House of Commons Hansard #7 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Edmonton Centre Alberta

Conservative

Laurie Hawn ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, an advisory committee was created in 2001 to facilitate communication among the numerous parties concerned, including the citizens and representatives of the federal, provincial and municipal governments. The results, once analyzed, are communicated regularly to the City of Quebec and the municipality of Shannon. The Department of National Defence has been working closely with all stakeholders from the beginning, and it will continue to do so.

Arctic SovereigntyOral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, the government has undermined Canada's Arctic sovereignty. It scaled back large Arctic icebreakers. It did away with our polar ambassador. The government has weakened our presence in the north.

Given this, what can the minister possibly tell the Arctic Council countries at their upcoming meeting to credibly assert our sovereignty?

Arctic SovereigntyOral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon B.C.

Conservative

Chuck Strahl ConservativeMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians

Mr. Speaker, we will be glad to tell them why that member is supporting the budget. There is a good reason for it. It is because of the many things in it for the north: $80-some million for improving research facilities; a further study on the permanent research facilities that will be there; increased funding for the military in the north; more money for health care in the north; and money is being set aside for housing in the north.

We continue to put the north on the agenda like it has never been before. I look forward to that member's support on a very aggressive northern agenda.

Arctic SovereigntyOral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that totally irrelevant answer. It is too bad the Minister of Foreign Affairs cannot say what he will say at the upcoming meeting.

The government has not put the same resources into social, heritage and search and rescue programs in the north that it has into military buildup.

Canada's greatest strength in our claim to Arctic sovereignty is our northern aboriginal and other peoples who make up Canada's history and development in the north.

Why does the minister not agree with northerners, which is that all these very important programs are critical to a valid and strong Arctic sovereignty claim?

Arctic SovereigntyOral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon B.C.

Conservative

Chuck Strahl ConservativeMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians

Mr. Speaker, the member's second question allows me to continue.

We are continuing with increased regulation of transportation for boats travelling through the Arctic to ensure they meet our environmental standards. We are continuing with an election promise to develop a northern development agency. We are renewing the SINED program. We are continuing with devolution talks with Nunavut and working with the Northwest Territories. We have $36 million to improve the regulatory process on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline.

I would ask the member for a third question, please, as I need more time.

Arctic SovereigntyOral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Maybe we will get a speech later.

The hon. member for Thunder Bay--Rainy River.

Employment InsuranceOral Questions

2:50 p.m.

NDP

John Rafferty NDP Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON

Mr. Speaker, after insulting thousands of hard-working Canadians, yesterday the Minister of Human Resources delivered another slap in the face suggesting that the unemployed simply are not looking hard enough for work.

What does the minister now say to the 1,500 workers who lost their jobs this morning when Tembec announced more closures; British Columbians in Canal Flats, Elko, Cranbrook, Skookumchuk and Chetwynd, Manitobans in Pine Falls, and Ontarians in Hearst who will all lose their jobs?

Will the minister stop insulting workers and start supporting them?

Employment InsuranceOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Haldimand—Norfolk Ontario

Conservative

Diane Finley ConservativeMinister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, actually it is the NDP who should be apologizing to those people.

Our economic action plan is providing a tremendous amount of support for those who are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs. We are providing an extra five weeks of EI benefits over top of regular benefits. We are expanding the work sharing program so that people do not lose their jobs. We are expanding the targeted initiative for older workers. We are providing an unprecedented amount of training for not only those who are on EI, but for those who are not even on it.

The NDP will be voting against every one of those initiatives. Those members deserve to apologize.

Employment InsuranceOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

NDP

John Rafferty NDP Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON

Mr. Speaker, that reply is another insult to families right across Canada.

The Tembec shutdown is just the latest victim of the government's refusal to take action. Nearly 200 mills have closed on the Conservatives' watch alone.

Canadians in forestry towns need support not so they can stay at home, but so they can keep their homes.

The market needed a kickstart, mills needed better credit, workers needed EI and communities needed infrastructure support without handcuffs. The budget failed on all fronts. Now some government members are laughing.

Why is the government turning its back on forest companies in Canada?

Employment InsuranceOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Haldimand—Norfolk Ontario

Conservative

Diane Finley ConservativeMinister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member were to take the time to actually read the economic action plan, he would see that we have addressed every one of those issues.

We are providing more support for workers unfortunate enough to lose their jobs. We have a special focus on those long tenured workers who lose their jobs so that they can go back to school. We will continue EI benefits for them.

We have the community adjustment fund to help communities that have been particularly hard hit when they depend on a particular industry or company.

It is the hon. member once again who should apologize to those people.

Natural ResourcesOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON

Mr. Speaker, thanks to a $31 million investment from our Conservative government, the Port Alma wind farm in my riding is now online producing clean, renewable power for Canadians. This wind farm creates enough energy to power 30,000 homes each year. It is just one project in a long list of clean, renewable energy projects that our government is supporting across the country.

Could the Minister of Natural Resources update the House on our government's strong support for clean, renewable energy?

Natural ResourcesOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Halton Ontario

Conservative

Lisa Raitt ConservativeMinister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for all the hard work he does in his riding on this issue.

Our government acted early in January 2007 with a $1.5 billion investment in renewable energy. Thanks to this early action, projects like the one mentioned today are coming online across Canada.

As there are still significant funds remaining in the program, I look forward to approving similar projects in the coming months.

Furthermore, we built on this early action with a $2.5 billion clean energy fund and a $1 billion green infrastructure fund in our economic plan.

This government is delivering on a clean, green future for Canada.

Employment InsuranceOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON

Mr. Speaker, thousands of Canadians who have lost their jobs due to the recession now face a double whammy when they apply for EI benefits.

With a higher volume of applicants, my constituents are telling me that it is virtually impossible for people to reach the EI call centre by telephone for vital information.

When will the government expand the number of people operating the EI call centre and give Canadians the proper service they deserve?

Employment InsuranceOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Haldimand—Norfolk Ontario

Conservative

Diane Finley ConservativeMinister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, in these times, when too many people are losing their jobs through circumstances beyond their control, we have already taken steps and will continue to take steps to ensure they get the benefits they deserve in a timely manner.

To that end, we have expanded the hours of the call centres. We have people working overtime to process claims. We are doing load balancing and are bringing back people who have EI processing experience so they can do the job of making sure that Canadians get the benefits that they need and deserve in a timely manner.

Agriculture and Agri-FoodOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, the amounts in the Conservative budget allocated to the slaughter industry seem to be for new projects only.

Does this mean that the government will give nothing to the Levinoff-Colbex slaughter house, to which producers have recently contributed $30 million in capital? Or can the minister tell us today that this slaughter house will also receive one dollar from the government for every dollar invested by agricultural producers?

Agriculture and Agri-FoodOral Questions

3 p.m.

Jonquière—Alma Québec

Conservative

Jean-Pierre Blackburn ConservativeMinister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Agriculture)

Mr. Speaker, as we know, during the election campaign we promised to invest $50 million in the slaughter industry. That is what we have done. The $50 million is now in the budget. The Liberal Party opposite will be supporting us whereas the Bloc Québécois refuses to do.

We intend to support industries in this sector that need assistance. Levinoff-Colbex has already contacted officials at the department with regard to their file.

HousingOral Questions

3 p.m.

NDP

Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, 1.5 million Canadian families live in unacceptable housing conditions and over 300,000 seek refuge in shelters every year. Canada has a housing crisis and to fix it we need a long term national strategy but the minister said clearly that any money promised in this Conservative budget is a one-off investment.

Will the minister explain how her approach translates into a national housing strategy when we know this plan is doing nothing to protect Canada's most vulnerable?

HousingOral Questions

3 p.m.

Haldimand—Norfolk Ontario

Conservative

Diane Finley ConservativeMinister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ignores, conveniently, the fact that last September we made a commitment of almost $2 billion to build new social housing to help those and the homeless. That is a considerable investment.

In this budget, we are including money to renovate and build social housing for seniors and the disabled right across the country.

I have to point out that with that significant investment to create jobs and help the vulnerable, she is voting against it.

Aboriginal AffairsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Conservative

Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON

Mr. Speaker, Sioux Lookout, Red Lake and the isolated first nation communities in the Kenora riding appreciated this government's recent announcement for immediate additional funding to improve the winter road network across northwestern Ontario.

However, beyond the winter, first nation communities want to know that this government's 2009 economic action plan includes a strategy for the long term infrastructure and critical community services priorities for their communities.

Would the minister tell us what measures this economic plan will take to ensure that the first nation community priorities will be addressed?

Aboriginal AffairsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon B.C.

Conservative

Chuck Strahl ConservativeMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of the member for Kenora to improve, for example, the winter road conditions in his riding. I appreciate the announcement he made there last week.

I can assure him that the Prime Minister and I met with aboriginal leaders in productive prebudget talks. As a result, in budget 2009 we are making major investments in housing, improving drinking water, school construction, roads, recreational centres, health and policing services. There is also new spending for skills and development.

All of this begs a question. When aboriginal leaders call all this budget good and a necessary step, why are the NDP and the Bloc voting against it?

Decorum in the Chamber—Speaker's RulingPoint of OrderOral Questions

February 3rd, 2009 / 3 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord concerning remarks read in the House by the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke on Tuesday, December 2, 2008.

The member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord raised this point of order for the first time on December 3, 2008, during the previous session, and raised it again on January 27, 2009.

I would like to thank the hon. member for raising this question, and the hon. government House leader and the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader for their interventions on December 3, 2008.

The member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord was concerned about the remarks that the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke read during the debate on December 2, 2008, on the government motion on the economic and financial statement. He asked the member to withdraw her remarks that he considered unparliamentary and, at the same time, asked the Chair to rule on the right of members to read extracts from emails or letters that contain remarks that would not normally be acceptable in the House.

For his part, the hon. government House leader was concerned about the noise and unparliamentary language that we were hearing in the House at that point. The parliamentary secretary defended the right of the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke to quote the text contained in the email.

I undertook to review this matter and then inform the House of my decision on this matter, but the session was prorogued the next day.

As the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord mentioned in his remarks, section 18 of the Standing Orders stipulates that:

No Member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of any of the Royal Family, nor of the Governor General or the person administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against any Member thereof.

Moreover, as the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord mentioned, the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 525 that:

The proceedings of the House are based on a long-standing tradition of respect for the integrity of all Members. Thus, the use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly forbidden. Personal attacks, insults and obscene language or words are not in order.

This matter has been raised on several occasions in the past. It is true that members may quote from documents. The House of Commons Procedure and Practice mentions on page 517 that:

They--

Meaning members:

--may quote from private correspondence as long as they identify the sender by name or take full responsibility for its contents.

However, my predecessor, Mr. Speaker Parent, stated on November 18, 1998 (page 10133 of Debates) that:

I would remind all hon. members that we cannot use words in here which are used by someone else which we ourselves are not permitted to use. I would caution all members in their statements.

I also indicated on November 8, 2006, that the Chair would not tolerate members using unparliamentary language when they are quoting somebody. Having reviewed the words that caused the difficulty, words I would not repeat, it is clear to me that they were clearly unparliamentary.

The member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord was entirely right to point out that House practice does not allow someone to do indirectly that which they would not be permitted to do directly.

I want to take this opportunity once again to remind the hon. members to use more judicious language in their interventions. The political climate in the House was very heated last December, but I trust that a moderate climate will now become the norm and, to that end, I urge all the members not to disregard the rules of civility and courtesy.

I want to thank the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for the regrets they expressed about the remarks made on December 2 and 3, 2008. Consequently, I consider this matter resolved. I thank the House for its attention on this matter.

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

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

Mr. Speaker, I first voted in a federal election in 1993, when Canada was at a very difficult time and important juncture in our history. I remember well at that point in time the difficulty of our economic situation. Canada was buried in debt. The level of unemployment was over 12%, inflation was something over 14%, and Canadians were generally not very optimistic about the ability of government to have an impact in their lives or, frankly, to get their fiscal house in order.

In fact, the situation was so bad The Wall Street Journal at that point in time said that Canada was an honorary member of the third world with respect to the inability of Canada to manage its debt situation. When a Liberal government took power in 1993, it was against a backdrop that demanded enormous fiscal restraint. Canada was taken from the bottom of the G7 across almost every indicator to the top across every single indicator by the time we were finished. It is no mistake or coincidence that as the deficit evaporated, Canada's competitiveness improved. We saw that our leadership in areas like job creation and economic growth within the G7 were greatly accelerated, to the point of putting us at the front of the pack as we finally got a handle on a situation that was utterly out of control.

When the Conservatives took power nearly three years ago, they inherited an economy that was robust and a fiscal position that was incredibly sound, turning in large surpluses year over year. In fact, so much debt had been paid down in the time of a Liberal administration that $3 billion less in interest was being spent each and every year. They inherited that situation and in just three short years went from a $13 billion surplus to a $13 billion deficit before this economic situation even emerged. This is from Kevin Page, an independent officer of Parliament who is set with the responsibility to give us the real deal on what the numbers are.

Before we even began this current economic tumult, we were in a situation of deficit. Fiscal mismanagement over that three year period had left Canada vulnerable. Instead of being in a situation where we had money in the bank and we were turning in surpluses, we were in a situation of deficit.

After the last election, there was great talk about the need for a spirit of co-operation, to come together and find solutions. Certainly, everyone recognized at that point that the economy was going to be in a very difficult space. The statements of the Prime Minister that it was a good time to buy stocks, or that we were not really in a recession or that there would not really be a deficit were not even being held on to by the Prime Minister or the Conservatives anymore. Even they had to come clean about the direness of the situation.

We expected great things when the economic statement came forward. We had an expectation that it would be a collaborative process, that would involve other parties, and that it would present a coherent plan on how to deal with our economy and make sure that we weathered the difficult time together. Instead, we got one of the most partisan, meanspirited documents that this House has seen in some period of time. Instead of taking the challenge of working in a non-partisan way toward a common purpose, the economic statement tried to drive a stake into the hearts of other opposition parties and was a direct attack against the principles of equal pay for equal work for women and against labour unions. What was most concerning about it was its refusal to take any action on our economy.

That began a period of historic co-operation, of opposition parties working together and talking about forming a coalition. It was, in fact, that coalition that forced the budget we are now dealing with today. Most of the provisions never would have even been imagined by Conservatives let alone introduced in this House. It has caused something of an existential crisis for Conservatives, but Canadians recognize that action must be taken.

In that context, I am going to go over a couple of things I am both concerned about and also some things I am buoyed by regarding the budget that is now in front of us. I think the greatest disappointment of this budget is the fact that it misses a tremendous opportunity. When we are talking about stimulating our economy and making investments to get Canadians back to work, and to right a situation that is very unstable, there is the opportunity for Canada to introduce something like our own New Deal, similar to what FDR introduced in the United States, to have great vision and to use this opportunity to redefine Canada and help us transition into the future.

Infrastructure would have been the perfect vehicle for that. Infrastructure would have been the perfect opportunity in a large and historic way to build the infrastructure of a new economy, both the physical infrastructure and also the backbone of the new technologies that are going to be required to be successful in the future. But that opportunity was lost. It was given up. Instead, we sort of get a scattered approach of shooting a million things in a bunch of different places.

One of the worst things on infrastructure was the requirement for municipalities, which are often cash-strapped and heavily indebted themselves, to put forward one-third funding. This means many of those projects are not going to move forward. In fact, the process is so cumbersome, all projects will not be approved within six months. Most will be approved nine months or a year down the road, hardly an action plan that takes immediate action on the economy. So that was greatly disappointing.

What I will say before I go back to some of the things that concern me about the budget on the positive side is the action that it takes on affordable housing. Certainly in my region of Durham, we see a huge number of people on waiting lists who are trying to access affordable housing, often for two or three years. People in very difficult economic circumstances who just want to be able to have shelter. How can they contemplate getting a good job or feeding their children if they do not have shelter? The measures that have been forced in this budget and brought forward on affordable housing are essential and timely.

Regarding skills development, clearly if we are going to have an expectation of our workforce to meet the challenges of the new economy to stay competitive and help get us through this very difficult time, skills training and development are essential. The measures in the budget could have gone further, but are very good and certainly some very positive elements there.

Expansions to the working income tax benefit and the child tax benefit are important because they help those who are most vulnerable directly, those people who are living at the margins who need our assistance. It is those quiet voices often, people who have difficulty speaking for themselves, who are going through very difficult times who need our help the most. Those types of measures, although I would have like to have seen more, are certainly helpful.

Investments in colleges and universities are a positive step and something that I welcome. It is important to highlight the fact though, that if we had just been left with the economic statement, before the historic collaboration of the opposition parties, none of the items I just mentioned would have been dealt with. It was only through those measures that we arrived at the point today where there are some things worth supporting in the budget.

One of the concerns I have with the budget in talking to nearly double the number of people who are seeking unemployment benefits in my riding and my region is the difficulty of accessing EI. There are many people who have the same number of hours as somebody in a different part of the country where they are eligible, but in my region they are not, despite the fact that particularly in areas just to the east of Oshawa, unemployment numbers are rising in a very scary way.

I also talked to people who were excited about the five week extension, only to learn that the five week extension is only applicable to them once this is passed. So for somebody who is just coming off EI, they will not have access to that five weeks. So the two week waiting period, lack of enhancement in benefits, the fact that there was no eligibility considered for those just coming off EI to get that additional five weeks, I think is great folly because these are individuals who are in a very precarious situation. Often a slight change in EI can make the difference between them being able to pay their mortgage and support their families or not.

One of the other deep concerns we have is this notion of equal pay for equal work. We saw President Obama in the United States come forward very strongly on this principle that there has to be equal pay for equal work. This budget fails to address that. There was an attack on it in the economic statement and that is continued here.

I mentioned infrastructure but I should also mention the breaking of promises to the other provinces on equalization and the disappointment that creates, but also the continued bickering that we were promised was going to end. Obviously, we cannot blame the provinces for this because they are not being treated in a sense that is fair.

Our reality today is that this Parliament, up to only a week ago, had only sat 13 days in 7 months. It is a pathetic figure. We have an obligation now to get to work.

People do not want politics; they want action. Our job here is to ensure, while this is not exactly what the country needs, that we get an economic stimulus package going now. We need to get help to people who need that assistance right away. We need to ensure that we are ready at the first opportunity to provide a new solution to Canadians once we have had the opportunity to try, as best we can, to make Parliament work.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, my colleague rightly points out that the budget put forward by the Conservative government, which we are debating today, really does not resemble anything that Barack Obama might put together. Those guys are not Barack Obama, but I might point out that neither is he.

Barack Obama probably would not enter into a coalition with the Conservative Party. Barack Obama would probably vote against this budget. Therefore, any parallels he seeks to draw between himself and Barack Obama fail the most basic test. One cannot simultaneously support and oppose the Conservative budget, which we vote on later today.

I have heard my colleague very eloquently recite and dictate the many shortcomings of the budget and how fundamentally wrong it is, how it fails in its test in terms of stimulating the economy, how municipalities will be unable to avail themselves of the infrastructure money if they have to come up with one third of it.

How can my colleague stand there today and criticize the Minister of Finance's budget and then later today follow the orders of his party and vote for it? Will he not practice what he preaches and join us in opposing the Conservative budget that he claims to oppose so vigorously in his speech?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I hear very clearly from my constituents is they expect this Parliament to work. The expectation that we would go back to another election is not one that makes any sense.

A couple of moments ago I said that the House only sat for a scant number of days in the last seven months. The risk of dropping us into another election at a time when Canadians are demanding action, rightfully, on the economy would make absolutely no sense.

A lot of the measures in the budget are very supportable and will do good things for the economy. They are there precisely because opposition parties demanded that they be. Opposition parties forced Conservatives to do things they would never otherwise do.

One of the things we have done in our amendment is to ensure that on infrastructure and other matters and on the efficacy of the actions taken by the Conservative government, that it is held to account, that we ensure the money is in fact being spent and being used to stimulate the economy and that we hold the government to account for this relative success of it.

We have an obligation, after only having been here for a couple of days, after having had three elections in four years, to make an honest effort to make this Parliament work and to use this body for as much good as we possibly can.