Debates of Feb. 10th, 2009

BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009

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

Mr. Speaker, I, too, congratulate my colleague from Etobicoke North on a passionate dissertation on the genesis of rights for women, but women's rights are, after all, human rights, and now that pay equity has been eliminated by the government, the government has shown, not only contempt for women but contempt for gender parity.

I would like to ask my colleague from Etobicoke North about pay equity and why it is so important for the women in her riding of Etobicoke North, which is one of the most multicultural in all of Canada.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my riding is one of the most multicultural in the country. We rank fifth in terms of diversity. We also rank second of 308 ridings in terms of the percentage of people engaged in manufacturing. We have lost two companies in the last week.

On the issue of women, almost a quarter of my riding is headed by single parents and 95% are single women. They need to keep their jobs. They need a package now.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to an intervention that we heard this afternoon on the pay equity question. Why is it that, even when the committee for the status of women in the 38th Parliament heard from organizations, such as the National Association for Women and the Law, that the current regime of using the Canadian Human Rights Commission was a disservice to women, she wants to keep it status quo and not look at new legislation that will advance pay equity for women?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to look at the World Economic Forum figures. We have dropped from 18th to 31st in this past year. This new legislation will not protect women. Women lose out at the bargaining table.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the budget passed last week by the Conservative government and its Liberal allies is totally unacceptable to Quebec and the people of Quebec who are entitled, in times of economic crisis, to expect appropriate action on the part of the federal government.

Just two years ago, the Conservatives had the House agree to recognize the nation of Quebec in a spirit, they said, of openness. The bill we are discussing today shows that this openness has suddenly disappeared.

Last January 15, the National Assembly of Quebec voted unanimously in favour of a motion demanding that Ottawa provide assistance to Quebec to help it get through the economic crisis. It is obvious that Quebec will lose a lot of money as a result of the tabling of this budget, especially in regard to equalization. The changes to equalization will cost it a billion dollars in 2009-2010. In addition, the bill sets the stage for the establishment of a Canada-wide securities commission and reiterates the government’s intention to trample over Quebec’s jurisdictions in this regard.

The Prime Minister is choosing once again to ignore his past promises to respect Quebec’s jurisdictions. It would have been good if the Quebec Liberals had been allowed to vote against this budget in order to oppose the loss of a billion dollars to Quebec, just as the Newfoundland and Labrador Liberals were allowed to do. Right now, among the Quebec contingent, only the Bloc Québécois and the NDP member are opposing this loss of a billion dollars.

When I meet people in my riding, I am ashamed of our government because it does nothing to help them. People see it helping big corporations, like automobile companies, oil companies and banks, but they themselves are left by the wayside in an exercise based more on ideology than compassion for the people who are hurt most by the current situation.

The affluent people in our society will manage to get along fine despite the shaky economy. The tax cuts benefit people earning at least $81,000 a year, which is well beyond the middle class. Older people, retirees, the unemployed and middle class families will not benefit from this budget as the rich people will.

As for seniors, the Bloc Québécois has often raised the issue of the guaranteed income supplement and the fact that seniors have not been getting their fair share. According to FADOQ, the Quebec federation of seniors, the 2009 budget is most certainly not the route toward improving the lot of low income seniors. Despite numerous urgings to do something, the federal government has neglected to provide any additional support to the least well off of seniors, the guaranteed income supplement recipients.

Thanks to the mismanagement of the federal government, seniors who receive only the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement will not even have the opportunity to get up over the poverty line, because their income is so limited. The government is therefore keeping them poor.

Yet, during the recent prebudget consultations, FADOQ called for improvements to the guaranteed income supplement, specifically through automatic enrolment—not the case now—along with improved benefits and full retroactivity, as called for in a bill introduced by me in the last Parliament. We are not talking riches here, just a minimum income that should be guaranteed to everyone in a society that claims to respect its seniors.

Incidentally, that adjustment to the guaranteed income supplement would dovetail with the recovery plan. If seniors had a little more money, that money would be spent in the immediate community, thereby creating an economic revival with the activity that would be generated. That money would not be going out of the country.

As far as employment insurance is concerned, this past January the Quebec National Assembly called upon the government in Ottawa to improve the employment insurance program by loosening the eligibility criteria and enabling workers in training to continue to draw benefits. Turning a deaf ear to the requests from the National Assembly, the government responded by increasing the duration of EI benefits by five weeks for the next two years.

According to the statistics, only 10% of workers eligible for employment insurance use up all the period of benefits they are covered for. Since we know that less than half of people are eligible for EI, of that group only 10% use up all their benefits and would therefore benefit from what is in this budget. If the government had instead abolished the two week waiting period for workers who lose their jobs, all workers who lost their jobs would at least have been able to benefit from one provision in the budget, by immediately drawing EI benefits.

With regard to social housing, there are measures that affect people, and people want their government to come up with solutions. The current budget includes $2 billion for social housing, but only $400 million will be used to build new housing units.

It is estimated that Quebec needs 52,000 social housing units. In Laval alone, 1,062 needy people are waiting for social housing from the municipal housing bureau. This program is administered by the cities, and demand is high. In fact, demand is so high that people come to my constituency office to ask us to support their application for social housing.

It is difficult to step in at the federal level. We have to refer people or try to convince the municipal government to provide them with housing as soon as possible. But the government lacks the will to build new units.

In my riding, there is a federal penitentiary that was decommissioned 20 years ago. For 20 years, the penitentiary has not been used for anything. It was built by the federal government in 1978, and people moved into the surrounding area. Most of these people worked at the penitentiary, which explains the construction all around it. Now that the penitentiary is no longer used for its intended purpose, the government is dragging its feet on converting the building so that people can use it.

I have represented this riding for four and a half years. I have had access to studies the government has conducted into how the penitentiary could be converted or repurposed. I have always stressed that plans should include affordable social housing for the local community. People currently have to leave the neighbourhood because there is no space available.

The recovery plan was a perfect opportunity to act on this proposal, which previous governments had considered. I have been calling for this for four and a half years. Of course, it would have taken political and financial will. This government's recovery plan, which includes investment to stimulate employment, was a golden opportunity to use federal facilities to benefit people and to provide the social housing they need so badly.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to discuss Bill C-10, a very large bill. If any members from other parties are slouching back in their seat and waiting for the bill to pass because it simply would implement the budget, they had better look twice at the bill.

It is 444 pages long, with 471 clauses. A lot of new things are in it, things that we never heard in the budget. How many MPs knew that a whole rewrite of the Navigable Waters Protection Act would be it? It is not even mentioned in the budget. Pages 291 to 306 deal with those changes, and I will talk about those later.

Other major changes in the bill affect the Competition Act. I refer to the comments by the member for Pickering—Scarborough East, who is an expert on the Competition Act. He said that these were the most drastic changes to be act since 1986, that they were not based on the broad consensus of the Red Wilson and that it was too broad to be swept under the rug quickly, which is what is happening at this time.

It is amazing that no Conservatives are speaking to the major changes to those two acts and to a number of changes to other acts. These were not mentioned at all in the budget. It is also amazing that members from the government say they want quick passage of this bill. Why would they add all these complications, things that should have significant Parliamentary debate, into a budget implementation act? That slows the process if members are to do due diligence and deal with these other items?

I want to spend my time talking about items in the budget and future budgets, based mostly on the feedback I have received from people in my riding. A lot of changes will have to be added or made in the future.

First, I received a number of comments from first nations on infrastructure. They make the point that they have different infrastructure needs. They do not normally build convention centres, but they have all kinds of particular needs and they want to be eligible for those funds. They want to ensure they have access to the infrastructure programs and they want clarity on the specific funds available solely to first nations.

Second, they want to ensure they have an important role in the new northern agency. Because they are half the population north of 60°, this is very important. They have a different world view, different opportunities and different challenges. There are 23 governments in my riding of which 22 are first nations and municipalities. How will they be involved in the establishment of the new agency?

The administration of housing funds is a particularly upsetting point. The northern housing funds are a very excellent allocation in the budget. However, last time the minister, who is now the Minister of the Environment, had hoped all that money would go to first nations, but it did not. It was not specifically given to self-governing first nations to deliver it. Now $400 million is set aside in the budget for on reserve first nations in the south. However, it is not specified how much of the $200 million north of 60° is for first nations, nor how it will be delivered. Once again, the first nations are furious about the repetition of this problem.

It speaks to a bigger problem. The new governments we have created, which, in some areas, have equal to more power than the provinces of Ontario or Quebec, have not been treated like governments. The funds they will be delivering end up being run through other governments.

With regard to housing money, the bill specifically says “social housing” units in the north. For aboriginal people in the south, it says “on-reserve housing”. A chief in the north spoke to me about this. He wants his people to be self-sufficient. The people want to build housing and charge rents without it being solely limited to social housing units. With the new economic development plan, they have their own world view. They want to ensure they are recognized for that and have their views respected.

The biggest item for first nations is the financial transfer arrangement. The nine year review has been going on for a number of years now.

The biggest item for first nations is the financial transfer arrangement. The review has been on going for a number of years now. We need a mandate from the federal government. We need to get on with it quickly, conclude it and implement it. Before the election, the minister said that he would do this quickly. There are benefits for everyone, for Arctic sovereignty, for economic development, for governance in the northern strategy. Let us get on with it and get it done.

Hopefully the government will continue its support on interoperability of our first responders in emergencies. I am happy with what it is doing so far. Police, health responders and ambulance operators are working together to ensure communications are interoperable. This will save lives, both the responders and the victims. Lives have been lost because of a lack of interoperability. I hope this gets due attention in Parliament.

President Obama has already brought it up, and the U.S. governors have a good understanding of it.

Another item that could have been put back in the budget was the GST tourism rebate. Once again, this is an obvious stimulus. Virtually every other major country in the world does it, yet the government cancelled the rebate for individual tourists. That hurts our tourism industry.

Once again, the municipalities would like infrastructure funds to flow through a system like the gas tax, so it can be done quickly. The member for Willowdale brought this up, as have our municipalities. They want the funds to flow quickly.

Related to the northern agreement, we hope the government will ensure it is streamed individually. Each of the three territories in the north are totally different and have different needs. That needs to be respected. There is also talk about oversight of such a fund by major leaders in the north. They do not want too much money spent on the administration. I have no problem with putting enough in to do the administration properly, while ensuring they have the programs to deliver it. That would make the percentage of administration small.

Millions upon millions have been allocated in the budget to help the vulnerable. We have said over and over that it is not enough. The Department of Finance has calculated that it would only be $900 million to cancel the two week waiting period for which we had asked, and it could be allocated from other items in the budget.

On the RCMP rollback, and I have mentioned this before in the House, a number of RCMP officers in my area are very upset that the government made a deal with them. Now it has gone back on its word. This is a critical service for our nation and it is a dangerous occupation in which to be.

Related to the credit card increases for individuals and business, there is good news and bad news. There is nothing related to businesses in the budget. Related to individuals, there are provisions that will make for more transparency. If the credit card companies want to increase fees, if payments are missed, they will have to announce the increase before implementing it so people will know it is coming.

I have had two phone calls today from people who very upset with the heritage minister for suggesting he has no opposition to commercials on CBC. Across the country, everyone is still very upset with the heritage minister for cancelling programs for the international marketing of our artists. These programs were cancelled in the last budget, but were never reinstated.

The navy league approached me about the building of boats. The Prime Minister promised three icebreakers and has now cancelled two of those. The ice-strengthened supply ships seem to have been cancelled. The aircraft for Yellowknife seem to have been cancelled. The search and rescue planes for the north are nowhere to be seen.

On the infrastructure program, which we called for last October, we recently found that the terms and conditions for the program are not even ready. It is not that the projects are not shovel ready, it is the program is not ready yet.

The bill proposes major changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I am not saying that some of those changes are not needed, they are, and Parliament agrees, but this is not the place to do it. It will not speed up projects.

A lot of the problems that people are complaining about are in the Fisheries Act, not the Navigable Waters Protection Act. If an inspection needs to be done of an airplane before it takes off, the inspection is not cancelled because it will take too long. More inspectors need to be hired to get it done more quickly.

Finally, the elimination of the regulations from the statutory instrument review in the Navigable Waters Protection Act is not something--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know why my colleague is supporting the budget. He spent 10 minutes basically running it down.

One thing he did talk about, which is important because it does not get a lot of attention, is the change to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In the last session of Parliament Liberals in the transport committee, which I am a member of, actually reduced the opportunity to study this bill. A motion was brought forward that was supported by the Liberals and Conservatives.

What ended up happening was that witnesses from environmental groups were limited, even in committee, down to one hour to raise concerns about changing the act. I am glad that he has caught on to this, but I would ask him why his party in committee was opposed to having more witnesses and would his party support such a dramatic change because this is going to have significant consequences and there has been no input at all?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member supports my point of view that there needs to be a further review of this outside the budget implementation act.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Yukon who yesterday spent a number of hours going through all the briefings of Bill C-10. We had an opportunity to talk about some of the observations.

In addition to the matters that the member indicated were probably not adequately addressed in the budget, one issue has to do with this document itself and the fact that it appears to deal with certain areas which are really beyond the scope of the budget and effectively makes the document an omnibus bill where a whole bunch of other things has been thrown in. It is over 500 pages long. It is going to take an awfully long time for us to get this done.

I am wondering whether the member has any concerns that this will in fact delay the flow of the important programs, the money for the programs and infrastructure, et cetera, and that there will be lags such that the critical objectives of protecting and creating jobs through things like infrastructure spending and other legitimate stimuli are going to be delayed beyond the best interests of Canadians.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I agree. As I said, the reason Liberals are supporting the budget is because there are millions upon millions of dollars for the vulnerable. There is not enough, of course, as we have said time and time again, but that money cannot flow until the bill is passed.

There are many things in this budget, and I mentioned a lot of them, but I will talk about one subsection that has nothing to do with saving money or helping the vulnerable. It is the Navigable Waters Protection Act and in paragraph 327(12)(2.2) of the budget implementation bill it says the regulations are not statutory regulations and cannot be reviewed by the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.

The expert in that area in Parliament, the member for Scarborough—Rouge River, outlined that all regulations should be viewed by Parliament. People are already worried that things are done by regulations when cabinet can put them through and Parliament does not review them. At least they are reviewed in committee for its legality, that it complies with the statute that created it and the charter and that there is no unexpected or unusual power. Why would a clause exist that exempts the regulations under the Navigable Waters Protection Act from the scrutiny of parliamentarians?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister was very clear that he would not introduce bills or motions in the House that required a confidence vote other than for financial issues, traditional budgetary issues. I want to ask the member for Yukon this question. Based on the theme of his speech today, does he not agree with me that in fact the Prime Minister has once again broken a promise to the House and the Canadian people by incorporating a number of provisions in this bill that are totally unrelated to financial matters or only partially related that should not be confidence votes? If he does agree with me, then why does his party continue to support this budget and this particular bill?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that there are a number of items here. As I said in my speech, I do not think this is the place for them. They are regular act reviews. They should go through the normal legislative process with the normal number of witnesses. It should be worked out that way. The government should not complicate getting money to the vulnerable by putting them into this act when they are only peripherally related to improving the economy and helping the vulnerable. The government should not be complicating the issue like this.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to discuss the key issues in the recent Conservative-Liberal budget. The new Liberal Party leader's about-face sets us back to square one. Once again we clearly see that no federalist party is capable of understanding Quebec's real interests.

During his first term, the Conservative Prime Minister appeared to show some openness with the supposed recognition of the Quebec nation, but we know what happened next: cuts to not-for-profit organizations, to economic development and to culture. It is all well and good to talk about nationhood, but a nation without culture is not really a nation.

Let us turn our attention to employment insurance. The Prime Minister requested that Parliament be prorogued. One might have hoped that he would use the time to find solutions to meet the needs of Quebeckers. Rumours propagated by Quebec backbenchers and ministers suggested that the Conservatives would be more sensitive to the demands of our unemployed workers. We had two minimum demands to help them: eliminate the two week waiting period and make the employment insurance system more accessible. In response, we were told there would be no changes. Unemployed workers, in the midst of a crisis, are faced with the stress of surviving for two, four or even six weeks with no income, that is, if they even qualify. In a burst of generosity, the Conservatives decided to add five weeks. How can people benefit from those five weeks if they do not even qualify? Nevertheless, we support that measure. It is a small step in the right direction, but we will continue to demand major changes to the employment insurance system.

If we want to make major changes to employment insurance, we have to think of the unemployed. The government has never given a moment's thought to the unemployed. Let me explain. The government says that it will allocate a billion dollars to retraining workers, but we have to be careful here. For who can say, today, what the jobs of tomorrow will be? I do not think that the government knows that right now. Last September and October, the government did not even know that there was going to be a deficit. So I do not think it knows exactly what kind of jobs will be available in two years. The Conservatives are about to spend a billion dollars on something they do not understand. They are about to spend taxpayers' money without a real plan in mind.

When the last budget was tabled, and even when we came back after the election campaign, the only political party that had a costed, balanced budget to propose was the Bloc Québécois. The other three parties, the federalists, had no budget. The government in power had to submit two economic statements and two budgets to come up with a concrete plan that was able to satisfy the Liberals, who leapt at the opportunity to support it.

Still we are talking about people in need, particularly workers. That reminds me of the program for older worker assistance that the government flatly rejected. It would have been a big step forward in helping people 55 and older who lose their jobs because of plant closures or massive layoffs. Such a program would have enabled them to live with dignity until retirement. But the government has no interest in helping these people find new jobs, so they have to go on welfare. They still have kids in university and house payments they can no longer make. Take, for example, a 58-year-old with a grade nine education who loses his job. I would really like our Conservative friends to explain how that person can be retrained, how they plan to find him another job, or what kind of training they can give him. I still have my doubts.

This program would have accomplished two things. First, as I mentioned earlier, it would have bridged older workers to their retirement at age 65. It would also have freed up jobs for younger workers. With economic recovery, there would be more jobs available. However, the government ignored this and I am extremely disappointed to see that they think only of themselves.

Then there are tax cuts. Does anyone benefit other than those who do not need them? The tax cuts should have targeted workers with the lowest salaries; instead, they benefit workers with the highest. The government wants to help people but they are not being practical.

Furthermore, they have again overlooked our seniors. What tax cuts were they given? To benefit from a tax cut, you have to pay tax. If you do not pay tax, you cannot use a tax cut. That is obvious. The majority of people who live below the poverty line get nothing, not even one dollar. Seniors received a mere two to three additional dollars. Some people in my riding said to me, “Rather than increasing pensions by $2, they should have kept that money and given it to those who need it even more.”

There are even more serious issues with this budget. Agriculture is mentioned. That is another problem. I have been here four and a half years. Every year, over the past three or four years, there has been talk of how to eliminate supply management. I think they have found a solution and I will read a passage about this. It refers to tariffs on milk proteins: “The federal government is issuing these regulations to comply with a ruling of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the CITT. Upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal, it is a very serious ruling that could negatively affect the supply management system.”

How did they manage to do such a thing? This came about following a misunderstanding between the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Canada Border Services Agency. The two had different classifications for milk protein concentrates with more than 85% concentration. The result was that a Swiss business, Advidia, was able to take its case to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal and challenge the regulations that classified its Promix 372B products under a tariff line which is tariff free as well as under the more expensive tariff line 0404. The Tribunal and the Federal Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the business, creating a dangerous precedence and shaking the very foundation of our supply management system, which relies on rigorous protection of our borders.

The Bloc Québécois cannot oppose these regulations because they are intended to bring us into compliance with a ruling from the Canadian International Trade Tribunal and the Federal Court of Appeal. But I can guarantee that the Bloc will continue to fight to fully protect the supply management system by pressuring Canada's lead negotiators at the WTO to not make any concessions that would undermine, in any way, the supply management system.

As we can see, the Conservative government is not responding to Quebec's expectations, be it in terms of employment insurance, agriculture, the forestry and manufacturing sectors, tax reductions or the unilateral creation of a Canadian securities commission.

Basically, the Bloc Québécois is not satisfied with the majority of the points mentioned in Bill C-10. Consequently, the Bloc Québécois will vote against the bill.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the main parts of the Liberal amendment to the budget dealt with three things: first, to protect the most vulnerable in our society during this difficult time; second, to protect existing jobs; and third to create new jobs. With regard to the first, it appears to me that the employment insurance system has been included in the budget in terms of some additional benefits, but it does not change the rules of eligibility for benefits. Nor does the budget consider eliminating the two week waiting period, which, given the financial condition that we are in, is a very important tool and we have missed an opportunity.

I wonder if the member would care to comment on the importance of taking care of the most vulnerable, particularly those who lose their jobs and have significant obligations.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member has struck a nerve on the topic of employment insurance. I would like to point out that only 46% of people meet the requirements to qualify for employment insurance. That being said, there can be any number of measures, but one must qualify in order to be eligible. Even if people were given 90% or 100% of their salary, less than half of all people can receive EI benefits.

If the two week waiting period were eliminated, that would be a step in the right direction. However, much more is needed. The Bloc Québécois proposed specific improvements to the employment insurance system. The Liberals and the Conservatives did not think it wise to move forward on this. They voted for the current budget, which in no way meets these demands.

I hope the government will soon listen to reason and amend the Employment Insurance Act to give more people the opportunity to qualify for employment insurance.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative-Liberal budget has a provision that allows homeowners to get a subsidy to replace their sod or put a deck on their cottage. There are approximately four million renters in Canada and many of them are seniors, as in Windsor West where they have been in the same house or apartment for a long period of time and plan to stay there. Those people might want to renovate their bathroom to make it more handicap accessible but they will be denied the subsidy under the Liberal-Conservative plan.

I wonder if the hon. member thinks it is fair that one can put down sod or a deck on one's cottage and get a subsidy but one cannot upgrade and make one's apartment more accessible for persons with disabilities.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, my NDP colleague is quite right. We could have pushed a little further from this side. People can do all the landscaping, lay all the asphalt and do all the redecorating they want, but they still need the money to do all those things. While this government went about giving tax breaks and trying to improve the lives of our most vulnerable citizens, it was completely off the mark. By ignoring the most vulnerable and giving nothing to seniors, only one segment of society can benefit from these tax breaks linked to renovations.

I wish to reiterate that it is important to understand that the Conservative government's measures, supported by the Liberal government, did not produce the desired results. The target group was our most vulnerable citizens and the government was unable to hit the mark.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the residents of Mississauga--Streetsville to speak to the budget implementation bill and to ensure the Conservative government is held accountable to implement the stimulus measures promised.

For Canadians, the crisis is not about structural deficits or the cyclical nature of the markets. It is about the nest egg they have worked hard to build over their entire working lives but which was cut in half almost overnight. They worry about how they will pay for their children's educations, their mortgages or rents and how they will put food on the table for their families.

We are living through unprecedented times brought on by an economic crisis and exacerbated by the Conservative government's poor fiscal management during these times. Canadians need a government they can trust. They require political stability and economic certainty to weather this economic storm. Canadians need to know that the government in Ottawa is fighting for their jobs, their savings and their pensions, but most of all they need hope, which is why the Liberal Party has put partisanship aside and has supported this budget.

After consulting with Canadians, Liberals are willing to support the budget on the condition that the Prime Minister and his government are held accountable for their actions. We have placed conditions on our support, such as the delivery of mandatory progress reports to be tabled in March, June and December where the Conservative government must demonstrate that the money promised is flowing to Canadians in a timely manner.

The Conservative government has mismanaged the economy for three years, squandering the $13 billion surplus created by the Liberal Party through a decade of sound fiscal management. The Conservatives recklessly spent the $3 billion contingency fund left to them in good faith by our party. They did not put money aside for a rainy day when times were good and they did not plan for the future. Now the Liberal Party has put them on notice that this is not acceptable. We have put them on probation.

In truth, this budget is filled with numerous measures that would not have been possible without the pressure put on it by the Liberal Party over the past three years. Some of the measures we fought for include new investment in social housing and infrastructure, targeted support for low and middle income Canadians through the expansion of the child tax benefit and working income tax benefit, additional funding for skills training and enhanced employment insurance, and investment in regional development agencies throughout the country such as the Southern Ontario Development Agency, SODA, which will benefit the auto industry and the manufacturing sectors that have been so devastated.

Our support for the budget is not unconditional. It recognizes that the budget is significantly flawed. It does not protect the most vulnerable. It does not protect the jobs of today or help create the jobs of tomorrow. It does not go far enough to protect Canadians who have lost or will soon lose jobs. Two hundred and thirteen thousand jobs have been lost in the past three months alone, 71,000 of them in Ontario. That is 55% of the job losses in this country.

My riding is not immune. I have heard from many of my constituents about the hardships they now face because of the downsizing and layoffs.

This budget opens the door for attacks on pay equity for women. It also breaks the Conservatives' promise to all Canadian provinces on equalization. It also missed an opportunity to invest in clean industries of tomorrow and to kickstart the green economy to make Canada a world leader. Finally, it lacks a clear plan for getting us out of the $85 billion deficit the government will lead us into over the next five years, a number that will rise as the projections grow worse.

Despite these substantial deficiencies, the Liberal Party has decided to support the budget to ensure that the money flows to those sectors and those individuals who need it most. Let me be clear. We want to see the money getting into the hands of municipalities where it is needed most. That is why our party has made regular progress reports a stipulation for our support.

In my time remaining, I would like to address the five key areas that are of specific concern for the residents of Mississauga--Streetsville: first, the critical need for infrastructure funding to flow; second, the lack of fairness in the employment insurance program; third, the vital need for investment in social housing; fourth, the serious lack of a universal child care program; and fifth, a fundamental lack of jobs stimulus for women.

First, on infrastructure. Municipalities, such as Mississauga, which have shovel-ready projects, have been disappointed in the past by the government's web of red tape. The legendary mayor of Mississauga, Hazel McCallion, calls it “the glacial pace at which funding announcements turn into cash”. Mississauga is still waiting for its share of the $33 billion building Canada fund to flow for projects such as the $52 million rapid transit bus system, the $30 million for downtown revitalization, the $20 million for Sheridan College, the $10 million for Burnamthorpe Branch Library, the $8 million for fire halls and the $4 million for pathway lighting, just to name a few. Unfortunately, municipalities will be required to pay one-third of all the project costs and few will have the ability to do so.

As reported in The Mississauga News just last week:

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.

Second, employment insurance. With the mounting job losses, more Canadians will face the prospect of applying for employment insurance for the first time. While the budget provides some additional funds for skills training and extends employment insurance benefits for an additional five weeks, many unemployed Canadians are ineligible because they work on contract, part time or in seasonal jobs that do not last long enough for them to qualify.

The problem is most acute in Ontario where the unemployment rate has now jumped to 8% versus 7.2% nationally. Unemployed Ontarians each receive an average of $4,600 less than those out of work in the rest of Canada. EI coverage rates are 43% for Canada and only 30%, or three in ten, for Ontario and even less in the greater Toronto area at only 22%.

With the five week extension, a worker in Mississauga must work 630 hours to qualify for a maximum of 45 weeks worth of employment insurance, whereas a worker in Regina or Winnipeg would only need to work 420 hours to get up to 50 weeks of employment insurance. This is unfair and must be addressed.

The government should reduce or eliminate the two week waiting period. It must also work to significantly reduce and standardize the number of hours of work needed to qualify for EI benefits, either permanently or for the duration of the recession. Those who have contributed to the EI system deserve to have access to it in their moment of need.

Third, social housing. The lack of availability and a high demand for affordable housing exists in Mississauga. The investments allocated in the budget are a good first step. However, within the region of Peel, there is a list of 13,500 households eligible and waiting for social housing, including more than 7,500 families, 2,200 seniors and 3,600 singles. Subsidized housing units typically have a low turnover rate and wait times for new applicants are in excess of 21 years for families and singles. Seniors and special priority applicants are waiting up to seven years. Those on the wait list represent the most vulnerable segment of our population: those at risk of becoming homeless if they do not get assistance soon.

Fourth, universal childcare. Women in Mississauga—Streetsville continue to ask me to advocate on behalf of an affordable universal childcare program. However, universal childcare is not a women's issue or even a family issue, for that matter. It is an economic issue. Allowing women the option of leaving their children in a safe, regulated environment so they can seek skills training or employment must continue to be a priority for all levels of government. Not surprisingly, the United Nations reported Canada dead last among developed nations when it comes to providing affordable quality day care.

Finally, job stimulus for women. The government has shown contempt for women in this budget. I use the word “contempt” because it has callously cancelled pay equity for women that provides a level playing field for employees of every gender. The government has not included a single job creation incentive for women and has ignored the plight that females in the workforce face each day. The stimulus package is largely infrastructure spending, leading to a multitude of construction industry jobs, while so-called pink collar jobs that are predominantly filled by women are ignored.

The Conservative government has shown a lack of respect for Canadians. In this time of economic crisis, it has turned its back, opting to play political games rather than providing assistance to those who need it most. It was the Liberal Party that stood up for Canadians, as it always has. Through tough opposition, we have held the government to account and forced it to take action.

Although this budget lacks clarity, it does contain some measures that we believe can help Canadians in the short term. We support the budget because Canadians expect us to be responsible. By putting the government on probation, we have stood up for Canadians so they can get the help they deserve.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that my colleague runs down the budget in such context and then supports it later. I would like to focus on that in terms of the Liberal strategy of putting the government on probation with the amendment which does not have teeth to it. I am wondering what the tipping point is.

The Conservatives have already said “no” to many of the things that the member complained about. They were very explicit with regard to employment insurance. They already said “no” to doing what the member is correct in asserting, especially in regions of Ontario and the GTA that are hurting with regard to employment insurance. Eliminating the two week waiting period as well as making it more uniform with regard to qualifications, the Conservatives have already said “no” to those things. They have explicitly said we are not getting those changes.

What is going to be the motivation over the next few months to have the Conservatives change that position when they have already said “no”? Could the member tell us how the Liberals could make some of these things happen when the Conservatives have been quite clear in saying “no” and the Liberals are giving them the ability to do so?

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

Madam Speaker, at least we read it before we said “no”. The important issue here is that Canadians who need the money get the funding they need. Individuals and sectors across the country, whether it be the automotive sector, the manufacturing sector, or fisheries and forestry, must get the money they need to jump-start this economy once again. We need to get people working as soon as possible.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to compliment my friend on her very worthy contribution to this debate. She has described the fact that the budget obviously is far from perfect, but is necessary at this stage and that Canadians cannot afford a $300 million election right now. They need the economic stimulus help. I am wondering if she could provide any examples from her riding specifically showing why the situation is so urgent, why this has to pass and why people need assistance.

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

Madam Speaker, in fact I do have a number of examples in Mississauga. We have had the following announcements in recent months. PPG, an automotive paint finishing company, announced it is closing its plant and moving 150 jobs to an existing plant in the U.S. AstraZeneca is relocating its sterile manufacturing mine. That is 200 jobs to a plant in New Jersey. Kingsway Financial announced 162 job losses. GPX closed production and is relocating to the U.S. as well. CPI Plastics is in receivership as is Skd. Hitachi as well is moving one of its lines to another location at another plant.

I received this very compelling letter from a constituent this morning. It reads:

I am in turn asking for your assistance. I have just been laid off from my job. My wife is also without work. We have 4 boys, ages 12-21, and are experiencing considerable financial hardship. We have owned our home in Streetsville for 20 years and do not want to lose it. Our line of credit, credit card bills and utility bills are going unpaid. I know that this may be a common occurrence these days, but it's one that I haven't previously encountered to this degree.

Number 1, I need a job, as does my wife. In the meantime we also need some kind of social net to help us in these trying times until I get another job. Can you help us?

That is why the Liberals are going to support the budget.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, with regard to the companies just mentioned, some of them are in the automotive sector. I would like to know why the member would support a budget that does not have an auto strategy, including implementation of the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council recommendations, which has called for a strategy since 2004. The budget does not have that. As well, it does not address the fact that the United States has put $25 billion aside in low interest loans and additional money for the parts industry. This budget has not matched any of that.

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

Madam Speaker, as I have already reiterated to the member, we are supporting the budget for a number of reasons including the fact that the money will get into the hands of the people who need it most. There have been enhanced employment insurance benefits with five weeks on the end of a claim. There will be enhanced skills training opportunities and enhanced job training opportunities. We are working with banks to ensure that they are loosening up lines of credit. Hopefully, infrastructure funding will be flowing, as will targeted funding to the different sectors in the economy.