Debates of March 10th, 2010

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that the suggestion being put forward by the Liberal Party is that anyone in Canada who works for 45 days ought to be able to receive a year's worth of EI. That is what is going to kill jobs and kill the economy.

We have said that EI premiums have been frozen for the last two years. Any change to that is going to be decided by an arm's-length body from the government. We will see what happens when it does that review.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives really are concerned about jobs and have a solid long-term plan, I would like to ask the hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora whether they have any kind of plan other than to shift the tax burden from the largest and most profitable corporations on to the backs of small business people, and especially consumers.

The government has been bragging about the fact that it has the lowest taxes in the G7. Why do we feel the need not to have just a couple of percentage points less but half the tax rate of the United States? The large corporate tax rate in the United States is around 35% whereas ours is 18% heading to 15%.

In last year's budget we had $22 billion in large corporate taxes and $134 billion in personal and consumer taxes. Next year we are going to have EI increases of $19 billion, a job killer if there ever was one.

Why are the realities of the budget so at odds with the claim that it is going to create jobs?

When the numbers in the Conservatives' own budget say that corporate tax increases only have a multiplier of 0.1% to 0.3% when infrastructure has a multiplier of 1.5%, 1.6% or 1.7%, why are they spending money recklessly on large corporate tax cuts?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are the government that has reduced taxes in every jurisdiction across this country, starting with the reduction in the GST by 2%, which has helped Canadians from coast to coast.

We also believe that by reducing corporate taxes we are going to ensure that there will be jobs for the future.

I would like to refer my colleague to page 83 of the budget document. Just to put it on the record, it says:

Small and medium-sized businesses are an important component of our economy, estimated to account for about 98 p. 100 of all businesses in Canada and employing more than 5 million people, roughly half of the private sector workforce.

Any time that we can reduce taxes for our small and medium size businesses will create jobs in the economy.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people in my riding who would certainly benefit from something less than 45 weeks, but it has to do with the seasonal nature of employment. I am not quite sure what the member is getting at, but when it comes to working less than 45 weeks, some of these people do not have a choice really, because of the seasonal nature of employment.

I wonder if she could talk to the people of my constituency who do not have the possibility of working that much longer and why they do not qualify.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, working 45 days and qualifying for a year's worth of employment insurance would kill jobs across Canada.

We have said that we are going to work with the people who need training for new skills. We have put five weeks of extra EI benefits in place for unemployed people, and we have given them the opportunity to get job skills retraining.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the budget.

Of course, I am very proud to support the action of Canada's economic future which my colleague, the Minister of Finance, introduced on March 4.

I would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate the member for Newmarket—Aurora for all of the great work she is doing on behalf of her riding. She very eloquently stated the impact of the budget. We know that the economic action plan will continue to support communities like Newmarket—Aurora, Edmonton—Spruce Grove and others across the country, investing to create jobs for all Canadians.

In addition, we will begin the extremely important task of returning to balanced budgets by freezing operating expenses, by freezing salaries and by ensuring that value is being achieved for every dollar contributed by the Canadian taxpayers. We will also target investment to strengthen innovation, attract investment and build jobs and growth for the next generation of working Canadians.

One sector of particular interest to me is enabling the success of small and medium size businesses in Canada. As members may well be aware, Public Works and Government Services has an office that is dedicated to helping small and medium size businesses gain access to more government business. Moreover, as the government's main purchasing agent, the department has been working very hard to streamline its procurement policies. This will be beneficial to all businesses, especially to those small and medium businesses that do not have the capacity, frankly, to navigate the complicated web of government procurement requirements.

I would like to draw hon. members' attention to the section of budget 2010 that states that the federal government will also help promote smaller businesses by adopting and demonstrating some of the innovative prototype products and technologies that they have developed.

As the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, I am proud of the role the department has played in bringing the economic action plan to life. In year one, the department was among the first to spring into action and put its share of the stimulus funding to work. Many projects to come will continue to make a difference to our economy, while leaving a lasting legacy of modern and efficient federal infrastructure.

I would like to take a minute to share with the House the impact of this effort in the five streams where my department has been working.

First, the department has provided funds over two years for the repair and restoration of public owned infrastructure across the country. This allowed the department both to accelerate its ongoing renovation programs and to start new projects. The numbers are truly impressive. To date, a total of 324 repair and renovation projects have already been completed, and over 900 projects are currently under way, creating jobs across the country.

Second, funding was allocated over two years to improve the accessibility of federally owned buildings to people with disabilities. I am pleased to report that 40 projects have been completed and more than 175 projects are currently under way, again creating jobs across the country. To date we have awarded subcontracts to more than 580 small and medium businesses across the country for projects under the economic action plan.

Third, we have invested in the rehabilitation of four federal bridges, all of them critical traffic arteries. Here in the national capital region, major rehabilitation work on the Alexandra Bridge began last April, creating about 60 jobs locally, while contracts for rehabilitation work on the Chaudière crossing were awarded last October.

In Kingston, Ontario, rehabilitation work on the LaSalle Causeway began in November, and work on the Burlington Lift Bridge in Burlington, Ontario has been under way since January, again, creating jobs across the country.

Finally, Public Works and Government Services has also been heavily involved in supporting the activities of other departments, such as Fisheries and Oceans, Parks Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency, that received funding under the economic action plan. Together we are investing in infrastructure and creating jobs across the country.

I also have the privilege of being the member of Parliament for Edmonton—Spruce Grove and the minister responsible for northern Alberta. The economic action plan has made a huge impact in my region, with hundreds of projects creating thousands of jobs for the economy. We have funded projects such as the expansion of the Edmonton light rail transit system, the Edmonton ring road and the Art Gallery of Alberta. In fact, in total from all levels of government, Alberta has now received $1 billion in support to help it through this economic downturn.

Key to the success of Canada's economic action plan was to get projects off the ground quickly, while providing taxpayers with the accountability and transparency that they expect and they deserve.

There is little disagreement that the economic action plan is achieving what it set out to achieve; that is, to put Canadians to work and to keep many who already were working in their jobs. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, reports that the action plan has contributed to the creation of more than 135,000 jobs recorded in Canada since July of last year.

We are committed to the well-being of Canadian small and medium businesses. Year two of the economic action provides the tools necessary to support hard-working Canadians and their businesses. Under this government's watch, small and medium businesses have accounted for an average of 43% of public works procurement spending over the last three years. I am confident the budget will unlock even more of this investment for small and medium businesses.

I am very proud of the contribution that our department is making to the economic action plan. I am also very proud to say that budget 2010 has my full support as we continue our work as a government to lead the way on jobs and growth.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating the Minister of Public Works and Government Services on her appointment to the Department of Public Works and Government Services. I believe, as many members do, that she is heading an important department. I say that not simply because my father was one of her predecessors in that department 25 years ago, but because her department is engaged not only as an economic player in every region of the country, but as an important employer in many regions of the country.

When the member for Kings—Hants, for example, was minister of her department, he and I visited the superannuation directorate of Public Works and Government Services located in Shediac, New Brunswick in my constituency. Over 740 talented public servants work very hard and very productively and efficiently at her department in Shediac, New Brunswick.

As the government goes through its exercise of reviewing the programs and expenditures, I hope she will be sensitive not to impede the important work that has been done to increase the workforce in Shediac. Her government, to give it credit, has continued the modernization of the superannuation directorate, adding important jobs in a community like Shediac. I hope the minister will be vigilant, as the government goes through the cost cutting exercise, to continue her commitment to the work done in Shediac. Perhaps she could assure the people of this region that she continues to support the important work they do.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the sentiments of the member opposite. Our department and myself, as Minister of Public Works, appreciate greatly the work that is done in the regions by the public servants of the department. They do excellent work. The superannuation office has been there for many years. As the member said, it was actually his father who took the office to the region.

We appreciate all the good work that is done in the regions. I can assure the member it is well respected and well received by me and by the department.

I also want to take note of some of the things that stakeholders have said across the country about our budget. Those are the kinds of things about which I have been talking to my constituents.

They have been asking what the chamber of commerce has been saying locally. I know the chamber of commerce has said that it welcomes the federal government's strategy to achieve its recovery plan, to return to balanced budgets and to promote a move innovative and competitive economy.

It is incredibly important that the people of Edmonton—Spruce Grove know the chamber of commerce is behind this government.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. She spoke about infrastructure, buildings, heritage and the need for speed.

I am particularly concerned about the fact that heritage dollars could be used not just to build infrastructure but to tear it down. For example, the historic downtown in Brantford obviously needs revitalization, but since the government has no program for revitalizing heritage buildings, the city of Brantford is looking for $1.38 million to tear down 41 historic buildings, the vast majority of which pre-date Confederation.

Therefore, we have the speed to get the money out, yet no due diligence on the fact that buildings of historical significance in southern Ontario will be sent to the landfill pile.

In the review of stimulus projects is there any concern at all for maintaining historically significant buildings, for maintaining Canadian heritage and for working with municipalities to actually revitalize historic downtowns rather than sending in a wrecking ball because they have no other options?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member asked the question because one of the large components of our economic action plan is investment in infrastructure.

I point out that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has applauded the federal government for protecting core investments in cities and communities, as it also reduces the federal budget deficit. It says:

These investments will help local governments--and Canadian property tax payers--build the infrastructure that is the backbone of our economy and quality of life.

Those kinds of comments speak for themselves. People from across the country, including mayors and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, are incredibly supportive of the work that our government has done, not only to invest in infrastructure, but to create jobs everywhere across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join the debate on the budget and I will be sharing my time with the member for Kings—Hants.

In my first debate since “parliamentus interruptus”, when the House unexpectedly adjourned, I would like to wish you, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues a happy return to Parliament. On this side of the House, we missed this place.

In my time I would like to discuss three important issues about the budget and why we cannot support it: first, a lack of job creation measures; the second, the lack of vision the government has shown; and, finally, the lack of strategy for seniors and pensioners.

Rather than recalibrating, we should have been discussing a vision for Canada in January, not in March. Instead, the government decided it needed an extended holiday to avoid debate on uncomfortable issues such as the torture of Afghan detainees or the delivery of unredacted documents to Parliament. It created an unwanted and unnecessary hiatus from its responsibilities. Shame on the government. What is clear to Canadians is the Conservatives hope for resuscitation, not recalibration.

Last year I joined the same debate and emphasized the need for stimulus funding, infrastructure moneys, changes to employment insurance, protection for manufacturing jobs, investment and innovation in green jobs and jobs for youth and new Canadians. That is what Mississaugans and Canadians wanted.

One year later, the government has once again ignored Canadians and introduced a flatline budget full of cuts, freezes and gimmicks. Meanwhile, Liberals have been working hard on the priorities of Canadians such as protection for the jobs of today, investment in innovation and the jobs of tomorrow, protection for the most vulnerable and a plan to help us climb out of the Conservative-made $56 billion deficit.

The shortcomings of the budget are numerous: no job creation strategy; no investment in early childhood development; no national child care plan; no affordable housing strategy; no pension reform; no national vision or legacy such as a national electrical grid or a high-speed trail; and no real jobs. The bottom line is no real benefits for real Canadians.

On jobs, the government has missed a chance to own the employment podium. It lost a golden opportunity. Unfortunately, this time on this issue Canadians will not even reach the podium, let alone own it.

At a time when Canadians are crying out for a plan for job growth and job creation, the government comes up short. In the past year we saw over 300,000 Canadians lose their jobs and remain out of work. The budget offers no solution to compensate for those lost jobs or the 8% of Canadians who are unemployed, a staggering 11% in Mississauga.

To inflict further pain, the Conservatives will impose a $13 billion job-killing small business tax. What were they thinking? Even the CFIB reported that this measure would kill more than 200,000 jobs.

While the Conservatives were on holidays, Liberals were working. As a caucus, we met with real Canadians facing real problems through the more than 33 round table consultations we held. The recurring issue was definitely jobs. We were told that getting people back to work was job one and Liberals listened. We made concrete and well documented proposals. Unfortunately, the government did not listen.

The first proposal involved support for our manufacturers. Our manufacturers can only create jobs if they have better access to the capital they need to invest in new equipment and to get ahead of their global competition. Our plan would boost productivity and competitiveness through a cash advance on the accelerated capital cost allowance, helping manufacturers to purchase new equipment, become more profitable and create more jobs.

The second proposal addressed was the high youth unemployment rate at an unprecedented 17%, higher in certain regions, the worst in a generation. Our plan would introduce a temporary financial incentive to hire young Canadians, thus giving employers a greater incentive to hire and train the next generation of workers. Mississauga—Streetsville has the potential to be a leading community in high-quality learning. Investing in children and youth will help students strive and reach their full potential. By not listening, the Conservatives robbed young Mississaugans of that opportunity.

Finally, we need to encourage investment in startup companies. By extending new investment models to emerging sectors, we can help bridge the gap between research and commercialization and create those high value-added jobs of tomorrow in the process.

We encouraged the government to adopt these proposals in the budget if it were truly concerned about stimulating and incentivizing job creation and strengthening Canada's economic future but it did not listen.

Last month, while we were prorogued, I attended the Mississauga job summit, along with 300 other concerned citizens. Mayor Hazel McCallion stated that Canadians were desperate for hope, jobs and functional government. Toronto Star columnist, David Crane, challenged us to be innovative, global in outlook and focused on education. John Tory talked about the basics of business.

There was a consensus on the need for a jobs agenda: short-term jobs for students, newcomers and those most recently unemployed, and long term, higher paying jobs for all Canadians.

Second is infrastructure spending. Through its black curtain of transparency, the government failed to take advantage of a once in a lifetime opportunity to make an historic impact through the infrastructure stimulus plan and, sadly, it fell short.

Where is the leadership and the vision to make a real difference in our national infrastructure? After allegedly committing $50 billion over two years, what will the government have to show for its infrastructure investment? Certainly no dramatic or historic development, such as a high-speed rail corridor between Quebec City and Windsor, or a national electrical grid, or a green economy built on sustainable energy sources, or an innovation platform with a competitive advantage in R and D.

Rather than being historic and visionary, their legacy will be one of gimmicks, cuts and freezes. In fact, the Conservatives cut $148 million from Canada's Research Council in the last budget. Now we see them wanting to take credit for re-investing $32 million this year, which is still a $116 million shortfall.

Then there is the cancellation of the eco-energy program for renewable power production and the Conservatives' refusal to allow the Canadian Space Agency to spend $160 million in approved spending over the past two years. Now they want to take credit for adding $23 million in this budget. That is another $137 million shortfall.

It is no wonder the budget bounces around like a rubber ball. We heard the deficit numbers go from $16 billion to $36 billion to $50 billion to $56 billion and now I am hearing $49 billion because the government cannot count. We know why the deficit number will be lower next year. It is called lapsed funding. The Conservatives are masters of re-announcing old programs with old money, thus, fooling Canadians into believing it is all new programs with real money. It is not.

The Conservatives create optical illusions with lapsed money, committed money that is never sent out. Those funds are redirected back into general revenue and used to reduce the size of the deficit and the Conservatives try to take credit for it as prudent fiscal managers.

The Conservatives can fool Canadians by diverting attention onto the lyrics of our national anthem but Canadians are on to them and so are we.

Finally, where is the strategy to meet the challenges of our aging population and the reform to our pensions that the government promised?

The task force has not even begun yet. While Nortel pensioners burn, the government tinkers at the margins. Liberals proposed a supplementary CPP or changes to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to allow pension funds to become secured creditors. Why has the government not adopted these proposals? Why has it not acted? All it has done for seniors is give them a day off that they cannot even afford to take.

Some will ask how we would fund these proposals. Of course the legacy infrastructure project would have been funded from the economic action stimulus fund but other measures on job creation could be funded from existing spending by eliminating wasteful government spending, such as the $100 million hyper-partisan advertising campaign, the overuse of management consultants, the unbridled use of ten percenters or the use of government jets for promotional announcements in donut chains. The PMO, while preaching austerity, has raised its own budget at the PCO by 22%, or $13 million, and that is pure hypocrisy.

Eliminating wasteful practices, such as those, would have saved $1.2 billion. The government should be ashamed of this budget for what it has not done to stimulate job creation, create a legacy with the stimulus fund or a strategy for our seniors and our pensioners.

We will not support these cuts, freezes and gimmicks. We understand the shortcomings of this budget. We understand the will of Canadians. We will be strategically voting on this budget to avoid the unnecessary election that no one wants.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague comment rather negatively about Canada's economy. I wonder if she is aware that her own leader, in January of this year, said “the good news is that the basic economic fundamentals of Canada are strong”.

Is she also aware of the positive view of Warren Lovely, the CIBC economist, who said:

Simply put, highly rated Canada offers safe harbour in today's global debt storm.

Few advanced economies boast stronger real GDP growth prospects--a view endorsed by our (CIBC's) economics department, a broad cross section of private sector banks, the Bank of Canada, the IMF and...the OECD.

Could the previous speaker mention one country that is better off than Canada from an economic recovery perspective?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would to point to China and India as having incredible growth rates. I will not be preached at by him. I want to reinforce the notion that in the 1990s his government, under Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, created a financial crisis where the IMF almost had to come in and bail us out. It created a deficit of $43 billion, which, as a percentage of GDP, is even larger than it is today. It took a Liberal government to come in and bail the Conservatives out.

Let us look at what the economy looked like when the Conservatives inherited the government. They inherited a $14 billion surplus and a $3 billion contingency plan, which, of course, they squandered right away. They also announced that there would not be a deficit. They called deficits stupid.

Now we have evidence that they cannot even track the size of the deficit that they have created. They started with $13 billion. It went to $36 billion, then $50 billion and then $56 billion. Who knows where it is going to end up? It is a bouncing ball.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, citizens in my riding and across Ontario, including in the member's riding, are united and vocal in their opposition to the harmonized sales tax. This budget provides billions to implement this much hated HST. Starting this summer, people will have to pay more taxes on funerals, Internet fees, home sales and medical fees for dogs and cats. We know that times are tough already without the tax burden being shifted from the big oil companies to ordinary Canadians.

In the past, we have seen the Liberals and Conservatives work together to push this HST through the House of Commons. We have a new session now. Could my Liberal colleague please tell me why she voted against the NDP motion last night to strike out the HST in this budget?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member for Trinity—Spadina that she worked with the government to kill the national day care system that the Liberals were about to introduce, the national child care program that would have been so relevant for so many Canadians.

In response to her question, it was the Minister of Finance who cut a deal with the Governments of Ontario and B.C. to allow this structure that created the HST.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are becoming very familiar with the Conservative strategy of shifting taxes from corporations onto the backs of ordinary Canadians. The tax shift from business to working Canadians underlines what is going on with the harmonized sales tax in Ontario and British Columbia.

In fact, budget 2010 also shows that the government intends to rely on personal income tax for more than four times as large a share of its revenues in the future as contributed by corporate income tax. Ordinary Canadians will pay four times more in personal income tax than corporations in this country.

It is also important to note that since wealthy Canadians receive a large proportion of their income in the form of stock options, equity and dividends from profits, corporate tax cuts actually increase the rich people's incomes. Furthermore, that income is taxed at a lower rate than the income of an average worker. How is this fair for working Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will share with my colleague the impact that this budget and the government have had on my riding of Mississauga—Streetsville.

The government has created a crisis in Mississauga so acute that our mayor had to call a job summit just to address our needs. She brought together business, government and labour because of the 11% unemployment rate, which is only at 8% nationally. The unemployment rate in my colleague's riding of Essex is almost 20% despite the rosy picture that he had painted.

The EI cases are some of the highest across the country in my riding and there is a 21 year waiting list for affordable housing—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Kings--Hants.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the budget, challenges and opportunities for Canada in the 21st century.

It is important to have some historical context on how we got to this budget.

In 2006, the Conservative government inherited the best fiscal situation of any incoming government in Canadian history, a $13 billion surplus. Over a period of three years, through increased spending by 20% and misguided tax reform, it put Canada into a deficit even before the economic downturn. In short, it spent the cupboard bare in the good times, gutting the government's capacity to invest and help people get through the tough times.

Then, in November 2008, in the middle of the global financial crisis, when governments and leaders around the world were uniting their citizens and their political parties to address the crisis and to protect jobs, here in Canada we had a Prime Minister who said, “We have a global financial crisis. What a great time to put the boots to the opposition”. He took a financial crisis, turned it into a parliamentary crisis and turned it into a quasi-constitutional and national unity crisis. That was the response and the leadership we got from the Prime Minister during that crisis.

Two months ago, the Prime Minister shut down Parliament saying that he needed more time to recalibrate and to develop some ideas for the budget. There were no new ideas in this budget. We know why he shut down Parliament. He shut down Parliament because he wanted to escape the scrutiny of Parliament on the Afghan detainee issue.

This is not a normal recession, but rather a global economic restructuring.

In a global economic restructuring, it is not good enough to recover to where we were before the restructuring began if other more innovative governments and economies have moved ahead, and that is exactly what is happening now to Canada.

Other countries are using this crisis to restructure and make their economies more competitive. It is a shame to waste a good crisis. In fact, for the Chinese, the word crisis and opportunity are actually related. During this crisis, the Chinese have used the opportunity to reposition and restructure their economy, focusing on the opportunities of the green economy.

Wise, visionary leaders, governments and businesses use major crises to create opportunities. During this crisis, other countries—our competitors—have used their stimulus packages to make their economies more energy-efficient, greener and more competitive.

The overall consensus is that the focus should no longer be on environmental responsibility, but increasingly on economic competitiveness. Tomorrow's jobs depend on it.

The Conservatives are boasting of a recovery and they call this a stay the course budget. The problem is that the course is not working because too many Canadians are not working. Almost one in five young Canadians are out of work. This is a jobless recovery and a human recession. In fact, on page 34 of the government's own budget, its own figures project that unemployment will continue to rise this year. It is an unambitious budget with no vision, no ideas, and no hope for Canadians.

Around the world other countries used this crisis and their stimulus packages to create the jobs of tomorrow, particularly in the green economy. I will give some examples. South Korea invested 79% of its stimulus directly into the promotion of green technologies, which is forecasted to create 1.8 million jobs in the green sector. The U.K. invested 11%, or $3.7 billion of stimulus on green initiatives. France invested $6.1 billion of stimulus on green investments. The EU invested 64% of stimulus on green investments. Germany invested 13%, or $13.8 billion. Japan earmarked $36 billion, promising to create 1 million new jobs in the tech sector. The U.S. earmarked $66 billion for clean energy, or six times more, on a per capita basis, than the Canadian investment. In fact, Canada only committed around $1 billion to investments in clean energy. Once again, on a per capita basis, the Obama administration has put six times more into green and clean energy investments than Canada.

The U.S. is also putting $2 billion of stimulus into battery research, $8 billion for research and development in the department of energy, including $3 billion for carbon capture and storage, which is being matched by $7 billion of private sector investment in the U.S. The United States Secretary of Energy Steven Chu recently noted that because of this funding, 20% of all batteries for electric cars in the world will be made in the U.S. by 2012. That is up from 2% today.

Australia invested $4 billion in clean energy and environmental technology as part of its stimulus. China dedicated $218 billion, or 34% of its stimulus package toward clean technology. This is producing results. Two years ago China became the largest manufacturer of solar panels in the world. Last year China jumped past Denmark and became the largest manufacturer of wind turbines in the world. In fact, last November a deal was announced for Chinese wind turbines to be sold to a massive wind farm in Texas. China is focusing on the export markets.

Canada has one of the lowest proportions of green spending in its stimulus package. Once again, the Obama administration is putting in six times what Canada is putting in to green investments.

It is the same for innovation, and research and development. Australia and Sweden are spending five times as much as Canada, as a percentage of GDP, on innovation focused stimulus. Germany and the U.S. have doubled what Canada is spending on innovation focused stimulus. This bodes well for those countries because the jobs of the future are going to be linked to education, research and development, and commercialization. As they pull ahead, Canada's prospect is to be a country that is falling behind.

The Conservative government has no vision of the jobs of tomorrow. In fact, when it comes to the green economy, I was in the room at the Davos forum this year in January when the Prime Minister said that any measures to address climate change “will hurt the economy with real impacts on jobs and economic growth”. All the other leaders were talking about the opportunities to reposition their economies to be competitive in the global carbon constrained economy, to invest in the green jobs of the future, to render their manufacturing plants greener, to cut their energy consumption as governments and as manufacturers, and to help their citizens do the same thing.

The only leader in the world at Davos this year who was saying that environmental responsibility comes at an economic cost was the Prime Minister of Canada.

For the others, they have moved beyond addressing the topic of climate change from the perspective of environmental responsibility. They are now speaking of climate change and measures to address it in terms of creating economic opportunity. That is where the debate has gone.

The Liberal Party has proposed a three-prong strategy to create the jobs of tomorrow and to protect the jobs of today: support for manufacturers; investments in jobs for young Canadians; and encouraging investment in start-up research companies and high tech companies.

We have also proposed that the government develop a better approach, a more forward-thinking approach, to the three Es: energy, economy and the environment. This is Canada's sweet spot if we look at the future of our economy and the real opportunities we have.

We are a leader in energy. We could be a leader in clean energy if we only had leadership from the national government. We must invest in clean energy technologies. We must help our citizens, our companies and governments invest in technology to green our energy production and to cut our energy consumption.

In terms of our current leadership role in energy, we cannot claim credit for putting the oil or the gas under the ground or under the water. The fact is we have benefited tremendously as a generation of Canadians and created massive wealth as a result of our good luck. But we are frittering that luck away and squandering the opportunities to be leaders in the new kinds of energy, and I am talking about clean conventional energy, which means a lot in places like Saskatchewan.

Forty per cent of all CO₂ sequestered anywhere in the world is sequestered in Weyburn, Saskatchewan. That investment by the former Martin Liberal government, working with the private sector, led the way. Today we see the U.S. investing $3 billion of government money, $7 billion of private sector money, with the capacity to effectively take that leadership position from Canada. Recently, the Obama administration signed a deal with China on the research and development of CO₂ sequestration.

What I am saying is that we have an advantage now, but if we do not move quickly we are going to lose that advantage because other countries like the U.S. and China see the opportunities for a green economy in the future, and we cannot let that happen.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, given that the recovery is so fragile and given that economists, not only in our country but in other countries, acknowledge that Canada has done a very good job at coming out of this recession but that it is fragile, I am curious to know from the member where he positions himself, given that he has in the past criticized the Liberal government for slashing much of the transfer payments that went to our provinces during a terrible fragile time.

I want to quote something that the member said in the past:

Shifting the burden to the provinces for these services was the easy but cowardly way to accelerate deficit reduction...The Chrétien-Martin cuts sent the health and education systems into crisis in every Canadian province.

Given that the member said that in the past when the Liberals made these mistakes, I am wondering if he could in fact support our government in our efforts not to make the very same Liberal government mistakes by what it did to artificially balance the books on the backs of the provinces.

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

Mr. Speaker, our government actually worked with the provinces. In fact, the Martin government invested record amounts in health care, the largest investment of any federal government in health care in the history of Canada. We achieved a very important health care accord, which stopped the bickering in terms of federal-provincial relations on health care, and it was a deal that made a great difference. I was proud to be part of the cabinet that delivered that deal with Canadian provinces.

It is also important that we work with provinces on energy modernization, that we work with the provinces to convene provincial-federal meetings to develop approaches to smart energy grid corridors, to invest in green technology, and to work on issues like carbon pricing. We cannot sit back, like the Conservative government is doing, and just let the Americans impose a carbon price on Canada.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his very clear and informative presentation.

Still, I would be curious to know why he thinks this government did not do like others did in their budgets. The United States, European countries and Korea allocated 20%, 35% and 79% respectively of their stimulus budgets to greening their economies.

How much did this government allocate to that? A mere 8%.

Could the hon. member tell me how come, in the United States, every overall economic budget currently includes 14% more funding per capita for the green economy than in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very hard for me to explain this government's behaviour. In Davos, for instance, no one suggested that environmental measures were bad for the economy. It is obvious to everyone, except the Prime Minister, that the jobs of tomorrow will be part of a green economy.

I totally agree with the hon. member. It is very difficult for me to understand where the Prime Minister and his Cabinet are coming from, refusing to act and to invest in the jobs of tomorrow, given that the other countries are now ahead of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was totally impressed with the homework, the eloquence, and the rhetoric of the hon. member for Kings—Hants.

My question for him is this. Will he be working hard to ensure that his fellow Liberals follow through on second reading and move to third reading, and through the Senate on Bill C-311 to ensure that we set the targets and the timetables to force the government to do what he has so eloquently expressed?

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend his commitment to environmental measures. I think one of the most important things we can do to move the Canadian economy and create the jobs of the future is to implement policies that actually move and render our economy more green. It is more than just targets as well. We have to ensure that the policy framework is there to deliver on the attainment of those targets.