Debates of March 22nd, 2010

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I will ask my question first and then make a comment.

Would the member support something that would actually help reduce crime, and that is to make permanent the funding for the aboriginal justice strategy that has to keep being renewed?

My comment is that it is amazing that the government would use a speech to talk about crime prevention when it has done such a disservice to that part of the Canadian justice system and actually has made Canada more dangerous. The Conservatives made the case that crime was increasing, that people were at risk in the streets and yet they closed Parliament and cancelled 19 justice bills. To protect who? To protect themselves.

Some of the bills, fortunately, to some extent were stopped because they were not evidence-based. We had witness after witness come before committee and say that this was not the way to go, that this would make Canada more dangerous and that there would be more chance of being victims of crime and more chance for victims to be victimized again. The solution is not just simply to put them in prison where certain criminals learn more crime but to invest more in rehabilitation and removing the root causes of crime. That is where the investment should be.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is an insightful question.

I certainly defend our government's safe student-safe community agenda. Although he quoted statistics or indicated that in his view crime was decreasing, some aspects of crime are certainly decreasing but others are increasing. In cities such as mine, which is Edmonton, violent crime is on the rise and it is a constant struggle.

With regard to our government's agenda, it is easily defendable. Yes, prorogation caused some bills to have to be reintroduced, but the hon. member knows and in fact made reference to the fact that some bills were stopped because he indicated that they were not evidence-based. I sit on the justice committee and they were not stalled. They were gutted and there is a big difference.

As a result of the new composition of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, it is anticipated that these bills will encounter less roadblocks and speed bumps along the way. I think all Canadians will benefit from their rapid passage.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I find it a little amazing to hear the member say a number of times that crime legislation was proposed and would have to be reintroduced. I am sure he must be totally frustrated with his own government.

As an opposition member who has very little interest in the Conservatives' crime agenda, in fact I oppose a lot of it, I could not be nearly as effective as the government has been itself in postponing and putting off this legislation either through prorogation or early election calls. As a new Conservative member of Parliament, I am sure he must be completely frustrated with his own government.

I wonder how he would respond to the suggestion that it is the Conservatives who are short-circuiting their own agenda and the opposition is incredulous that they are doing it to themselves.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, I could not disagree with the hon. member's supposition more.

There were two bills that went through the House and the justice committee. Bill C-25, dealing with two for one credits for remand custody, was stalled and then amended significantly by the upper chamber. It thankfully now has received royal assent, although albeit with somewhat watered down provisions with respect to 1.5 to 1 being the standard.

The more pivotal bill, from my perspective, was the old Bill C-15, mandatory minimum sentences for drug dealers. This was a bill that was targeted to take the enterprise and commerce out of organized crime. Although the bill passed through the House and the justice committee, it never made it through the Senate and would not have made it through the Senate.

It is an absolute fallacy to suggest that it is anybody but the opposition, especially the Senate, that causes delay, modification and ultimately the watering down of the government's good crime agenda.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mississauga South.

After months of buildup, the Speech from the Throne disappointed a nation. Let me set the scene for what was supposed to be a grand vision from the government but ended up showing Canadians how void of ideas the Prime Minister is.

It was December 30 of last year and the country was told that Parliament was being shut down for two months to recalibrate. We were told that it had nothing to do with avoiding questions from opposition members on behalf of Canadians, that it was okay that 35 pieces of legislation were killed in this process, that the economy will be fine, and that another huge deficit was not a problem.

Why we may ask? Because we were told the government needed to speak to Canadians from coast to coast to coast to generate new ideas about where we were heading as a nation. The bar of expectation was raised. If Canadians were going to believe the government when it said that prorogation was not a political stunt, then we wanted to be inspired. We wanted something that would justify staying away from the job that we were elected by our constituents to uphold.

The Olympics just wrapped up and Canada was in a euphoric state. We were proud to be Canadian and we were optimistic about our country. We were ready to be won over by new ideas and a new direction.

What we got was seniors day, a new volunteer award, and a promise to rewrite the words of O Canada.

These were the big ideas that the government took two months to come up with, yet in each case the lack of depth was stunning. The seniors I speak to are worried about their pensions, their health and their security. Yet the speech has done nothing about pension reform, nothing about the huge demographic challenges in the coming decades, and nothing to address the challenges of low income seniors struggling to get by.

Then we come to the Prime Minister's new award for volunteerism. While many would question why such a new award would be a problem, it is just another example of political manipulation by the government.

First, the existing Canadian honours system is respected across the world for how it recognizes volunteers. We have the Order of Canada. We have meritorious service honours and at the community level there is the Governor General's caring Canadian award created for unpaid voluntary activities most often behind the scenes.

I am very proud that a couple of years ago one of my constituents, Andrew Block, received this honour. All of these honours are given in the name of the Queen by the Governor General who acts on advice of independent committees which draw nominations from the public.

Second, these distinctions have value because they are about merit and service, and most importantly, they have nothing to do with politics. Attracting more volunteers in Canada is a worthy challenge, but it should not be handled by politicians. Such an award delivered by the Prime Minister is not only a duplication, it is also a political tool that can be abused.

Finally, we have the suggestion to change the words of O Canada, an idea that I am told came directly from the Prime Minister. Let us look at the irony of such a suggestion when considering the timing of the speech. Canadians from across the country had just experienced national pride not seen in Canada for many decades. The Olympics brought our nation together around one glorious song: O Canada. In the history of the Olympics, no national anthem has ever been sung as much, due to Canada's record-breaking performance.

Just days after the close of the games, the Prime Minister suggested that we change the words of the song that defined us to the world. I am in support of neutrality and equality, but with a government that slashes programs for women, changing our anthem is not a solution, it is an insult. It was a mistake and that was confirmed just two days later when the Prime Minister's Office backed down and withdrew the proposal.

I think that it was a diversion to get people talking about something other than the disappointment of the government's performance, especially on the economy. Spending under the government is still out of control. We are headed toward structural deficits that could last for generations and there is no current plan for creating jobs and getting Canadians back to work.

If these were the new ideas that the government needed two months to come up with, then there was absolutely no reason for prorogation. It certainly seems that, instead of spending the break putting the speech together, it wrote it at the last minute like a university student pulling an all-nighter to finish a paper.

There was nothing on the challenges facing our health care system. There was nothing to address Canada's child poverty, which is still the worst in the industrialized world. There was nothing on housing, even though every city across this country is struggling with homelessness and affordable housing. There was nothing on education and learning, which is essential to creating the jobs of tomorrow.

One gets the idea. This was a Speech from the Throne that had so many promises attached to it and it only succeeded in disappointing the country.

In closing, Canadians are looking to be inspired, to be given hope, and to be challenged to dream. Unfortunately, it will never happen with the kind of prime minister and kind of government that only cares about politics and is without any kind of vision for the future.

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

Madam Speaker, it is becoming increasingly evident that the government is mismanaging border issues between Canada and the United States. Tourism businesses in Canada are suffering because of a slowdown in cross-border tourism. Part of this now has to do with the rising dollar. It is going to make life even tougher in the tourist camps this summer.

The government had a window of opportunity to negotiate with the Americans and reduce the cost of passports, perhaps a two for one or by cutting the price in half for six months, but it has not done that. It had an opportunity to get the passport office involved in coming in with the equivalent of enhanced drivers' licences at a lower cost. It did not do that. It fobbed it off on the provinces. Provinces like Manitoba have had to incur a large cost in developing these forms of identification, which are not being used very widely right now.

I would like to ask the member whether he agrees with the observation that the government has not done the right thing in not negotiating with the Americans for some better—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona for his observations. I could not agree more with what he has said. In addition to what the member has said, I bring to the attention of the House that the government took the GST credit away for tourists to our country. That has negatively affected tourism.

In my part of the world, there was a second daily train that came from Seattle to Vancouver. The community and stakeholders had to fight the $1,200 tax the government was going to impose on that train. This is the type of policy the government has that distracts tourism to Canada, which most urgently need.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member opposite gave a nice speech. I am sure he is aware that our economic action plan got us through the worst economic recession globally since at least the second world war. It has helped create over 135,000 jobs just since July. It saved 225,000 jobs through our expanded work-sharing program. We have started about 16,000 infrastructure projects and delivered $3 billion in personal income tax relief.

What is his party's plan?

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

Madam Speaker, the plan is very clear. This is all about the mess in which the government will leave our country, a $53 billion deficit, 330,000 jobs lost alone in the last year and 1.2 million Canadians out of work. That is the record of the government.

When we look at the record of the previous Liberal government, a $13 billion surplus was handed over to the Conservative government and we were begging for workers. We were going across the world to bring people into Canada so we could find people to work. Today the people are running away from the government faster than it is speaking.

The only way we can create those opportunities is by investing in our education and our young people.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the throne speech is a document which lays out in broad strokes the government's plan for the coming session.

Most people would take it in the context of what the government has done and whether it can be trusted to follow through on what it said it would. It is a matter of character. It is a matter of honesty and integrity. When we talk about what the government is presenting for the future, we need to ask questions about its honesty and integrity.

Page 5 of the throne speech says, “Balancing the nation's books will not come at the expense of pensioners...or by raising taxes on hard-working Canadians”. Canadians are encouraged to hear that, except when they look at the details.

For example, employment insurance premiums are going up 9%. Over the five year period in the budget that was presented, that represents an increase of about $13 billion, which will come out of taxpayer pockets. That will cost an additional 200,000 jobs because of the fact that employers will have to pay 1.4% times that premium. It will turn out to be something like $21 billion in total. Jobs are going to be lost.

The government's own numbers indicate that the unemployment rate will go up from 8.2% to 8.5%. Yet the previous questioner said that the government had created a lot of jobs. We lost 300,000 jobs and we will lose another 200,000. If we have recovered 135,000 that is fine, but a lot of jobs will not come back. That is why we should be investing in a knowledge-based economy and in green technologies, et cetera.

The government promised that it would deliver a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Where is it now? By 2020, greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced by 17%. All of that with the stroke of a pen. At the same time, greenhouse gas emissions in Canada are rising. Can we trust the government? I guess the facts speak for themselves.

The government said that it would not raise taxes. In the first year of the budget, income trusts will attract a 31.5% punitive tax, which is a major tax. At the time the tax was announced, $35 billion of the value of the investments that mostly seniors had was wiped out.

Income trusts are vehicles for people who do not have pension plans. They are instruments that allow people to have a regular cash flow just like a pension plan. This is very significant.

No where in the throne speech or in the budget will we find any information about income trusts. We will not find out how much revenue the government expects to collect from people. The government does not want to admit, in a detailed line item, how much in additional revenue will come from taxing income trust holders.

Twenty-five per cent of income trust holders have converted to another ownership, and most of it is offshore ownership. This is costing the government $1.5 billion a year in lost revenue. When we look at the projections for the five year deficit rollout, $1.5 billion each and every year in additional revenue would go a long way, a very significant way.

Come January 1, 75% of those income trust holders will have to decide whether to change their fashion as well. This goes to the point about whether we are looking for fairness and equity from the government in terms of seniors. This goes again to a question of credibility and trust.

Then the income trust holders came out with the Marshall savings plan. They would be allowed to transfer their cash flow out of their RRSPs into this Marshall savings plan account. I cannot go into all of the details, but it is on the web under Marshall savings plan. It is projected that there could be an addition $6 billion annually contributed to the coffers of the government if the government would seek a plan of fairness and equity whereby they could retain their income trust and pay their taxes on an “as-you-go” basis.

This was not even considered. It was totally dismissed. I know a number of members in this place pleaded with the finance minister to look carefully at the Marshall savings plan.

The air travellers security charge is another increase. How does that square with the government statement that it would not raise taxes on hard-working Canadians? It does not. It goes to credibility.

In looking at this, I think about things such as for a two-earner family, EI premiums will go up $1,264. We have to consider that ordinary Canadians are getting hit significantly. Why would the government say that it will not balance the books on the backs of hard-working Canadians? It is just not true. It is not being honest. Even the government's own numbers show it is not, but it has not said it. It forgot all about the income trust problem.

The last time we had a recession, other things happened. The crime rate went up, and it tracked the unemployment rate very significantly. It was almost bang-on in terms of violent crime as well as property crime. Similarly, the demands on the health care system increased substantially as well as on social services.

The reason that happens is because we are faced with a situation where about 500,000 Canadians will have their EI benefits lapse. They will start to wonder where they will get the money to pay the bills and how they will survive. They will not have EI benefits and there are no jobs for them. It creates health problems. The stress induces health problems. It induces the need for social services and for welfare.

When we consider the increasing crime rate, which requires more policing, the health care system and the social services system, all those areas are delivered by the provinces and territories. How much money was in the budget to increase the transfers to the provinces to help Canadians? There was none, no new money.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

There is 6% for health care and 3.5% for social services.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

The member wants to argue. There is an existing deal which has some ratcheting up, but it did not anticipate this recession. If the member wants to argue that it did, then why did the government say it would balance the budget? It cannot have it both ways. Either the recession was anticipated or it was not.

If we want to look at trust issues, Parliament was shut down twice to get out of hot water. Nuclear whistleblower, Linda Keen, was fired. The government refused to contract the RCMP public complaints commissioner after he was critical of the government. It shut down the Military Police Complaints Commission. It used a dirty tricks manual to make the Parliament dysfunctional. It withheld information from the elections commissioner. It broke its own fixed election date law. It refused to provide adequate funding to an independent parliamentary budget officer. It refused to provide unredacted documents to the Afghan detainee committee. It boycotted the Afghanistan committee by refusing to show up. It attacked public servant Richard Colvin for doing his public duty. It broke its election promises to never to run a deficit, to only appoint select senators, to never raise taxes and to increase the accountability of government, all of which was not done. The government tried to eliminate political party financing in 2008. We had prorogation and all kinds of things. It scrapped the court challenges program. I have a further list.

When we think about it, a throne speech has to be based on a foundation of accountability, trust and integrity. It is supposed to give hope to Canadians. I do not understand how Canadians can get hope from this throne speech and the budget that followed it when the government still does not know how to tell the truth.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the speeches of my hon. colleague from the Liberal benches. He is here quite often and he speaks quite a bit. I appreciate the efforts he puts in here. However, the member really did not speak about the throne speech.

I have a question for him. A colleague of his from his party has put forward a private member's bill that would reduce the requirement for someone to live in Canada from 10 years to 3 years before he or she could collect money as a senior? Is the member supportive of the change in that private member's bill?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to know, the bill he is talking about is not votable and will never be coming before the House. I do not know why he is asking a question about it.

Let me go on with the list: abandoning its promise of a public appointments commissioner after its watchdog, Mr. Gwyn Morgan was rejected by Parliament; firing Canadian Wheat Board president Adrian Measner to undermine its independence; trying to amend Canada's Constitution by putting term limits on Senate appointments; launching a lawsuit to hush up the Cadman affair; refusing to disclose time, date and location of cabinet meetings; and requiring members of the media to be on a pre-approved list before they can even ask questions.

That is not accountability. That is a government that is totally unaccountable.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is conversant on almost every topic that we discuss in Parliament.

I want to go a little further on the government's mismanagement of the border issues. It has messed up on the passport issue and the Nexus program and now the government announced on page 14 of the throne speech that it is going to introduce a new biometric passport. It has not even sorted out the current problems and now it is going to charge ahead with a biometric passport which presumably is going to have some sort of fingerprint or iris scan system.

Before the government embarks on that, it has to recognize that it is going to have to negotiate with organizations worldwide that deal with passports. It has to have the proper standards so that these passports can be read by machines in all the other countries in the world.

This is something that is not going to happen for the next 10 years. Why does the government not solve the problems that we currently have first?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. The government simply cannot be trusted to do what it says.

Let us consider the situation with Afghan detainee documents. It is interesting. The Conservatives attacked Richard Colvin but why would they attack him? Is that something somebody would say if they were trying to hide something? When the parliamentarians raised concern, they were accused of being unpatriotic. Does that mean we have to ignore our international obligations in order to be patriotic? It does not make sense. When the documents were requested by Parliament, the government hired a former judge to do a study. Is this not a case of justice delayed is justice denied?

Then last week, the Conservatives tried to rationalize that the Geneva conventions did not apply because we were not at war in Afghanistan. Is that in fact not admitting that torture may have happened therefore putting our military at risk?

I cannot believe that Canadians do not see through all this. This is as case of, “We can say whatever I want. We are the government and all we have to do is talk about our economic action plan”. However, when we look at the details there is no question in my mind that honesty and integrity are not part of the vocabulary of the Conservative government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Abbotsford.

I rise today in support of our government's agenda. I rise today to support a stronger Canada and a stronger economy now and for the future. I would like to put my support in the context of my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga, in the context of my home in the region of Waterloo.

There is no doubt that 2009 was a challenging year for Canadians. As global markets plummeted, consumer confidence disappeared and many thousands of jobs were lost. Canada, a nation whose economy depends on exports, could not stand immune to the forces that rocked our world.

In Waterloo region the challenges of 2009 reflected a microcosm of Canada. Traditional manufacturing industries, such as auto parts manufacturers, saw demand for their products disappear almost overnight. At the same time, some of Canada's fastest growing companies, like RIM and Open Text, saw their growth limited not by a shortage of demand but by a lack of qualified candidates to fill open positions.

Under the leadership of our Prime Minister, our government charted a course through the challenges of 2009. Canada's economic action plan was announced in January in the earliest budget in Canadian history. Through Canada's economic action plan, Canada's infrastructure was renewed, benefits to the unemployed were enhanced, and the work-share program was improved to keep Canadians working.

When the Prime Minister visited my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga, we visited a construction site on Highway 8. This project will improve people's ability to get to, through and from Waterloo region. While we toured the project, the environmental protect coordinator, Andrew Harris, approached the Prime Minister, offered his hand and said, “Thank you for the job”.

These infrastructure projects are not only creating employment for engineers, architects, draftsmen and construction workers, they are providing spinoff benefits to our economy. They are improving the quality of our drinking water and increasing our capacity to move people and goods. These projects will provide Canada with long-term benefits in recreation, education, research and commercialization and in the viability of our neighbourhoods.

We were determined that Canada would do more than just survive the challenges of 2009. The Prime Minister and the finance minister developed a plan that would see Canada emerge even stronger.

Food processing is Ontario's second largest industry. It is also an industry that has experienced trouble attracting qualified workers because there was no way to become qualified. Conestoga College will fill this gap through a new institute for food processing technologies to address this need, thanks to the knowledge infrastructure fund established by this government.

In Kitchener the digital media and mobile accelerator, the first hub in Canadian digital media network, is being built to provide the entrepreneurs of tomorrow with the tools, technologies and supports they will require to build their businesses and create jobs.

As the throne speech noted, our government will take responsible steps to reduce the deficit. As stated in the throne speech:

...our Government will not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Balancing the nation’s books will not come at the expense of pensioners. It will not come by cutting transfer payments for health care and education or by raising taxes on hard-working Canadians. These are simply excuses for a federal government to avoid controlling spending.

It would be easier to repeat those past mistakes and to renege on agreements with the provinces, cut their transfers and let them deal with the fallout when Canadians see their hospitals and universities suffer. In the 1990s, the federal government succeeded in eliminating the federal deficit largely by downloading its debt to the provinces and municipalities.

Those of us who lived in Canada during the 1990s saw how a government could pass the tough choices off to their provincial counterparts and then deny any responsibility for the consequences. As he was not here then, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could have one of his colleagues explain that period in our history.

The Liberal Party reminds us daily that the deficit disappeared under its watch. Will it ever take as much ownership of the damage that its cuts wreaked to our health care system?

Our government will restrain growth. This government will focus on controlling our own spending. We will bear the responsibility for the choices we make. This government will lead by example.

One of the choices we made was to continue with the investments that will prepare Canadians to compete in the digital economy. The throne speech announced investments in Canada's science and technology strategy and the launch of a digital economy strategy. We also recommitted to investing in clean energy.

These are sectors where Canada can lead, where Canadians already enjoy significant inherent strengths and where we can draw on the intellectual capital of our world-class post-secondary institutions. While jobs and growth are the key priority, they are not our only priority. The economy is important, but there is much more to our society than the economy and much more to our country.

The throne speech noted that for many Canadians, there can be no greater accomplishment than to provide for their children, to contribute to the local community and to live in a safe and secure country. Single-parent families will see the universal child care benefit enhanced. Consumer product safety legislation will be improved. Our food safety system will be strengthened, ensuring that families have the information they need to make the smart choices that they want to make.

The soul of this country is not housed in Parliament but in the neighbourhoods and communities that sent us here to work. Too often in our history, governments have disguised their own partisan priorities as national priorities. Rather than empowering communities to address challenges, Ottawa-centric policies hobble grassroots efforts with red tape. Groups and agencies on the ground can spend too much precious time and resources trying to rework their solutions to fit a bureaucratic definition of the problem.

Waterloo region is known around the world for its innovative businesses and post-secondary institutions. Waterloo region fosters innovation and collaboration in all of its facets. Our local approach to affordable housing became a model for the country. Engineers Without Borders was founded in Waterloo region. Mennonite Economic Development Associates of Canada grew out of Kitchener.

This culture of innovation and mutual aid, our barn-raising spirit, makes us the living laboratory for social innovation. I welcome the throne speech's intention to empower communities rather than to direct them. When concerned citizens come together with a local solution, they are looking to government to partner with them, not to demotivate them with red tape and bureaucratic barriers.

I will close on this thought. Hope is borne on the wings of prosperity. Through strategic investments, restrained spending growth and partnerships with communities, neighbourhoods and families that make up our great nation, this throne speech presents an agenda to return to prosperity. Canada will emerge stronger.

I ask all members of this House to stand with me together in favour of a stronger Canada, to stand with me in favour of a plan for a stronger economy. This throne speech lays the framework for a stronger economy, a Canada with a more modern infrastructure, a Canada with a more skilled and flexible workforce, a Canada with lower taxes and a more competitive economy, and a more compassionate Canada.

That is what Canadians who sent us here want. Canadians who sent us here want a stronger Canada and a stronger economy now and for the future.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga was correct when he said that the leader of the Liberal Party was not here in 1993. What he neglected to say was that he too was not here at that time, but I was here, so let me remind him what happened.

We went through something called program review, and we did not do it on the backs of transfers. Some 67,000 to 70,000 public service positions were phased out. The budgets and salaries of members of Parliament were frozen. The list went on.

The member talked about jobs. I agree with him in that the Conservatives have duplicated our campaign of jobs, jobs, jobs.

Employers told us in 1993 to reduce employment insurance premiums and they would create the jobs. We did that; they responded.

Today, how is his government going to create jobs when the EI premiums are due to go up, as the member for Mississauga South said, to almost $20 billion? How is it going to do that by taxing these jobs?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is certainly good at rewriting history, because if he were to come to my part of Ontario and talk to some of the health care and education workers and the municipalities in our area, they would definitely disagree with his analysis of whether or not some of that deficit fighting was done on the backs of provinces and municipalities. It certainly was done that way.

In regard to employment insurance, I would like to turn the question back and ask him how we could realistically or possibly even begin to think about the affordability of a 45-day work year? That is the recommendation of the party opposite. There is no way this country and the budget could possibly afford that. The plan that we have to create jobs going forward and the work-sharing program, which the EI improvements have already initiated, have been incredibly well received in my area. Work sharing allows workers not only to maintain their jobs but also employers to maintain the institutional memory of their organizations, so they do not need to retrain when those people are laid off and rehired two or three years later.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the measures the government is engaged in is the continuation of a reduction of corporate taxes at a time when we do not actually have that money available. We are borrowing funds right now to pay in advance for these corporate tax cuts. We are doing the same thing with the HST and borrowing another $6 billion, and we are going to pay interest on that money until we actually go back into a surplus again.

Has my colleague and his party done the work of estimating how much interest Canadians are going to pay? Given that we can annualize over the last 10 years the average borrowing rate the government faces, how much we are going to pay in interest for these corporate tax cuts that the government is putting in today?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the actual dollar and cent value, but what I can say without any question is that the cost would be far less than increasing taxes, which would decrease domestic and foreign investment in our country and obviously lead to job losses. Those job losses would result in more people on EI. It is a revolving circle. If we can encourage investment in this country and job creation through that investment, it will do a lot to address the issues we are facing in our current global economy.

As this relates to taxes, I would like to remind the Canadian people that tax freedom day has gone from June 26 when I was running as a candidate in 2005 to about two weeks earlier now or around June 4. That is a great model for the rest of the world of how we are increasing our economy. In fact we heard our finance minister today indicate that the average family in Canada is currently paying $3,000 less in taxes on average this year than they did in 2006. That is incredible.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the Speech from the Throne.

Canadians understand that we live in challenging times. The world was pushed to the economic brink by circumstances beyond Canada's control, primarily the poor decisions made by our neighbours to the south and elsewhere around the world. Canada has not remained immune to these challenges. That is why last year, our Conservative government introduced Canada's economic action plan, a plan that is working, indeed, very well.

Let me explain. Last month Canada opened its doors to the world. We welcomed many different nations from around the globe to participate in Canada's Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games. The games provided Canada, and particularly British Columbia, with an unprecedented opportunity to shine on the world's stage. Some questioned whether we could pull off the world's largest sporting event. We did, and Canadians responded. Oh, how they responded. Our successes were breathtaking in scope. For 17 days in February records tumbled as Canada's Olympic athletes amazed us with their skill and courage and showed the world the strength of Canadian athletes. Our country set an outright record for the most gold medals won in a winter Olympic games, a whopping 14, and Canada won by far the most ever gold medals by a host winter games nation. Our athletes set a record for the most medals won by Canadians in a winter games. Indeed, my wife Annette and I were privileged to witness Canada's Scott Moir and Tessa Virtue become the first North American skaters to win gold in the ice dance competition.

Our Paralympic athletes continued these feats, setting record after record, including the five gold medals won by the amazing Lauren Woolstencroft. How could we forget those Canadian athletes like Joannie Rochette and our courageous Paralympians who overcame profound loss and personal challenges to fight their way onto the podium? The commitment, dedication and success of our athletes should inspire all Canadians and assure us of our future and rightful place in the world. When we set our minds to something, we can compete with the very best.

As with the Olympics, the throne speech showcases our Conservative government's determination to ensure that our national economy delivers a gold medal performance. Even as other countries continue to grapple with the consequences of the worldwide recession, some even tottering on the edge of financial bankruptcy, our country has led all major developed nations in turning the corner. Canada was the last country to enter the recession and the first to emerge from it. Canada's banks remained strong and, indeed, are the safest in the world.

We are also leading other nations because the Prime Minister resisted demands to use past surpluses to create new and expensive social programs. Instead, between 2006 and 2009, our Conservative government paid down nearly $40 billion against our national debt. This provided us with the flexibility to inject a significant economic stimulus into our economy to cushion Canada against the recession. This stimulus has seen the creation of 16,000 infrastructure projects across our great country, the largest investment of its kind in Canadian history.

My community of Abbotsford was a big beneficiary of that investment. After almost a decade and a half of complete and utter neglect by previous Liberal governments, Abbotsford finally received its fair share of federal infrastructure investment. Close to $35 million is being invested into the McCallum and Clearbrook Road interchanges, the Abbotsford Airport expansion, the Huntingdon border crossing improvements, the Mill Lake Park, the Mission Bridge and the Matsqui and Discovery Trail system. For the first time in many years, our federal government is paying attention to the good folks who call Abbotsford home.

There is much more. Canada's strong economic fundamentals lead the rest of the world, with Canada having the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio and the highest household net worth per capita. Indeed, Canada is leading all of the G7 countries in economic growth.

There is, however, one significant challenge. We have an Achilles heel; that is, our productivity, which lags behind that of most the other G7 countries.

After years of having the advantage of a low dollar, we now have to compete on a level playing field, created by our strengthening dollar, which is presently on par with the American dollar. That is why our Conservative government developed the strategy called “Advantage Canada”.

This plan focuses on the main drivers of productivity: human capital, physical capital and sound regulatory and fiscal frameworks. Just as important, we have given Canada a tax advantage. Our Conservative government is lowering Canada's business tax rate from 22% to 15% by 2010. This gives us a huge competitive advantage by creating the lowest overall business tax rate of the G7 countries.

While the Liberals and NDP continue to call for tax increases and unaffordable social programs, we are leading the way, creating the most attractive business and economic climate in the developed world. In so doing, our Conservative government has implemented a five year plan, which is reducing the tax burden on Canadians by a whopping $220 billion.

Canada's economic action plan is working. Since last summer, the Canadian economy has added almost 160,000 new jobs. For the first time in close to three decades, Canada's unemployment rate is significantly lower than that of the U.S. I repeat, our plan is working. Consumer confidence has rebounded and during the last quarter, Canada's economy grew by an astounding annualized rate of 5%, far beyond what economists had even predicted.

The throne speech provides Canada with a way forward, something that the opposition has been unable to offer. Our government's plan does not increase taxes and does not cut support for seniors, health care and education. Our plan is practical, credible and achievable.

In the lead up to the throne speech, I consulted widely with my constituents. I met with service clubs, the chamber of commerce, the Indo Canadian Business Association. I even held a town hall meeting where Abbotsford residents could provide us with clear direction for the future. Their message was loud and clear: focus on creating jobs; control government spending; return to balanced budgets; and do not increase taxes on Canadians like the Liberals would. In short, they have asked government to live within its means.

The 2010 budget responds to those concerns. It focuses on jobs and growth as well as on returning Canada to balance.

Let me talk a bit about jobs and growth. Over the next few years, our budget makes a commitment to invest over $600 million into research and innovation in order to retain and attract Canada's best and brightest minds and help our businesses commercialize their research. We are also protecting Canadian jobs with over $100 million over two years to extend work-sharing agreements by another 26 weeks. This means more workers will keep their jobs, allowing employers to keep their experienced employees, while their businesses recover from the downturn.

We are also giving young Canadians the support they need to transition from school to the workforce. Our government is investing an additional $30 million into the internship and job experience component of our youth employment strategy.

There is another very significant announcement in our throne speech. Canada will be the first of the G20 nations to become a tariff-free zone for industrial manufacturing products. This commitment will save Canadian businesses $300 million in annual duties. These savings mean more investment and more jobs in a Canadian economy.

We have committed to slow the growth in defence spending. However, we will not balance the budget on the backs of our brave men and women in uniform, as previous Liberal governments did.

This throne speech provides our country with a road map to a bright and prosperous future. I can assure members that despite the significant challenges facing Canada, our future is exceedingly bright. Like our Olympic and Paralympic athletes, Canada is going for gold and taking its rightful place on the international podium. It is our time to shine.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government speaks about its investment in the three research granting councils. I believe the figure of $32 million was mentioned in the budget.

My question for the hon. member is very straightforward, and have I asked the same question of the deputy minister of Industry Canada, so I know the answer. What happened to the $148 million that was removed from the three research granting councils over three years in the 2009 budget?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the TRIUMF facility is located in my region of the country. It received $220 million in support under our budget. In fact, this member would be wise to listen to what the business community has said about the budget.

Even the Conference Board of Canada, who is not always our friend and is often quoted by the Liberals across the way, said that budget 2010 was “very well crafted, and the deficit reduction target was a very credible plan”. In fact, the C.D. Howe Institute, again quoted often by our friends across the way, said:

Eliminating all tariffs on inputs is an absolutely brilliant move. Tariffs are just plain dumb in imposing costs on businesses...It is a superb message.

This throne speech is a superb message to Canadians. It provides Canadians with hope for the future. We can trust that our nation is going to lead the world in prosperity. We are going to do right by Canadians rather than listen to the complaints from the opposition parties across the floor.