Debates of Feb. 3rd, 2009

Alleged Complaint of Theft

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to support the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley.

I think it is important to note that we do not know whether or not it was a member of Parliament or not that made these allegations that first initiated this or whether it was a staff member or someone connected to a department. We do not know any of those things. We do know that the member has been undermined quite significantly and there has been a plan to do so the way that it has come out, not only with regard to the approach to begin with but also later on.

It is very clear that the party or parties were advised that this investigation could be reopened. At some point in time either through the RCMP, themselves or through that member, they somehow got hold of a copy of the document and have decided to put it in the public realm with the particular intent really to undermine the credibility of the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley.

Therefore, I would defer of course to your judgment, Mr. Speaker, but I would be supportive of the member's inquiry because once again, we do not know whether or not a member of Parliament was part of this. We do know the Conservative Party is definitely there. Obviously there is a direct correlation in connection with the members of Parliament and their party. They are the stewards of that party.

I believe that the member's privilege needs to be respected and needs to be heard, especially given the fact that it does affect the way public perception is perceived on the individual and the contributions this particular person has made to Canada. As well, it protects other members of Parliament. I won a question of privilege in the past. When I went through the process and had that element corrected when the Conservatives accused me of things that were untrue, it was helpful. It helped clear the public record. I hope we can clear the public record because I think the member needs this and the House needs this as well.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my own comments and support of my colleague and friend from Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley. We are an adversarial political system in Canada. There are different points of view. We fight hard and we campaign hard, but there are lines we do not cross. We have talked in recent months about the need to try to improve decorum in this House, to try to work together as cooperatively as possible within this adversarial system.

I think that members here for the most part, perhaps all I hope, would agree that what happened here is not appropriate. This is clearly a smear campaign, an attempt to smear the hon. member's reputation based on a false accusation. He set out the facts of the case. I think we can all recognize this is a false accusation. It is entirely inappropriate. It goes beyond the pale and I support his argument that it infringes on his privileges as a member of Parliament.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The Chair wishes to thank the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley for raising the matter and the other hon. members who have made submissions. I will take all of them into consideration as I consider this and I will return to the House in due course with a decision in respect of this question of privilege.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to participate in the debate on the 2009 federal budget.

The comprehensive action plan contained in this budget would stimulate economic growth, restore confidence and assist Canadian workers and families during a period of global recession.

Our government is proposing temporary and effective economic stimuli to help Canadians deal with today's short-term challenges. These investments would ensure that Canada emerges from this global downturn even stronger.

Canada's economic action plan would provide nearly $30 billion in support to the Canadian economy this year. That would include almost $12 billion in new infrastructure stimuli. That is money above and beyond our government's current record $33 billion infrastructure program. It would mean more money for, among other things, roads, bridges, railroads, ports and border crossings.

There would be $20 billion in personal income tax relief; $7.8 billion to encourage housing construction, including money for social housing and aboriginal housing; $8.3 billion for the Canada skills and transition strategy, including improvements to EI and more funding for skills and training; and $7.5 billion to support businesses and communities across Canada.

When combined with our recent tax cuts, the economic action plan in this budget is estimated to boost the real gross domestic product by 2.5% and create or maintain 265,000 jobs by the end of 2010.

With this stimulus plan Canada will emerge from this worldwide recession with a more modern and greener infrastructure, a more skilled labour force, lower taxes and a more competitive economy.

These are extraordinary times, and extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures. Canadians find themselves in the midst of a global economic slowdown with daily economic news such as: banks struggle under the weight of bad debt; commodity prices collapse; and manufacturers and retailers shed jobs.

The United States economy, the world's largest economy, shrank by 3.8% in the fourth quarter of 2008 and it lost 2.6 million jobs last year. The European Union says it is facing a deep and protracted recession, that the economies of the 16 nations will shrink by 1.9% and 3.5 million jobs will disappear in 2009. The financial system collapsed in Iceland and its economy is predicted to shrink by 10% this year. In Asia, Japan announced that industrial output, consumer spending and employment are all sharply down, as its manufacturers lay off thousands of workers.

Overall, the economic situation in Canada remains better than most other major industrialized countries. Thanks to the early action of our government, Canada is better positioned to cope with the global economic crisis than other countries. Since forming the government in 2006, we have brought the national debt to its lowest level in 25 years, paying down $38 billion in debt. We reduced the overall tax burden to its lowest level in nearly 50 years. Also, we introduced an expenditure management system to review every penny spent on federal programs, initiatives and agencies to ensure value for taxpayers' money.

Still, while we are better prepared than other countries to weather the storm, further steps must be taken to protect the Canadian economy and Canadian workers and families across Canada.

Weaker U.S. and global demand, combined with the ongoing global financial market turbulence and lower commodity prices, will have a negative impact on the Canadian economy as we move forward.

Dealing with the economic downturn requires thoughtful consideration and consultation. We undertook the most comprehensive prebudget consultations ever. We engaged in an open and public discussion with individuals and groups across the country about what steps we should take so that the Canadian economy would benefit.

The Prime Minister, the finance minister and individual MPs listened to the people throughout Canada. We established a non-partisan economic advisory council of eminent Canadian business leaders for advice. We invited leading representatives of the other political parties to face-to-face meetings. The finance minister had round table discussions with business leaders, economists, academics, industry leaders, community and labour organizations, and government leaders from all provinces and territories. All of this was done as we prepared for the earliest federal budget in modern history.

From all of this consultation, emerged Canada's economic action plan. As the world struggles with the effects of the global recession, we are ensuring that the future belongs to Canada. Our plan will provide almost $30 billion in support of the Canadian economy this year.

This stimulus will also bring many benefits to British Columbia. Budget 2009 provides B.C. with its share of $4.5 billion over two years for infrastructure projects such as roads, water and sewer system upgrades. It also accelerates payments of up to $75 million over two years for additional infrastructure projects. The plan provides the people and businesses of B.C. with tax relief of $3 billion over the next five years and provides billions to keep EI rates low for 2009-10.

There is also action to stimulate housing construction by providing billions to build quality social housing, stimulate construction and enhance energy efficiency. The real renovation tax credit will provide up to $1,350 per homeowner, which will benefit B.C. homeowners by up to $419.2 million over two years.

There are also measures to improve access to financing for businesses to obtain the resources they need to invest, grow and create new jobs, and give consumers the adequate financing they need.

As well, budget 2009 includes action to support businesses and communities during this global recession, with $7.5 billion in extra support for sectors such as forestry and manufacturing, as well as the regions and communities that depend upon them.

B.C. will also benefit from specific initiatives including an additional $81 million over the next two years to accelerate the cleanup of federal contaminated sites, a share of $2 billion to support deferred maintenance and repair projects of post-secondary institutions, $80 million to modernize and expand border services facilities, including the Pacific Highway, and $40 million over two years to support tourism, including the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games.

In addition to those measures, B.C. will continue to receive historically high and growing federal transfers in 2009-10 that will total $5.3 billion, an increase of $200 million from last year and a $503 million increase over the former Liberal government.

What is more, B.C. will see growing health and social transfers to help the province pay for vital health care, educational and social services for families that depend upon them.

Our government's economic action plan responds to these historic times by providing significant stimulus to the economy to help protect and create jobs, to support families by cutting taxes and to prepare our country for success in the years ahead with meaningful investments.

While Canada is coping with a global economic downturn, our plan will ensure we emerge even stronger as the economy recovers. The targeted and temporary measures will build on Canada's long term strengths while helping address short term challenges.

With our action plan, Canada and B.C. will emerge from this global recession with better infrastructure, a more skilled labour force, lower taxes and a more competitive economy. This is a plan Canadians wanted and this is a plan that will create and maintain jobs for today and tomorrow. It is a plan that is good for Canada, good for B.C. and good for my riding of Fleetwood--Port Kells.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will keep the discussion very local to the Surrey and Delta areas.

I would like to tell the House that once the finance minister was in Surrey. He is the only political person I have seen stopping people from taking questions from the public. If there were any consultations, it was from the leader of the Liberal Party and also the member for Kings—Hants. They went to Surrey to have open discussions and to take questions.

When I look at this, the only money that is flowing into Surrey is the money that was committed by the Liberals. No new infrastructure money is flowing from the Conservative government.

Surrey has two shovel-ready projects, one is the RCMP building and the other is a library. What will the member do to get money flowing today into Surrey?

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked specifically about consultation over the last month.

Over the last month, I have been talking with people in my riding, in the communities across B.C. and the lower mainland. I have met with people in my office and I have spoken to people at events, I have held public meetings to discuss how my constituents feel the federal budget should tackle the current economic crisis. The people have spoken and we have listened, and this budget includes more money for infrastructure.

This government has provided more money in history than any other government.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague talk a little about the infrastructure program and the money the federal government will invest in the various provinces and in Quebec. I would like to point out a couple of things to her. First of all, it would be better if the money the federal government plans to invest in infrastructure were transferred in full to Quebec. The needs of municipalities in terms of infrastructure are well known in Quebec at this time. Thus, instead of spending that money on different programs—since negotiations between Ottawa and the provinces can sometimes take a very long time—it could simply transfer that money to Quebec. As a result, the job creation targeted by the federal government could be achieved much more quickly and we might be in a better position to deal with the current crisis.

I would also like to explain another point to my colleague concerning certain municipalities. In Berthier—Maskinongé, some municipalities have only around 300, 400 or 500 residents and they are often deep in debt. With the one-third, one-third, one-third agreements, even if the money is allocated, the municipalities cannot necessarily address their infrastructure needs. Thus, a more accessible program is needed, such as 50-35-15, where 50% comes from the federal level, 35% from the provinces and 15% from the municipalities. Perhaps this would be more beneficial for—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I told the previous member, our government has done a lot more on infrastructure than any other government in history. We are very proud of our record.

The 2009 budget, Canada's economic action plan, responds to the global economic crisis that started in the U.S. The member should realize that we are doing a lot and we are very proud of our record.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure to speak today to the budget. I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg South Centre.

Three years ago, the Conservative government inherited the best fiscal situation of any incoming government in the history of Canada: a $12 billion surplus and the fastest growing economy in the G8. When we move forward about two and a half years we can see that the government, even before the economic downturn, had actually squandered that remarkable fiscal inheritance, not only spending through the $12 billion surplus but eliminating the $3 billion contingency reserve that was there to protect Canadians during the tough times and against unforeseen external shocks and circumstances.

Not only that, the growth of the Canadian economy had been reduced to the extent that we went from the fastest growing economy in the G8 to the slowest growing economy in the G8, all before the economic slowdown. On page 217 of the budget, table 4.3, one can see in black and white that the deficit for next year, even before one penny of stimulus investment, will be $15.7 billion.

That is important because on November 27, 2008, in the economic statement, the Minister of Finance told Canadians that there would be a $100 million surplus next year. On December 17, 2008, he updated his numbers to tell Canadians that there would be about an $8 billion deficit. On January 27, with the budget, we learned that the government was projecting a $15.7 billion deficit for next year. The numbers have changed from a $100 million surplus, to projecting an $8 billion deficit three weeks later, to projecting a $15.7 billion deficit less than two months later before any any new investments or stimulus to address the economic slowdown.

The challenge I have is in trusting a government for its projections three years or four years out, when it tells us that it will to get Canada out of deficit as the economy recovers, despite being so wrong so frequently over a period of just a few weeks. I have great concerns about this because over the last 10 years we have seen the Government of Canada, through the strong fiscal management of both the Chrétien and Martin governments, put Canada on track to not only pay down a $43 billion deficit that the Chrétien government inherited from the previous government, but to actually pay down $105 billion of debt over that period. Over the next four years, we will see Canada go further into debt by $85 billion based on the Conservative numbers, if we are lucky.

I am greatly concerned about this. Earlier today we saw Dale Orr, a prominent Canadian economist, predict that the stimulus measures in the budget may not have as great an effect on the growth of the economy as the Conservatives are projecting. Once again, they are basing their projections on numbers that economists are already questioning.

I was at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland over the weekend. Leaders from around the world were openly questioning the degree to which the stimulus packages would affect growth. Everybody acknowledges and recognizes the need to invest and to try to address this global economic downturn together.

Governments from around the world are trying to work together to put together stimulus packages and other measures that will work. However, the fact is that we are not sure to what extent the growth will actually reflect the investment in these stimulus packages, which is why the investments made in this budget ought to have had a longer term focus, such that they would have made sense in good or bad times. This is why they should have invested in science. Instead of cutting funding to Genome Canada, they should have invested in science to make Canada a global leader in research and development and commercialization. They should have invested more in universities and reformed our tax system to attract capital to early-stage investment that could have created the kinds of technologies that could make Canada a global leader.

The government ought to have partnered with the venture capital community and with scientists who need that venture capital and now find they cannot get the investment they need to perform the early-stage research and development they have to do if we are going to have any developments or commercialization activity in 10 to 12 years.

Global venture capital has dried up. Smart governments are now forming funds to invest directly in venture capital, along with venture capitalists, to ensure that in 10 or 15 years we will see the scientific discoveries that we need to make if we are going to evolve positively as a planet.

The government did not make the investments in green research and development that are needed to address climate change.

The fact is that a couple of years ago most governments, with the exception of the Canadian Conservative government, were seized with the issue of climate change. Now we are talking about the global financial crisis and how we are going to address financial governance. We are talking about how we are going to address today's market failure, yet we are not even talking about the last market failure, which was climate change. Climate change evolved from a failure to put a price on carbon and from failing to bring economic and environmental arguments together.

The fact is that there is really no long-term vision in the budget. It is hard to attack its vision, because there really is no vision. It is hard to attack its direction, because it is about putting money in various pots and spreading that money across the country.

Yes, it will effect some growth, and yes, it will create some jobs, and yes, there are some measures in the budget that I support. I support some of the changes to EI, although the government did not go far enough in terms of eliminating the two-week waiting period and making EI equally accessible across the country.

I support some of the investments in infrastructure. Investments in infrastructure are tremendously important. However, I wish there had been a greater focus on green infrastructure, protecting the economy, and creating greener Canadian communities, both small and large.

The government had a remarkable opportunity to transform post-secondary education with the budget, and it failed. Today we are living in a period in which we face a global economic crisis. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians are losing their jobs, and people need training and retraining. It is not just a matter of post-secondary education being there for people when they graduate from high school and go on to college or university; it is a matter of lifelong learning.

The budget provided the government with a remarkable opportunity to create programs that would enable Canadians to train and retrain throughout their careers. Those kinds of measures not only would have helped Canadians today during the tough times, but would also have built a fairer and more competitive and productive Canadian economy in the future.

A couple of months ago, at a time of economic crisis when the Conservatives had an opportunity with the economic statement to unite Canadians, to unite parliamentarians and to address the economy, they not only failed to provide any economic vision or stimulus or ideas, but also chose the opportunity as one to divide Parliament, to pit one group against another.

The budget is an improvement over the economic statement. We could not get much worse than a government that is capable of turning an economic crisis into a political crisis. However, the budget falls short in a number of areas.

I am concerned that there is not a real plan to get Canada back out of deficit once the economy recovers.

I am concerned that we could be saddling future generations of Canadians with higher debt levels and forcing them to pay higher taxes so that we can pay lower ones. That does not seem economically sound or morally correct.

I am concerned that we have not invested in the future of young Canadians by investing adequately in a visionary approach to post-secondary education.

I am concerned that we are not creating the kind of Canadian economy that can compete and succeed globally as science creates the opportunities of the future. I am concerned that the government has failed to invest in sound science.

I am concerned that we are not properly preparing Canada to be a global leader in what will be the fastest-growing area of the 21st century economy, that is, clean energy and environmental technologies.

The budget takes some baby steps in the right direction, and a few missteps. That is why the Liberal Party is supporting the budget with strong amendments that would ensure accountability to Parliament on a quarterly basis. We intend to be a responsible opposition. We intend to ensure that the government does better, that the infrastructure money does result in projects, that we do see a plan to eliminate the deficit as we move forward, and that we invest in a more caring Canada.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the Liberal Party for his comments on the economic plan that has been set out in budget 2009. I appreciate that he will be supporting the budget later this evening, that he does recognize that there is movement forward, and that it is important to provide stimulus in the economy.

He made some interesting comments about EI. He thought that we have done some good things in terms of the work-sharing program and the extension of the benefits by five weeks, but he thought we could do more.

Maybe I am wrong, and I would be happy if the member could correct me, but my understanding is that when the Liberal Party was the government of Canada, the two-week waiting period was there and the mishmash of the different criteria that applied to different provinces was there. Why did members of the Liberal Party not fix it when they were in power?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting question, and I appreciate it.

They have made the argument that we are in an unprecedented period of global economic downturn and that extraordinary measures are required. A very good stimulus measure would have been to ensure that people across Canada could have equal access to employment insurance. Today Ontario is a province where people who are losing their jobs by the thousands cannot qualify for EI in many cases, because of the current rules. I am surprised that the member from Ontario is not be standing up and defending the interests of Ontarians, who deserve that access during this time of unprecedented economic crisis.

That is the whole point. We are seeing the traditional economic heartland of Canada, Ontario, being hit tremendously by this manufacturing downturn in this crisis. If the member is not going to stand up for Ontario, I will be glad to.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, once again I rise to compliment my colleague on his speech. He addressed many of the issues that we in our party have found to be unacceptable in this budget. The unacceptable nature of the vision of the budget, where we are going in this country, how we are getting there, and what the end result will be after an economic recession has ended in the world and in this country are questions that have not been answered.

We are going into a budget that is going to set a direction for us. Likely that direction will carry on for at least 18 months, before the next budget can be introduced and before any of the effects from that budget can enter into the Canadian economy. The hon. member has pointed out many of these shortcomings.

We had a chance to change directions here. We recognize that there was a need for a direction change. What would it have taken for him to see the requirement for the Canadian economy to change, and how can he say that it even starts to show up in this budget?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, during the month of January I travelled with the member for Markham—Unionville and the leader of my party across Canada. We listened to Canadians. We were in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary, and MPs in our party listened to Canadians in their ridings across Canada.

What we heard from Canadians was that they were absolutely offended by the approach of the Prime Minister and the government in November, with the economic statement that provided no vision for the economy and only created political havoc. Canadians were looking for stability and the ability of members of Parliament to work together during an economic crisis.

The budget does not go far enough. It takes a few missteps and it takes a few baby steps in the right direction, but the Liberal Party and my leader are taking a responsible position. Our position is that we will hold the government to account on a quarterly basis to ensure that the infrastructure money is actually leading to projects and shovels in the ground, to new jobs, and to better infrastructure. Our position will ensure that there is a plan to eliminate the deficit as the economy recovers, and that we will see greater investments in building a fairer Canada and the kind of job creation that the budget can create if the Conservatives improve the spending mechanism.

At no point did my party ever say we would vote against the budget before we read it, because Canadians know that would be an irresponsible position that would not make sense.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to a budget that is indeed long overdue.

Finally, after months of playing divisive politics during an unprecedented time of economic uncertainty, the government decided that it would govern, instead of playing politics with the lives of Canadians.

Canadians deserve real action. That is why our leader has said that he is putting the government on probation. That is why we put forth an amendment forcing the government to make mandatory progress reports and to show some accountability on its budget.

We believe it is in the best interests of Canadians for us to get to work in the House and indeed address the economy.

The Prime Minister said only a few months ago that our economy was strong enough to avoid the global recession and that he would never plunge our country back into deficit. We now face one of the largest deficits in our country's history. I say that we face the recession and deficit because of the government's blatant mismanagement. We know the cupboard is officially bare; as I said, we have to move now to take action to fix it.

The budget is flawed, but the government has taken some steps to move forward with measures for housing, for skills development, for expansion of the working income tax and child tax benefits, and for making credit available to business. As well, it has indeed made investments in colleges and universities, which is important for our country's future.

We only now see these important steps taken because the official opposition stood its ground and stood up for the interests of Canadians.

Time and again we in Manitoba have been shortchanged by the government. We have watched the government stand up and announce and reannounce and reannounce yet again millions of dollars for our province. It has made many announcements on funding for Lake Winnipeg totalling $18 million. Little of that money has flowed. Water samples drawn two and a half years ago remain untested. Will Manitoba ever see the full amount of the committed money?

The government announced new funding for the floodway and then, months later, reannounced it under a different program, shortchanging the province by $170 million. The money was not drawn out of a national strategic fund but out of designated provincial funds, as was not the case with the previous government.

Manitobans have been continually shortchanged by the government. If the government chooses to follow through, though--and I underline “chooses” to follow through--the province stands to benefit. We stand to receive roughly $140 million for infrastructure. However, the imperative of matching funding has the potential of either putting a heavy burden on people who pay property tax in Winnipeg, and indeed all of Manitoba, or of requiring governments to make quite unpalatable decisions.

Investment in CentrePort Canada is important for the future of the economic well-being of Manitoba, and we welcome it. Because of community collaboration, a legislative framework and strategic infrastructure investments, Manitoba will indeed have a competitive advantage and is ready to move forward on this initiative.

We welcome the upgrades to the Health Canada regional lab and the projected renovations to the Winnipeg Technical College in my riding, which are important projects for Manitoba, and we welcome the funding for aboriginal railways.

However, the potential shortfall in expected funding for health care is a serious concern, as is the one-year protection under the equalization program.

There is some affordable housing in the budget. However, I ask again whether this funding will reach Manitoba. As many know, there is a severe housing shortage in my province. I have spoken frequently in the House about the hundreds of homes that remain vacant at the decommissioned Kapyong Barracks in my own riding, at a significant cost to the treasury. It is such an injustice to pass by the homes knowing they all sit empty while people remain homeless or are barely hanging on.

These homes must be made available to the residents of Winnipeg pending the transfer to Canada Lands Company. There must be a way of working around the bureaucracy and the regulations.

The money in the budget will benefit first nations people. The budget has pledged $1.4 billion to first nations for housing, drinking water and education. However, this does not live up to the promise of the Kelowna accord. If Kelowna had been implemented by now, we would be well ahead on education, health, water, and the list goes on, but it is a baby step forward.

One particular concern when looking at the budget's investment in aboriginal people is the lack of action taken for aboriginal women. As NWAC president Bev Jacobs said:

[W]e needed to hear Aboriginal women specifically mentioned as part of the stimulus plan. Instead, we heard only general comment about Aboriginal issues such as social housing on reserves, Aboriginal skills and training, child and family services.

There were early indications the budget was going to reflect society and offer protection for the most vulnerable, but I’m not so sure this budget passes the litmus test!

Not only were aboriginal women ignored in this budget, but most women were ignored in it. This seems to be a growing trend with the government's ideological attacks on women. If the government had done a gender based analysis on this budget, it obviously ignored it because once again women were left out in the cold. The day after the budget The Globe and Mail wrote:

Stimulus falls short for many women. Recessions hit mothers hard, but they benefit less from income-tax cuts and infrastructure spending.

The article went on to say that some Canadian women may be measuring for a new kitchen today, but that is Ottawa chipping in for the cupboards with a tax break and that does not go for each and every woman in this country. The government has totally ignored the single mom, the low income family and the senior woman on her own.

As Kathleen Lahey, a law professor at Queen's University, said that the government is still giving bigger savings to richer families who need them less.

As my colleague for Mount Royal has said many times, human rights are women's rights, and women's rights are human rights for one and all. This government just does not get it. So many of the vulnerable have been bypassed. Where is the investment in a national child care program?

As Martha Friendly, a well-known child care advocate said, “An economic stimulus budget without child care will mean that women and children are last in the lineup for the lifeboats”.

The government put forth income tax cuts and increased the national child tax benefit, but that does not go far enough. A single mother earning $40,000 a year will only save 50 cents a day in this budget. A two income family with two children earning $70,000 a year will gain $275 a year. That does not even pay for a month of child care in Toronto.

The lack of child care spaces becomes a barrier as it becomes harder for women to hold jobs or full-time positions that would allow them to qualify for EI benefits. The $8 billion in infrastructure spending does not really cut it for creating jobs for women in this country. Yes, shovels are going into the ground across the country, but the majority of those shovels will be held by men. Only 7% of construction workers are women. Only 7% of those in trades and transportation are women. Only 22% of engineers are women. Only 21% of those in primary industries are women. Only 31% of manufacturing workers are women.

It does not appear that these infrastructure projects will be allocated to child care facilities or any projects that have a direct benefit to women. The changes to EI will not assist the average woman. Five extra weeks are welcome but the real need is for a change in the eligibility criteria.

Seventy per cent of part-time workers are women and almost two-thirds of minimum wage earners in Canada are women. With wages below the poverty line already, many women cannot survive on 55% of their salary.

The president to the south, in signing the pay equity bill, understands the reality women face today. What we have here is a proposal that deprives women of their right to go to court and to ensure their rights. Rights are non-negotiable. The government believes that it can bargain them away. In the language of the President of the United States, this government is on the wrong side of history as it relates to women's rights.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre for her speech, but I take some offence to the statement that this economic plan only generally addresses first nations issues.

I come from one of the largest ridings in the country with almost a majority of first nations populations. This action plan deals specifically with health services and infrastructure. There is specific mention of skills training, housing, schools, and water.

Did the hon. member consult first nations constituents before the economic plan was tabled? Would she concede that this budget does more than generally address those issues?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the member that I speak regularly with members of first nations communities, as well as with the leadership of aboriginal organizations across this country.

The government is beginning very slowly to address some of the needs of first nations, and this is after three years of overt directed neglect by the government.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Careful, careful.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite says “careful” and he knows that I know of what I speak.

The Kelowna accord offered promise and hope for first nations people. The government has moved a baby step forward, and I am not being critical of it, but what we need is a holistic, integrated response to first nations people that understands the needs, the local conditions and is geared to individual communities and jurisdictions.

To answer the member's question, yes, I speak regularly with first nations communities.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, an interesting development is that the members from Prince Edward Island in the Liberal caucus are going to vote against this budget. It is interesting because we have heard different members express their dissatisfaction with the pay equity issue, housing issues, aboriginal issues, workers' issues, a whole series of things, but apparently those issues do not rank high enough to vote against the budget.

I would like to ask the member about her party's strategy. It is very interesting. The argument being presented by the Liberal Party is that we need to move on something right now and there is enough in the budget that it can go on, but at the same time it is going to put the government on parole and it has the right to defeat the government based on a number of reports that will come back.

What will happen is that the Liberals will vote against that and actually kill all of those projects. Is the member suggesting that her party's tactics are to stop the stimulus package three months or six months from now, and then grind everything down, as opposed to what we could have done, which is to change the government and move for Canadians right now?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that it is not the province of Prince Edward Island; indeed it is members from the province of Newfoundland. Members from Newfoundland are tired of the Prime Minister's games of petty politics and holding a province hostage, and are therefore expressing their displeasure, with the concurrence and active support of our leader, to show that this kind of divisiveness and petty politics is not welcome in this House. I think that is very important.

I am not going to project three or six months out on what my party will or will not do. We will be holding the government to account. We will be looking at what measures are put in place or not put in place and what programs are being cut because of ideological bent, and we will be responding accordingly.

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

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the minister responsible for employment insurance said, “We do not want to make it lucrative for them to stay home and get paid for it”, speaking of unemployed workers, and speculated that perhaps it is ideology that is driving the fact that there was not more in the way of EI benefits, either extending it to those who are able to get it, make it more generous for those who are, or eliminate the two week waiting period.

I wonder if she could comment on what she thinks about a minister who thinks it is lucrative to be on EI.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, a short answer please.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if one can give a short answer to that question.

It shows a tremendous disrespect for Canadians to assume that they would rather sit at home and collect EI than go to work. I would invite the minister to come to my office and the offices of many of my colleagues on this side as we deal with some heart-wrenching stories from people who are trying to access EI because they are unemployed, who do not meet the criteria and are really challenged in terms of how they are going to feed their families.