Debates of Feb. 3rd, 2009

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard negative remarks from the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. He has not yet understood that recognizing a nation and a national identity means that a country must be formed in order for that nation to gain freedom and to progress.

If there is a nation on this planet that is open and outward-looking, it is Quebec. With Quebec sovereignty, we never intended to pit Quebec against Canada. I am currently working on the international trade file and I would be pleased to do business with Canada.

Right now, the budget does not allow Quebec to do as it wishes with the money proposed. Sovereignty is the only solution for Quebec, and we have seen that for more than 50 years, since 1967. It is what I am hoping for, and sooner rather than later.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to have the opportunity to address the House as we wind down the debate on Canada's economic action plan that is and has been before us the last couple of days.

I would like to point out that I will be splitting my time with the great member for Burlington who is just behind me and will be up in a few minutes.

This is quite an extraordinary and anxious time for Canadians, the situation we confront with the global economic turmoil with which Canada has been faced. We have seen these last few months, stretching right back to our election last fall, the pace at which things have changed and unravelled with the world economy. It has had consequences for us in the House, the kinds of questions we face and the politics we are encountering. Members from across the country have been consulting with their constituents, and I will speak to that in a few minutes.

However, there is no question that as Canada faces this time, we do so in a much stronger position than most of our partners, for example, in the G7. The work that we have done, the work that Canadians have done over the past 10 years and certainly our government over the past three and a half years has had a hand in helping to pay down our debt.

However, to give credit where credit is due, it has been the work of Canadians generally over the last 10 years that has put the country in a strong fiscal position, coming back from where we were in 1994 when our national debt against gross domestic product was into the upper reaches of the 60% mark. Yes, we are facing a difficult time, but we are in a position where we have the fiscal capacity. We are seeing that percentage of debt against GDP now down to below 30% which gives the country the ability to deal with the imperatives that are in front of us in an effective way.

On the political side, though, we are seeing regular examples in the House even now. Canadians have said very clear that this is a time when parliamentarians should be concentrating on the economic urgency before us. They should be concentrating on doing the right thing to protect Canadian jobs, to enforce and to get the right kind of policy instruments in place and interventions in our economy that will strengthen Canada's position as we get buffeted by what is happening in the world around us. Even at a time like that, we still see too many examples of parliamentarians and parties using these difficult circumstances for partisan advantage.

It is not the sort of thing that Canadians appreciate seeing in the House. I certainly hope that as members reflect on some of those themes that we will see a gradual improvement in the kind of decorum that we see here in the House and certainly in all of our deliberations.

I mentioned that Canada was in a strong position relative to the G7. What becomes really important, as has been mentioned by hon. members on both sides of the House these past few days, is the deficit, the amount of debt that Canada is looking to incur to help not only provide stimulus to the economy, but also to absorb the downturn, the recession that we will encounter, albeit more slight than some of our neighbours but a slowdown nonetheless, that will cause a reduction in Canada's revenues. That will happen systematically, as it has, for example, with the reduction in commodity prices. Those are things that, to a great extent, are outside of our control but, nonetheless, they impact our fiscal position.

As I mentioned, we are in a good position to accommodate that, but as we look ahead to 2013, 2014 when Canada will get back into a surplus position, having incurred several years of deficits, even at that point, in 2013, 2014, with gradual improvement in Canada's economic position, our national debt will still be at around 30% of GDP.

That is an extraordinary feat when we consider that other countries, the United States in particular, were facing this recession when they were already in a serious deficit position, but not us. Relative to all of our G7 partners, we have the ability to emerge from this difficult economic time in a stronger position relative to our neighbours than we were going into it.

References have been made to Canada emerging in a stronger position. Coming out in 2013, Canada will still be in a strong position, even having made some fairly significant interventions in the economy to help protect Canadians and to improve and strengthen our industries so they will be able to compete effectively in the years ahead.

We need to be mindful that the economic plan that we set out just this week and tabled in the House builds on Canada's overall economic vision and that is encompassed in what we call Advantage Canada. The five principle themes of Advantage Canada, which this economic plan ties right into, builds on our knowledge advantage, our fiscal advantage, our entrepreneurial advantage, our tax advantage and infrastructure. These five pillars of our economic plan are emboldened by the very plan that our government has set out.

It is a plan for long term economic growth and it targets the key areas of the economy that need to be strong so that Canada's economy builds and grows stronger. What it really means is more job opportunities for Canadians, greater opportunities to generate wealth for families and the continued ability for governments to take certain dollars from Canadian taxpayers and invest those dollars in the important institutions that make our country strong. We need this strong economic plan. It is a foundation that this economic action plan can build into and continue to strengthen.

I know my time is coming to an end but I would like to make a brief comment about working with the provinces.

Over the last day or so there have been some concerns expressed about how Canada has tried to approach the difficult times in front of us and work with the provinces and territories to ensure we are doing the right thing. There is no doubt that this can be difficult. However, what I have seen, on the whole, is an attitude of cooperation and understanding of the important needs of this federation at this time. We are working together and the provinces agree.

Our government will maintain the 6% annual increase in the Canadian health transfer. We will maintain the 3% increase in the Canada social transfer. Those are important commitments that we have made to the provinces and they will continue.

On the question of equalization, the Minister of Finance was very clear the other day when he said that this was about doing the right thing for the country. As was said in the O'Brien report, equalization needs to stay on a footing that will allow it to be sustained over time. With the kind of situations that we are encountering, we must look at the equalization question, which will still increase in this coming year even though it has substantially increased some 54% in the last four to five years. Equalization will still be on a sustained footing helping provinces do what they need to do to deliver important services.

I just want to mention how important the southern Ontario development agency will be for southern Ontario. This is a part of the country that up until now has not had the kinds of tools in the kit that were needed to make those kind of interventions at the community level. It has been strong for the west, strong for Atlantic Canada and strong for Quebec. It will be a tremendous advantage for southern Ontario.

I wholly support our economic plan and look to other members to do the same.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's comments. I know what a hard-working MP he is and how sincere he is on his issues and his satisfaction with the budget.

I am very concerned about the budget. I am supporting it, as are most of us, but I worry about the long-term effects of the deficit and whether our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren are going to have to deal with this plan of such large spending.

Knowing my hon. colleague very well, he must have equal concerns about how this deficit will be dealt with and what the long-term plan is. Could he comment on it?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in many ways, I share the same views with my friend from the other side. We have worked together on different committees.

This is a time when I do not think it is at all unusual to say that my constituents share the same views, and why would we not? We worked so hard to get our national debt down. To be faced with the prospect of having to go back into debt and making big interventions like this is a cause for concern. That is why we need to put it in perspective to what that debt represents against Canada's overall capacity. We need to ensure we keep that relationship in check.

However, this is a time when Canada must take the measures necessary to put confidence back in the economy, confidence so consumers will spend, so businesses will invest and so lenders will give back and provide access to capital.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's presentation on Canada's road to economic recovery. Could he comment on the comments of some Canadians and some Canadian organizations with regard to the budget?

I refer to Mr. Glen Hodgson, the chief economist at the Conference Board of Canada. He is quoted as saying, “As a package, it's a clever package and hopefully it will win the support of the House”.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said, “CFIB was pleased to see the government acknowledge its sector by raising the small business corporate income tax threshold to $500,000 from $400,000”.

The Forest Products Association of Canada commented:

The government has clearly heard the message and embraced our vision of becoming the producers of the best quality, most innovative and greenest forest products in the world. And it understands that in order to get there Canada needs to attract investment and secure the jobs of nearly 300,000 skilled Canadians forest workers and the communities they work in.

Finally, the chief economist of the RBC Global Asset Management said:

I think there is a message for Canadians that we're cutting taxes, doing the right thing by improving access to credit for the financial system…I think overall again very important initiatives taken here to put a floor under this recession which is currently enveloped in Canada

Could the member comment on those remarks and some others that he has heard?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member was not really trying to cut into my time, but suffice to say I agree with the comments that have been made. In fact, this budget, this economic action plan, has been embraced by communities right across the country.

There will be those who disagree, and we have some here in the House. This is normal and it is part of the process that we have in making these kinds of decision. We need to listen to that commentary, but ultimately we must move on. We must make decisions that are right for the country and right for Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, The Budget.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Burlington.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Simcoe North for sharing his time with me. I also thank the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex for sharing his desk with me for this speech.

Since the budget was presented last Tuesday, we have heard a lot about it over the last number of days. There has been a lot of discussions about specifics. My goal today is talk about the economic action plan that we will vote on later this evening. Based on the information I have, I assume it will pass and the government will be able to move on and deliver some of the important items in the plan.

As we all know, we are facing a very difficult time. The action plan documentation talks about what is happening in the United States in terms of its economic situation and around the world. Therefore, Canadians are not isolated in that sense. We have to meet the challenges that the rest of the world is facing from an economic point of view, and the action plan does that.

The action plan is very comprehensive. It covers a number of areas and a number of industries. It talks about people and how we will to deal with that. It talks about infrastructure. All those components put together make up an action plan that will make a difference and will be the stimulus that we and the people of Canada have looked for so our economy will move ahead.

As has been stated by other members of the House, and by the finance minister, we are in a pretty good position in comparison to our colleagues around the world. Whether it is the United States or the European countries, we are in a very good financial position. Our banking system is solid. There are some issues obviously that we need to deal with and that is what the action plan does.

I want to speak about a few things that perhaps have not received a lot of attention in the last week, but they are in the action plan. They are important, not just to me as the chair of the GTA caucus, but also the member for Burlington, which is an urban area in southern Ontario.

First, I have been actively promoting transit and municipal infrastructure since I came to Ottawa in 2006. This action plan deals directly with those issues.

There are $4 billion worth of infrastructure stimulus allocated in the budget. I do not want to just talk about the numbers. I want to talk about what it means to my community and the communities in the GTA.

We are facing a very difficult time in getting goods, services and people, the labour aspects, to and from work. The quality of life sitting on QEW is diminished every day as more and more people use their cars to get to and from work. The transit system is good, but it could be better. The moneys we have put forward in the infrastructure stimulus has a two year limit, so the money has to be spent and has to move. It is in partnership with our provincial counterparts. We also have the accelerated payments of $1 billion that have already been announced. These are important investments in infrastructure that will help both the municipalities and the transit systems, an area where we think that money should be spent.

We have heard from opposition members that the municipalities do not have the money. I can list quotes from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario or the Federation of Municipalities. They are all in favour of what we are doing.

I had consultations in my riding and as a member of the finance committee, we met every week prior to the budget being presented. We talked to different individuals and groups. We are talking about what we call shovel ready projects, projects that municipalities or the provinces are ready to move on. They have budgeted and approved those budgets. They are ready to go.

On occasion, we will hear from somebody from a municipality who perhaps would like something but it is not ready. That could happen in the future, but there are hundreds of projects across the country. In my riding I can name two or three projects that were approved last night in the capital budget. They are ready to go, ready to happen. They are shovel ready. In fact, I have a project that is coming up at the end of March—

[John Baird]

Can I have it?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

The minister could be invited because money is coming from his department, so he can come, but we are asking another minister to come.

These are projects shovel ready and ready to go. This stimulus will work.

I am also excited about the southern Ontario development agency. This project will help stimulate the economy in southern Ontario over the next five years. It is much needed.

On housing, I often hear from people in my area about housing, and it is an important issue. As the GTA caucus chair, and in my own riding of Burlington, social housing has been an issue. We are spending $1 billion over the next two years on social housing and that money is being administered by CMHC. We are going to ensure that social housing renovations needed in our communities will happen. That is an important piece about which we have been hearing.

I have heard from others about green initiatives, that we are not doing anything green. That is not the case. There are $1 billion in a green infrastructure fund. If the projects have merit and they produce green results, they will be funded. We have $1 billion set aside to help develop green technology.

We have heard a lot about the home renovation tax credit. In my own riding, for example, Stats Canada did a report. It said there were about 50,000 homes in my riding. About 5% of them need repair. If we extrapolate that and if everyone does their work, taxpayers in my riding would save over $3 million in home renovations. Hundreds of thousands of dollars would be spent, stimulating the economy, on those renovations.

On the arts and culture side, I have been very active in the performing arts area, trying to develop a performing arts centre for the city of Burlington. That is happening. I am excited about the money we will spend on the arts. The other area from a local perspective is we have the Joseph Brant Museum. It is looking at expansion and it is getting ready to go.

In the action plan, the government has allocated $60 million over the next two years for local museums and local theatres. These are the kinds of programs that local groups and museums can take advantage of and make things happen for the community and stimulate the economy at the same time.

As a member of the finance committee and the finance team from the Conservative side, we had meetings with individuals before the budget was presented last Tuesday. The one thing I heard over and over again was that we needed to on the work share program. The work share program in the action plan adds 14 weeks to that program. For those who do not know, if a company reduces its workforce without laying people off, it can reduce the work week, pay employees for two or three days a week and the balance is done through EI. It is a great program and we are adding 14 weeks to that program to help companies get through these tough times and help those individuals who need those jobs.

We have reduced the taxes, which is one thing that has not been mentioned a lot. We are raising the personal amount from $9,600 to $10,320. Every taxpayer will get a tax deduction from their basic personal tax. It is money in their pocket that they can to spend to stimulate the economy. Let us be honest. What will happen is those who need the money most will take advantage of it the most. They will spend their money and that will be fantastic for their families and their communities.

I want to remind people that we are doing some work for seniors in the budget. We have added $1,000 to the age deduction for seniors. We have kept what was in the November economic update, which is the 25% reduction in the withdrawal requirements from RRIFs. It is not getting a lot of mention, but it is very important for seniors. In fact, it affects about 2.2 million seniors.

In summary, a friend of mine who is a writer and a very bright individual said in his book, “It is not what you do, but it is what you do with what you do”. In this action plan, what we are doing is making a difference for Canadians. We are not just sitting here doing nothing. We are taking action through our economic action plan. I ask everybody to consider that when it comes to the vote tonight.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member has experience on elected municipal council, so he brings to this House that breadth of experience. He also has enjoyed the hospitality and fine infrastructure and recreational facilities in the city of Moncton, so he brings that asset to this House as well.

I do want to dig down, if I may, on his comments about and definition of shovel ready. I would like to turn that over and ask him, in his experience, whether municipalities, provincial governments and federal governments always agree on the priorities for infrastructure funding. What happens if a municipality, for instance, has applied for a project but the province does not agree with it? I am talking about the three party funding. Conversely, what if the province wants something and the federal government wants something but the municipality has not papered it yet, has not applied for it? Does he see a possibility that those projects can get completed even if they are not papered or applied for?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been to Moncton and enjoyed the recreational facilities there. I have a couple of daughters who are athletes who compete nationally and I appreciate the hospitality our family received.

The issue the member presents is a very good one, but I think it is our responsibility as members of Parliament to ensure that we have lined up with the municipalities, and I have worked with my own municipality of Burlington, and with our provincial counterparts, and we all have provincial members in our ridings, to make sure that we understand that what we are looking for is shovel ready, not something that needs an environmental assessment or something that is a pipe dream for the municipality, a pipe dream for the province, or a pipe dream for the federal government.

There are billions of dollars of infrastructure projects available in Canada. I believe that if we work together, which we all claim we want to do, get rid of the rhetoric and actually do something, there are hundreds of projects that are truly shovel ready, ready to go to tender and ready to make a difference in the economy in this country.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned shovel-ready projects, but it is my understanding that under the building Canada fund there are a lot of shovel-ready projects which have not yet received money. This is what apparently the 20 or so mayors of the largest cities in Canada said at the FCM meeting a few weeks ago. I wonder if the member knows when this money will be available. If this money has not yet been made available, how can we expect that any money going into infrastructure will become available soon for those communities that need it?

With regard to employment insurance, the member talked about the system being revamped. Has the member talked to some of the 60% of the people who are not eligible for employment insurance to hear their thoughts? People are losing their jobs in communities that I represent, some of them in the forestry industry in particular and in other industries. He talked about how the EI system is supposedly working for people, but has he seen how they are suffering?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member one thing. Not voting for the action plan tonight will definitely stop any infrastructure projects from happening. One cannot say one thing and vote another way if one wants to see action, if one wants to see infrastructure projects in this country. In my own riding the $1.5 million through the building Canada fund will happen at the end of March.

Things are happening with the building Canada fund, but we need to get this budget through. We need to get the implementation bill through. We need to make things happen. As a member of parliament, I have expressed to my colleagues that the action that is needed after we pass this budget is to make sure that we deliver. I agree that we need to deliver. Canada needs these projects to be delivered. Our communities need these projects delivered and we will be delivering.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Guelph.

It is a great privilege to rise again in this House to offer my thoughts, opinions and some of my concerns on the government's so-called economic action plan. Call it old-fashioned, but I would much prefer to simply call it a budget. Naming the document an economic action plan suggests that it is far more grandiose than it may possibly be and I think it stretches the imagination just a bit. For me, an economic action plan would have more imagination, coherence and compassion, so it is a budget.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will not remember, but the first time I rose to speak was on November 27, just minutes before the Minister of Finance presented his now infamous economic and fiscal statement. The minister's fiscal update was as audacious as it was inaccurate, as presumptuous as it was pompous, and as fatuous as it was fictitious. It sadly underestimated the serious nature of the economic downturn in Canada and gravely underestimated the tenacity and the persistence of the opposition parties to stand up for Canadians, particularly the most vulnerable among us. In a word, it did not wash.

However, it did get this House and indeed the whole country talking about the true state of Canada's economy and the uncertainty that grips many households in our country this day. For this we strangely thank the minister and give him a vote of confidence at least to that degree. Canadians have been in conversation about these serious matters in coffee shops, at dinner tables and on the Internet, largely spurred on by their perception that the finance minister and the government had its collective head in the sand. Thanks to that, a great conversation has been going on from coast to coast to coast.

Many on this side of the House would like to take credit for all the significant changes the Minister of Finance included in the budget speech that were not indicated in the fiscal update. I think, however, that sells Canadians short. Of course we had a role to play in the minister's about-face, but the larger role was played by the citizens of this country who simply knew that they had to make their concerns heard. They had to tell their stories.

Over the holiday break, I suspect that members on the government side heard much of what we heard as well. Seniors are worried about depleted savings and precarious pensions. Workers are worried about reduced hours and layoff notices. Employers are worried about shrinking foreign and domestic orders. Store owners are worried about inventory growing as people become increasingly cautious about spending their money. Food bank volunteers are worried about shrinking donations and growing lineups. Small business owners are struggling to find financial institutions willing to lend them the money they need to keep going. Newcomers to Canada and young people are pounding the pavement hoping to find their first job, yet they are finding the pavement pounding right back at them. On the upside, one credit counsellor and trustee in bankruptcy told me that business had never been better. Times are tough and are getting tougher out there and we have been hearing about it.

In presenting his budget last week, the Minister of Finance has shown at least some capacity to listen and to learn from this great conversation that he, and humbly I would add, perhaps something from this side of the House as well, provoked. For that, I commend him. I would have to say it appears that having listened, he added just a touch of red dye to what would otherwise have been a deeply blue budget. At best, it has taken on a purplish hue, which is probably the best we can ask for from the minister.

I am not suggesting it would be easy for any government or finance minister to chart a course through this global economic mess, but this budget could have been so much better. What has stunned me about it is its utter lack of imagination, its lack of coherency and its lack of compassion for the most vulnerable. It portrays a government that does not really believe that government can and must be a force for good. At best, it is a grudging nod to the public sector's role in helping our economy through rough waters while ensuring that Canadians survive the turbulence. At worst, it suggests a sheep in wolf's clothing. Think about what some imagination, coherence and compassion could do in this budget. Here are just a few examples.

On imagination, the Conservatives offer $1 billion for development of green technology, mostly directed at unproven methods to capture and store carbon. Where is the support for alternative energy sources? What of conservation? We live in a time when global warming threatens to destroy our planet. At the same time, contractors need work. Trained and skilled workers are available. Why has the government missed the opportunity for a nationwide program to retrofit houses and green the apartment, condo and business towers of this country?

On coherence, we see $2 billion thrown at affordable housing as a one time use it or lose it effort while the minister responsible proudly states that no one should infer that the government actually has a national housing strategy. Perish the thought that the government would take seriously its role in ensuring that every Canadian has a roof over his or her head while creating jobs at the same time.

On compassion, if the government were serious about helping the hardest hit in this time of economic upheaval, less focus would be put on rewarding people for building a new deck or installing a new jacuzzi, which they are probably going to do anyway, and more thought would have been given to opening access to employment insurance and extending benefits to those already covered. Only 42% of those currently jobless qualify for EI and the payments start too late, are too small and end too soon. This is not a new problem, nor is the lack of compassion shown by the government.

I will be supporting this budget. Perhaps I am as grudging in my support as the government is in its spending plan, but even in my support, I will be watching for the money to flow, watching for jobs to be created, watching for the vulnerable to be cared for, and watching for some sense of imagination, some coherence and some compassion to flow from the government as well.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the member's speech is not followed by a parliamentary crisis as was the last speech the member gave. It was a very good speech and I congratulate him on this second speech in the House.

Does the hon. member think it would have been visionary for the government to implement the recommendation that was contained in a Globe and Mail article, that the employment insurance program be revamped and used as a countercyclical economic instrument? Quite apart from the fact that it should be a compassionate program, if we put compassion aside and look at it from the point of view of a steely-eyed, cold-hearted neo-conservative economist, would it be a good countercyclical program?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member, in referring to that economist in his statement, was thinking of the Prime Minister .

Absolutely, the answer is yes. Employment insurance was never meant to be a static plan for all regions, for all times, for all places and for all people. It is meant to be a plan that is flexible and that moves and changes as the times change. Absolutely I believe that employment insurance is a valid and very important instrument to be used to spur on economic development.

We have to keep money flowing. We know that when people are unemployed they are often one cheque away from paying the rent, from feeding their family, from getting the work done that needs to get done. That money is not socked away. That is not money that is stuffed into a mattress. It is money that is spent. Absolutely, that money should be increased.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my Liberal colleague's leader announced today that the six Liberal members of Parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador will be given permission to vote against the budget in a symbolic protest to the budget. What about the other 71 members of the Liberal caucus? I just heard the member for Don Valley West recite a pretty good speech criticizing the budget, going up one side and down the other, saying how abysmal it was, what a failure it was, a catastrophic failure of vision. He used very romantic language. One cannot oppose the Conservative government and support the Conservative government at the same time, or at least, I do not believe it can be done.

[An hon. member]

Well, you are not a Liberal.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague says it is because I am not Liberal.

I am going to ask the member, by what pretzel reasoning does my Liberal colleague find it in his heart to be able to stand up and make that speech, and then stand up half an hour from now and vote for the very budget that he dumped all over with such great eloquence?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is totally interesting to be on this side of the House. This is not a Liberal budget. In every way the budget shines as not being a Liberal budget, so of course we are critical of it. Once we had read it, once we had a look at it, once we examined it, we saw both its flaws and also areas where the government had learned something, unlike the New Democrats, who refused to even read it before they decided to vote against it. This is part of parliamentary democracy, part of making this country work. I pledged to my constituents that when I came here, I would find a way to make this work. We are trying to make this work. We will hold the government accountable. We will hold it responsible.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member across the way for indicating that he will certainly support this good economic statement and plan to help fix the economy here in Canada.

It is interesting that one of the things he talked about was infrastructure and getting it out there. We heard our colleague from the NDP down at the far end talking about not supporting the budget. Of course, the two of them will certainly have to work that out. I hear our colleague at the other end indicating that there is some hypocrisy. Would the member also not say that while the member down there indicates that he is against the budget, he is the first one with his hand out, wanting a cheque for his riding?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Those are that member's words, Mr. Speaker. I would say that my job as the member of Parliament for Don Valley West is watching where the government spends this money, how it creates jobs and what gets done. The hon. member will see me at Union Station, downtown Toronto, making sure that commuters have a way to get on the train safely and to get into and out of the city safely. I will be watching for those projects. I will be watching for the money to flow. We are putting the government on probation. We are watching. We will see what happens.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand in this House today and offer my thoughts on the federal budget that we have before us.

I wish to thank one more time the people of Guelph for expressing their confidence in me to represent their interests. I intend to make every effort to meet their expectations.

Following the election of October 14 of last year, I fully expected to see the imminent introduction of an economic stimulus package to guide Canada through the economic crisis. Indeed, such a package was promised by the Prime Minister at the APEC G20 summit. As a newly elected member of Parliament, that was the one thing that seemed assured, since the Prime Minister had given his word. It seemed to me that there was no doubt that Canada's federal government would have an obligation, a duty, to move Canada forward through recession. Alas, it was not forthcoming.

Canadians are nervous and concerned. Whether I am on the doorstep seeking campaign support, visiting the vendors at the Guelph farmers market on Saturday morning, or attending a round table discussion with social service agencies, the fear and worry is palpable. People in Guelph who have gone to the same jobs for 30 years are now seeing those jobs disappear. People are wondering if they should return to school for the duration of the recession. Others are looking to downsize their homes, while many more are struggling and sadly failing to pay their rents or their mortgages.

The last thing I expected when I first took my seat here in this House was for Parliament to sit for three weeks and then for the Prime Minister to break his word and send me home for seven weeks, his very first act as Prime Minister of Canada's 40th Parliament. I do not have the extensive experience of many of my colleagues, but to date, the 40th Parliament has seemed to be a series of unfortunate events and crises, brought about solely and irresponsibly by the Prime Minister.

I took advantage of the constituency time to conduct round tables and to visit families, businesses and organizations across Guelph. Guelph's economy is based in manufacturing and particularly the auto parts industry. The auto industry is facing unprecedented challenges as a result of the global credit crisis. I advocated for and continue to support the government's extension of immediate bridge financing to assist the auto industry, provided it is able to honour a commitment to reasonable terms and conditions.

There is no doubt that Canada's auto manufacturers must do business differently to succeed in today's economy. I am optimistic the auto industry's continued transition to advance flexible manufacturing plants, more environmentally conscious production and the introduction of more fuel efficient, greener vehicles will contribute to the long-term sustainability of the auto industry. Our community depends upon a prosperous auto industry.

The downturn in the economy reaches every corner of my community. The Guelph food bank has seen a 19% increase in demand for services. The United Way of Guelph and Wellington has seen a withdrawal of pledges made by as much as $150,000. Social services is seeing a sharp increase in Ontario Works applications. Times are tough and getting tougher.

We on this side of the House were clear and concise in our expectations for the federal budget. We asked for initiatives to protect the most vulnerable in Canadian society, minimize job losses, create employment opportunities, provide economic stimulus in a fair manner, and ensure the deficit is not a long-term burden.

The budget represents a marked improvement from the disastrous economic and fiscal update that we saw last fall, but if we have learned one thing from the Prime Minister, it is that we can expect a vast degree of separation in what he says and what he does. That is why the government is on probation. That is why the Liberal opposition will babysit this budget's implementation and execution every step of the way.

Canada has limited resources in a difficult time. We need to make the investments that create jobs and get results for the communities. Like other communities across the country, Guelph has been impacted by the recent economic crisis. In speaking with the mayor of Guelph, I know that an acceleration of infrastructure spending is urgently needed to help create jobs and stimulate our local economy.

Guelph is not alone in this urgency. Cities and communities right across Canada need quality infrastructure, the foundation of a strong economy into the future.

I have also met with the director of housing in Guelph and we are both interested in the Conservative government's new-found interest in affordable housing. We are anxious to see this commitment flow into Guelph to improve access to much needed affordable housing while supporting the residential construction and development industry.

Jobs have been lost while the Conservative government broke its promises to cities and communities. Nearly $8 billion, the highest level in years, was promised but not spent by the government.

Thousands of jobs have disappeared while the government sat on almost 10% of its appropriated funds. In the midst of an economic crisis, with job cuts hitting every community, the government has a track record of failing to deliver on its promises.

Time is of the essence in providing a stimulus package that can help maintain and create jobs in our local communities. It is my hope that the government will make good use of this opportunity to deliver on its budget. Part of that must include streamlining the federal infrastructure programs, so that funding can flow and projects can begin. My constituency of Guelph has a number of infrastructure projects that are ready to proceed when funding is available.

The University of Guelph is Canada's premier research university. When we look at environmental technologies, our food supply, water management, alternative fuels, manufacturing materials made from non-food agricultural products, we can identify research programs that are undertaken at the University of Guelph.

Research and development is essential as our economy moves away from a traditional manufacturing base and into a knowledge-based economy. Our commitment to research and our ability to attract and keep research talent is a vital part of Canada's competitiveness. It is incredibly disturbing that the budget makes no mention of Genome Canada, the only agency that regularly finances large scale science in Canada, and mentions cuts to funding to SHERC, NSERC and health research.

We see our neighbours to the south providing an economic stimulus plan that includes almost $4 billion for research. Without a mention in the Canadian budget, we are going to lose our best and brightest research talent unless we demonstrate a commitment and a vision for research in Canada.

I have heard from University of Guelph professors so discouraged that they are considering moving to the United States where there is clarity in investment in research. Canadians are looking to the House to make responsible decisions and act for the good of our entire country. In times of economic turmoil, government must provide leadership through short-term hardship and a vision to embrace the economy of the future.

We will be doing our part on this side of the House to ensure the government accepts and fulfills its responsibilities. I ask the government to please fulfill its responsibilities.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member certainly did a good job of pointing out some serious issues. He shares the same concerns as I and many in my party in the official opposition about the long-term impact of the deficit that we are all facing and the lack of a credible plan.

I would like to ask him about seniors. There is next to nothing in the budget for seniors. I think there is an increase of 50¢ a day in one analysis, but there is very little else in the budget when it comes to helping seniors. I would like to hear his comments on both the issue of the deficit as well as the issue of additional help for seniors.