that she did not qualify for employment insurance because she was missing five hours, just five hours. I had to tell her that for years, the Bloc and many social stakeholders and unions in Quebec have been calling for changes to employment insurance, but that the Conservatives have unfortunately turned a deaf ear.

I have a message for the government, because of the stories I have heard, like this single mother's and another woman's too. When this woman, who had recently given birth, went back to work, she was unfortunately laid off, but she did not qualify for employment insurance because she did not have enough hours. That is too bad, but it is women who give birth. We are still being discriminated against because the Employment Insurance Act is not geared to women. They do not go back 104 weeks to see how many hours this woman accumulated; they just look at how many hours she worked. It is one more injustice.

If the government really wants to support the unemployed, it should act quickly to change and improve the employment insurance program.