Debates of March 4th, 2010

The Economy

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for his speech; I found it very interesting. According to the government, we are nearing the end of the financial crisis. But for around 20 years, ordinary Canadian families have been experiencing a financial crisis. The average middle-class income is getting lower and lower. This is evident in all classes of Canadian society. The lower middle class, especially the poorest Canadians, are seeing decreased family incomes.

The government has done nothing. The previous Liberal government did nothing. What is more, its policies sparked the quiet crisis that has beset most Canadian families for the past 20 years.

I would like to know what the member for Hochelaga thinks about the quiet crisis in which Canadian families have found themselves for the past 20 years.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of this government's tax policies—in addition to the budgetary policies that allow programs to be cut—is the distribution of wealth. One way to distribute wealth is through tax rates. Tax rates are becoming flatter. In other words, there is almost no difference in the tax rates for those with a modest income, those with an average income and those with a very high income. The tax policy is increasingly flat.

In order to prevent the deficit from increasing and to pay down the debt, we propose a tax increase specifically for those who declare an annual taxable income of more than $150,000. In Canada, 541,000 people declare a taxable income of more than $150,000. We propose that there be a temporary increase of 2% or 3% for people whose income is very high. The middle class needs some breathing room.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville does not have much time. There is just enough time to ask a brief question.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to commend my colleague from Hochelaga for his presentation.

I would like to know how much money Quebec is losing with the harmonized sales tax. The March 2010 issue of CAmagazine talks about the Canada wide harmonized tax and praises Quebec's action in 1991 to harmonize its sales tax with Canada's.

How much money is Quebec losing in this harmonized sales tax venture?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Hochelaga for a brief answer.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the brief answer comes from the Government of Quebec, which estimates a $2.2 billion loss in the past 14 years.

This $2.2 billion owed to the Government of Quebec for 14 years, at an interest rate of 5%, would be more like $5 billion. That being said, we are sure that the Government of Quebec and its finance minister would be very pleased to learn today that they were to receive a cheque for $2.2 billion from Canada's Minister of Finance.

I hope with all my heart that Quebec's finance minister, the MNA for Outremont, will be satisfied today.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals or Conservatives; they are all the same. Well before the current recession struck, on the Conservative government's watch and supported every step of the way by the Liberal Party, Canada made a series of monumental mistakes that are now leading us to the brink.

I remember a famous speech by the last Liberal leader but one to the Empire Club in Toronto. The Liberals were in opposition, an unusual position for a party that considers itself to be the natural governing party. The then Liberal leader was telling the Empire Club of Toronto that the Conservative Minister of Finance should cut corporate taxes even faster. That is all it took for the Conservative Minister of Finance to rise and say that he would reduce corporate taxes even faster than he had ever dared, at the urgent request of the official so-called opposition.

In their fifth year in power, the Conservatives now have clearly indicated in yesterday's throne speech that they will continue in the same vein. They will reduce corporate taxes, thereby destabilizing the well-balanced economy we have built in this vast country since World War II.

One need only look at the figures on page 255 of last year's budget to see that, in the end, it will be upwards of $350 billion. In fact for fiscal 2014-15, tax room of $358 billion will have been removed from the Canadian economy because of this monumental mistake of making massive cuts to corporate taxes. The figure for this year is $219,798 billion. Therefore, more than $200 billion has been removed.

How did we get here? Why is it important today? To listen to the government, the entire budget exercise focuses on creating jobs and stabilizing the economy because Canada is the victim of a global crisis. Nothing is further from the truth. Of course, there is a global crisis; but, before the crisis hit in the fall of 2008, Canada had already made decisions that devastated the manufacturing sector and inflicted the most damage on central Canada, namely Ontario and Quebec, by demolishing the forestry sector.

Hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs had already been eliminated before the crisis hit. To put today's economy into context, only 10% of the labour force remains in the manufacturing sector. That is one Canadian worker out of ten.

Current unemployment numbers are still extremely high, but the official numbers do not even take into account the fact that, for one thing, many people have stopped looking for work, and for another, contrary to the Conservatives' promises, the federal government is off-loading onto the provinces the financial burden of hundreds of thousands of people who will now be collecting welfare. So even though they are at pains to avoid saying they are cutting provincial transfers, there are other ways to transfer responsibilities and costs to the provinces. All they have to do is transfer responsibility for people who, through no fault of their own, are out of a job.

That is what Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, calls “the government's choices”. It is about time they stopped blaming everything on the global crisis. The Conservatives made the choice to gut the manufacturing and forestry sectors in favour of the oil industry and the banks.

Why those two sectors? Easy. The government says that it is cutting corporate taxes. But a company that is not making a profit, whether because it is losing money or is just breaking even, does not pay tax. That is a fact.

Therefore, when the government cuts corporate taxes, only the richest companies benefit. Alberta's EnCana got cheques for hundreds of millions of dollars without even asking for it, all because of corporate tax cuts. Canadian banks got hundreds of millions of dollars without lifting a finger.

In the meantime, failure to account for the environmental costs of the tar sands made it look as if impressive amounts of U.S. cash were coming into the Canadian economy because companies were exporting bulk quantities of raw product, just as we used to create wealth by exporting logs, but those numbers were inflated.

Today, we are making the same mistake with western oil by failing to internalize the costs. As a result, the loonie has risen to its highest level in 35 years, making life even harder for manufacturing and forestry exporters. The higher the dollar, the harder it is for people in other countries, particularly in the United States, our principal trading partner, to buy the things we produce.

Why focus so much on the oil sector? In economics, that is called Dutch disease, a phenomenon that arose in the Netherlands after the war. Following the discovery of major gas and oil deposits, the guilder, which was the monetary unit of the Netherlands before the Euro, appreciated quickly. Some saw that as a good thing, since the currency was gaining value. As a result, however, the national manufacturing sector was totally destroyed. All of a sudden, because of the high guilder, neighbouring countries could no longer afford to buy what the Netherlands produced. That country's manufacturing sector was destroyed for lack of finding a way to deal with this real wealth, as desirable as it may be if it is handled properly.

Canada is currently experiencing the same phenomenon because the Conservatives do not believe that the government has a positive role to play as an economic driving force here, at home. The basic rules of sustainable development, such as the internalization of costs as well as the polluter-payer and user-payer concepts, are being disregarded, as our raw resources continue to be exported en masse to the United States without first being processed, having value added, and being refined in this country.

As Louis-Gilles Francoeur, from Le Devoir so aptly demonstrated recently, with the Alberta Clipper, Southern Cross, Keystone and two other pipelines already in place, we are seeing our gross production of tar sands go directly to the United States. Under the combined effect of this and NAFTA's so-called proportionality clause, Canada is losing all control over its energy future and natural resources, because once the flow has started, it cannot be stopped.

An independent external study shows that, through the Keystone project alone, 690,000 barrels of crude oil are currently being exported to the United States every day, and the same project has caused 18,000 jobs to be exported as well. This means that jobs are being created in the United States, not in Canada.

Madam Speaker, as someone from British Columbia, you might recall the days when logs from the beautiful trees that grow in your province were exported in bulk, without any processing or value added, to be turned into value-added products in the United States, and then shipped back to Canada. The same thing happened in Quebec. Now, at least, we are starting to process products at home, because it has become clear that, if we want to remain in control of these wonderful resources, we cannot hand them over to others to add value to them and then send them back to us. We really had, in this poor country of ours, a very, very colonial, subservient mentality with respect to such natural resources.

However, since the second world war, Canada has been creating a balanced economy with a strong resource sector: our mines and our forestry sector. We are beginning to insist that the value be added right here. We have programs to provide assistance and create modern infrastructures, but the Conservatives simply do not believe in them. They do not believe that the government has a role to play in that regard. Their theory is that the free market always produces the best results.

Based on the Conservatives' theory, supported every step of the way by the Liberals who think the same way, the free market should be left alone. And those, like us, who believe that a sound industrial policy applied throughout this vast land can produce greater wealth and more jobs are making a mistake because we are picking winners.

They say, “You are picking winners”.

The problem is that the Conservatives picked their winners. By sheer coincidence, the winner comes from the same province as the Prime Minister. By sheer coincidence, the winner is the oil sector, and it is no coincidence that the Conservatives' winners are currently destabilizing the balanced economy we have been building in this country for the past 60 years.

Sustainable development has some basic principles, and it is easy to understand the principle of internalizing costs if we take the model of something people use every day. If we explain to people that when they buy new tires for their car, $3 or $4 is added to the price of each tire to dispose of it at the end of its life cycle; everyone understands that. The individual who drives the car and uses the tires should pay for that, rather than his neighbour who takes the subway or the bus, or walks or rides his bike to work. Everyone agrees that, yes, the product itself should contain the overall price.

Picture a guy who says that his province is getting filthy rich because it can make widgets. The going rate on the international market for similar widgets is $100, but this guy's widgets sell for $90 apiece, so they are a very hot item all over the world. If we were to visit the province's widget factory, we would probably see a well-run operation. But if we were to take a peek out the back door and see that all of the factory's waste was just getting dumped in the river, we would tell the factory owners that even though they may be very proud to be making money off their widgets, something is not right because they are dumping waste in the river and leaving a huge mess for future generations. What to do? The factory should pay to clean up the site. The price of the widgets should reflect their true cost, including the environmental cost. And the factory should dispose of waste properly.

Put it like that, and everyone understands. So why is it that when it comes to the tar sands, nobody seems to understand how monumentally irresponsible it is to future generations to leave behind the longest dams in the world and pretend that North America's worst pollution problem does not even exist? This is like a kid who covers his eyes to make everything disappear, who believes that what he cannot see does not exist.

That is the problem with the tar sands. It is all well and good to have a resource that can produce wealth and create jobs, but we have to exploit that resource properly in accordance with sustainable development principles. That is the massive mistake we are making in Canada right now by putting all of our eggs in the tar sands basket.

We have every reason to believe that things will only get worse. Anyone who has read any George Orwell can understand what the Conservatives are really saying. On page 9 of the printed version of yesterday's Speech from the Throne, there is a sentence that will go down in history, a sentence that twists the meaning of words in both French and English. I will read it in both languages to demonstrate that it is just as unbelievable in Shakespeare's tongue as in Molière's. Here it is.

To support responsible development of Canada's energy and mineral resources, our Government will untangle the daunting maze of regulations that needlessly complicates project approvals, replacing it with simpler, clearer processes that offer improved environmental protection and greater certainty [not to future generations, not to wildlife] to industry.

We need only read that to understand what they are talking about: the Mackenzie Valley pipeline.

When the report came out, it had over 130 very strict conditions. When I learned that it had been approved, I was a bit disappointed and surprised. But when I looked at the list of conditions, I realized that this report was really comprehensive. If the pipeline could be built under these conditions, all the better.

But Esso Imperial Oil rejected the report right off the bat, since it required wildlife areas to be protected. Unbelievable. The point of this is to allow Esso Imperial Oil to do what it wants, because the government thinks the regulations are much too complicated for the industry.

We are not out of the woods yet with the Conservatives. We need to watch out.

What Canadians need to realize is that every time the Conservatives do something like this, their buddies in the Liberal Party were complicit too. That must never be forgotten.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech by the member for Outremont who covered a number of different areas. One area, which is an important part of the throne speech, is the whole issue around a common securities regulator. In terms of national securities regulation, I would say that the Conservatives and the NDP can agree on that issue.

I want to point out that we have had support from unions like the Canadian Labour Congress, the National Union of Public and General Employees and CUPE. Even the Toronto Star has indicated its support. The NDP caucus chair, the member for Winnipeg North, called this “a worthwhile goal”. The NDP leader, in a speech this past January to the Toronto Board of Trade, said “I'd like to see us moving toward national securities regulation”.

What is the NDP's official position on a Canadian securities regulator? It was in the throne speech but it was not in his speech today. I would like to get his thoughts.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague from St. Catharines ought to get himself some updated speaking notes because he had the chair of our caucus being my friend and colleague from Winnipeg North and she has not had that position for several years now. This shows that his stuff is a little bit out of date as always.

However, I would be very pleased to explain to him that our position is that the federation pact, the deal that has held this country together for nigh on to 150 years, that has made us one of the rare countries in the world that has had peace, order and good government for that long, has also included the fact that provinces are responsible for property and civil rights.

If the member thinks, like most Conservatives do, that somehow bigger is better, that somehow big brother in Ottawa knows how to do things better than the provinces, perhaps he had better start talking to the Prime Minister and to all the other people in his party, and that is most of them, who are from the west and, in particular, from Alberta, because the Alberta government happens to be of exactly the same opinion as us, which is that the idea of a national securities regulator can be accomplished with the provinces working together on a passport system, which is what we now have in Canada and which, by the way, works quite well.

If the member needs to be convinced as to who can do a better job, I invite him to look at the facts instead of his preconceived notions.

Vincent Lacroix was already behind bars for his security fraud on application of the provincial legislation long before they ever got the first criminal prosecution going. The provinces have a role to play in this and the courts will be clarifying that role. That is our position for my friend from St. Catharines.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague. The Speech from the Throne makes reference to crime and justice, to helping children and tackling child pornography. It also talks about additional measures to reduce the disturbing number of unsolved murders, and so forth.

Does my colleague agree that there is absolutely nothing in the speech about crime prevention?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Ahuntsic is quite right. The fact that there is absolutely nothing in the speech about crime prevention gives some insight into the Conservatives' true intentions. As usual, they are grandstanding for the benefit of their reformist base. They boast and tell us that they have virtue on their side and that they will be tougher on crime.

We got a dose of reality this morning when the Bloc Québécois moved a motion to quickly pass their bill to eliminate the possibility of release after serving one-sixth of a sentence. The people who were fleeced of $70 million by Earl Jones will be stunned to see that Mr. Jones, who was sentenced to 11 years, will get out of prison in less than two years.

Another interesting fact has to do with the class action. The Royal Bank of Canada was aware of the fraud being committed the whole time, but did nothing about it. We are talking about white collar criminals, but the banks continue to receive praise. When will the behaviour of the Royal Bank of Canada in the Earl Jones affair be addressed?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, I very much enjoyed the speech by the member for Outremont as I always do when he is speaking in the House.

It is very clear from the actions of the Conservative government over the last few years that it has brought new meaning to the word oxymoron with respect to its financial management. The government is wasting the resources that belong in common to the people of Canada by shipping across raw petroleum resources and raw logs. The government likes to ship out anything that exists in this country to create jobs somewhere else.

As the member for Outremont has indicated, we have a government that is willing to shovel money off the back of a truck to help the wealthy and profitable banking sector and energy sector while at the same time creating a massive deficit. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has indicated to what extent those massive corporate tax cuts have contributed to this massive deficit.

Could the member for Outremont explain why the Conservatives are so appallingly negligent and irresponsible when it comes to fiscal management?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member raises a very important point.

The Conservatives are now in their fifth year of power and in every year those great index finger waggers before the eternal, giving everybody else lessons in how to manage the economy before they racked up the new $58 billion record deficit that replaces the previous Conservative record, who told everybody else what they should be doing, now need to wear it.

Here is the reality of the fourth quarter of last year. While corporate Canada ramped up production and collected 9% more profit in the fourth quarter, it cut investment in plant and equipment by 2.3%. All these corporate tax cuts, which are supposed to be a way of stimulating the economy and creating employment, have just contributed to executive bonuses, inflated paycheques and have done nothing for the economy.

If the Conservatives believe in stimulating the economy and doing something for the future, since we are already leaving a $58 billion debt on the backs of future generations, let us at least build some green renewable energy infrastructure so we can at least leave something to future generations instead of the debt.

The Conservatives, however, do not know how to do anything else except wave their index finger, give other people lessons and tell them what to do. They have never been able to do anything completely in favour of the population, in favour of job creation, in favour of helping the elderly or in favour of helping the unemployed. They have a dogmatic approach to monetary and fiscal policy that we will see once again this afternoon when we get another Conservative retrograde budget and when we see the Liberals vote with them as they always do.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, after listening to the hon. member, I would like to point out to him that he used a rather interesting analogy when he compared the oil sands development to a business that wants to manufacture widgets and sell them at a cut-rate price. But a visit to the factory shows that all the waste produced by fabrication is being dumped in the river and polluting it.

It would be even more interesting if the member said that the waste produced by the oil sands industry is much more toxic than that of any other factory producing any widgets imaginable. Oil production is extremely toxic. I would like the member to answer—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Unfortunately, I must interrupt the hon. member.

The hon. member for Outremont has only 30 seconds to answer the question.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. At present, the sites are not being cleaned and huge dams full of toxic materials are being left behind. Sooner or later, future generations will have to clean up those sites. It is irresponsible.

People now realize that we have an obligation to future generations. The Conservatives like to have their photo taken with young hockey players who represent the future generation. Instead, could they not, for once in their lives, do something concrete for future generations?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I am going to be sharing my time with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

Madam Speaker, the member for Outremont spoke about the young hockey players on this side of the House. I want to thank him for that because there are a number of young caucus members who, while maybe not ready for the Olympics, are out there trying to stay in good form. Certainly he speaks well of the young folks in the government caucus and I thank him for his compliments in that regard.

I also would like to clarify that the member for Winnipeg North is not the caucus chair of the NDP. I stand corrected on that matter. From my perspective she certainly should be, because her position on the issue of a securities regulator certainly stands out and is very clear as compared to the member's answer to the question I had asked.

Our economy is actually in a state of recovery from the global economic recession. There is no question that that recovery is tentative. It is something on which we need to continue to focus. This is no time to change course, no time to go in a completely opposite direction. We said that in our 2009 economic plan. That budget spoke about the next two years. Right now we need to continue to look further down the road at tomorrow's challenges. Those challenges are not dissimilar to what we talked about in our 2009 budget.

Part of that is the aspect of stimulus spending. In our last budget $19 billion was applied to stimulus spending in this country to ensure that we get people back to work. It will help us improve the economy, and because it is going to be time sensitive and time-ended, it will actually help us in our fight with the deficit.

As well, the spending restraints which hopefully will be part of what we hear this afternoon are a beginning strategy to ensure that when our economy does recover, we actually have the strategy to move our country out of deficit and into a surplus again.

It certainly shows that our strategy in the 2009 budget is working. When we look at the third quarter, our GDP growth being at 5% puts us higher than any of the expectations. It shows that our stimulus package is working. It shows that Canadians are working. They are spending. They are beginning to have confidence in the economy again. And it means jobs.

It is imperative that we press ahead to implement year two of Canada's economic action plan. What we do now will determine how quickly and strongly we emerge from the economic downturn. We are emerging from the recession as one of the strongest and most resilient countries in the world. We need to work to ensure that all of these projects are completed on time. That will put us in the position to ensure that the economy of the future is an economy that continues to move us forward.

Our debt levels are the smallest in the G7. We are going to be hosting the G8 and the G20 this year. A number of those leaders have indicated that Canada has put itself in a position to emerge much more quickly, much stronger and much more resilient than all of the other countries in the G7 and the G20. We have done that by making investments in infrastructure. We have covered the gamut of what needs to be done across this country.

I mentioned the $19 billion in investment. The debt levels are the smallest in the G7. We have made those investments in such a way that we are going to be able to move toward what we need to accomplish in the years ahead in terms of fiscal management, and also be ahead of the rest of the world in terms of economic development. We are going to do that without making cuts to transfer payments for education and health care to the provinces and territories which want to ensure they are delivering those services.

Regarding education, Brock University and Niagara College have benefited from the stimulus investments that this government and the provincial government have made. The last thing we would want to do after their movement forward would be to reduce those transfers, so we are not going to. We are going to maintain them where they are.

Regarding health care, in the riding of St. Catharines which I represent, a brand new hospital and a brand new cancer care clinic are being built. That investment by the province and by the federal government can move forward because the transfers being made to the province are going to be consistent, upheld and not taken away as the previous government did in the 1990s when the only way the Liberals thought they could control spending was to reduce transfer payments in education and health care. That is not the course this government is going to take. The educators in those universities and colleges do not have to fear and the health care sector does not have to fear those types of cuts in transfer payments from this federal government.

We remain focused on protecting jobs and creating the environment for growth. We are going to make investments in digital media, as was announced in the throne speech yesterday. Companies like nGen in St. Catharines and Silicon Knights have received assistance from this government. Brock University's Niagara health and bio-research complex is currently under construction. Niagara College's applied health institute is now under construction. These are examples of the work we are doing for the economy of the future. That is very specific. Companies in the Niagara region understand what the new economy is going to be like and the investments they need to make now to be prepared for the new economy.

Also, a long-term approach to shipbuilding and ship repair is something the previous government did not pay any attention to whatsoever, despite the calls across this country for a revitalization of that industry. Yesterday we heard a statement, almost a challenge, to ensure that we move forward in the shipbuilding industry as it has such a legacy and history. It is going to be a focus from an economic renewal perspective.

A critical aspect of the entire throne speech and where we are going with the budget is to continue to create the environment to preserve jobs and put people in a position to move forward. The 12,000 stimulus projects under way across this country are going to put people to work in the short term, and they will put people to work in the long term.

The bio-research centre at Brock University is a 110,000 square foot facility. Within that facility are the investments in training that will take place for the jobs of tomorrow.

We are going to maintain competitive tax rates and continue to reduce taxes. Although the NDP and Liberals may say that tax increases are the direction to take, we on this side of the House believe firmly that this country is in the position it is with respect to the G7 and the rest of the world because we have put ourselves in such a competitive position. It is why companies like Tim Hortons are coming back to Canada.

That is our focus. That is where we stand today. It is where we stood four and a half years ago when we were first elected and it is where we will stand after our budget today for the future of this country.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his comments, particularly his remarks on the infrastructure funding. He is undoubtedly aware, having read the newspapers today, that a study out of Queens University gives an analysis of the infrastructure funding and spending. He talked about jobs, and jobs are important, but jobs are equally important for women as well as men.

The study has shown that out of the infrastructure funding, only 7% of construction, trade or transportation workers are women, only 21% or 22% of engineers and workers in the primary industries are women, and only 21% of manufacturing workers are women. Of the $9.4 billion spent to date, about half a million dollars went to women's shelters. That is 0.006% of total spending, compared to $1.5 million that went to upgrade animal shelters.

Was a gender-based analysis done on the infrastructure funding? Has a gender-based analysis been done on the budget, or will one be done?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, on this side of the House we treat men and women equally. With regard to this business of trying to separate the infrastructure investments between male and female, the criticism is completely unfounded and completely unfair.

She forgets that those spouses have other jobs. Those spouses have professions. Those spouses are involved in the economy of this country and they participate. As they bring their children up in their homes, they know that they are both able to work, that they are both able to survive and that they are both able to participate in this economy.

If she wants to get caught up on percentages that are absolutely meaningless in terms of the families and children who need our support right now across this country, she can go ahead and do that. This party will not.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague from St. Catharines. Among all the other wonderful incentives that were brought forward in the throne speech, I caught the mention of shipbuilding. Both of us share a shipbuilding tradition in our ridings. This is very important for my riding of Chatham-Kent—Essex.

Could the member further elaborate on the government's plans and what we can expect to see as a result of this new initiative in shipbuilding?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to mention that all budgets have a gender-based analysis done. That is something this party has done since it was elected. My answer is yes to that question.

We have made and are making significant investments in our shipbuilding infrastructure. Prior to our taking government, there was a complete neglect of the shipbuilding industry in this country. The procurement strategy that we have implemented, especially with respect to our ministry of defence and the Coast Guard, is part of what the fabric of this country is all about.

The member's question points out specifically that we are going to make the investments and we are going to make sure that the ships are built here in this country. The previous government was not interested at all in this industry. We are.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I note that members are debating the motion in front of us, which is that this House take note that, while Canada is starting to recover from the global economic recession, the recovery is tentative and uncertain. The number one priority of Canadians remains jobs and economic growth, now and for the future.

I think the government has done a good job of managing the economy through the global recession of the last 18 months. I do not think anybody in the House anticipated the shock to the economy we saw in September 2008. I remember the election well. I remember reading stories about the collapse in credit markets south of the border and how it spread around the world. I remember thinking that I was living through a once in a lifetime moment that would have repercussions down the road.

At the time I remember thinking that September 2008 really marked the end of the post-war era. It marked the end of an era of growth and prosperity that people in the western world had seen since the second world war. Really, it marked the beginning of a new era, the fallout from which people around the world have not quite fully begun to understand, the shift in markets, demand, consumer growth and the like. I think people are still trying to see their way through it. In that context, the Government of Canada has done a very good job of steering our economy through the worst of this downturn.

If one looks at the events that transpired that fall and the following spring, the government's actions, in coordination with the Bank of Canada, ensured that the Canadian economy not only weathered the storm better than most but that Canada would emerge from the recession in a much stronger position than almost any other major OECD economy.

The result of the government's plan was Canada's economic action plan, a suite of measures that people have often seen throughout the country, things like the home renovation tax credit, enhancements to the working income tax benefit, accelerated capital cost allowances for those manufacturers that wish to purchase equipment, and infrastructure stimulus projects: one cannot drive or go anywhere in Canada without seeing billboards advertising one project or another that has been started because of stimulus funds.

There is a $2 billion knowledge infrastructure program for Canadian universities and colleges, the first in many years. There is help for the unemployed through the extension of employment insurance benefits by five weeks. There are enhancements to the work share program, allowing workers to share their time with other workers, industries, and companies that have been affected by the downturn. In southern Ontario there was the creation of the new federal economic development agency for southern Ontario, and some moneys have already flowed to cities like Guelph and to areas like Wellington County and Halton region to help manufacturers in those areas.

Finally, behind the scenes there is help through the Canadian Lenders Assurance Facility, which really helped to free up the credit markets and ensured that Canadian banks continued to lend and provide lines of credit, credit cards, mortgages and the like. So I think the government's action was swift, effective, and the results have shown evidence of that.

The results speak for themselves. In the fourth quarter of 2009 GDP growth was 5% in Canada, far better than what most people and many major bank economists expected. Canada's banks are strong and well capitalized. In fact, the World Economic Forum rated Canada number one out of all countries around the world in terms of the soundness of the Canadian banking system.

Canada's unemployment numbers, while they are high and have increased substantially in the last year-and-a-half, putting many Canadian families out of work and workers in difficult positions, are still much lower than that south of the border. Some of the recent job creation numbers are encouraging in terms of the direction in which Canada is going.

The final point that needs to be noted is that going into the recession the government's balance sheet was incredibly strong, thanks to our government's efforts and the previous government's efforts to ensure that Canada had substantial surpluses; and that coming out of the recession, Canada's balance sheet will remain strong. While our debt to GDP ratio will no doubt increase over the next number of years, the fact is Canada's deficit as a percentage of the economy is much lower than in the United Kingdom, the United States, Japan, and many other OECD countries.

Coming out of this recession we will have increased our national debt; however, it will still remain far lower as a percentage of overall economy than most other major economies in the world. I think the government has have managed to steer through this recession in a very capable and prudent way.

The motion also indicates that the recovery is still uncertain and tentative. The government faces the very difficult job of reducing our deficits and ensuring that our national debt is not increased in a dangerous way.

Parliamentarians need to understand that it is important that Canadian households not increase their debt in an unsustainable way. We often focus on the issues of our federal debt and our federal balance sheet, but we also need to be worried, because we affect federal policy levers as does the Bank of Canada, about the ever increasing rise in Canadian household debt.

I applaud the Minister of Finance in his recent move of some weeks ago to further strengthen the requirements for taking out a mortgage. There is a growing concern about the levels of debt that both governments in Canada and households have taken on.

This afternoon we will hear what the Government of Canada intends to do about the debt and the deficits that we have incurred in the last year and what we intend to do about those deficits and that debt in the next number of years. As parliamentarians we also need to be aware that we have the policy levers to ensure that Canadian households do not unduly take on too much debt.

In the most recent debt management report from the Government of Canada for the fiscal year ending 2008-09, the market debt of the government was about $500 billion and the accumulated deficit of the government was also about $500 billion. Well, household debt in Canada is now almost triple that amount. If we look at the most recent daily from Statistics Canada for the third quarter of last year, it indicates that household debt has now risen to $1.4 trillion, three times the amount of our national debt. That has driven up the debt to GDP ratio, so to speak, for households to 145%, what Statistics Canada calls debt to income ratio.

The Minister of Finance has been very prudent and very balanced in ensuring that the policy levers are in place to ensure that households do not unduly take on too much debt. I think Canadian households need to ensure that they do not take on too much debt.

We need to continue to monitor the situation in the next 12 months, and if housing prices accelerate unreasonably in the next 12 months the government needs to take additional measures to ensure that we are not entering into dangerous territory there.

To conclude, I think that our government has done an excellent job managing the economy through the last 18 months. The government now has the difficult task of continuing the stimulus program for the next 12 months while at the same time laying down the road map for how it is going to tackle these debts and deficits.

I encourage the government to continue the prudence it has shown with the policies it has put in place to manage household debt. I would also encourage all parliamentarians to be aware of this issue and to keep an eye on it as the next 12 or so months unfold.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Speaker, I have noted with interest the comments of my hon. colleague. I had the pleasure of serving with him on the industry, science and technology committee. He was a very effective chair.

I want to ask him an important question. In his speech he talked about the results being effective, swift and results-oriented. Statistics Canada says that the quality of jobs has fallen, and that salary and wage growth has declined. The OECD says that access to services has fallen. The Central Intelligence Agency World Factbook says that “Canadians per capita income compared to the world has fallen”.

In talking about focusing on creating jobs, I note in yesterday's estimates that were tabled that about $1.4 billion that was supposed to go for job creation has lapsed in the government.

I know this is a take note debate about how the priority should remain jobs and economic growth. I would just like to ask the member this. When does he expect the government to do something?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that we have also suffered a recession in the last 18 months. We are now out of it by all accounts, but there is no doubt that we too went through the same global economic recession that everyone else did. As a result, unemployment has risen and the government is concerned about jobs and those Canadians who have lost their jobs. That is why we have taken measures to help them out by enhancing employment insurance, by enhancing work sharing programs.

There is no doubt that the issue of jobs is something with which the government is consumed, but it is also important to note the context in which this has happened. Last year, 2009, marked the first year in 60 years in which the global economy actually contracted. Never before in 60 years had the aggregate growth of the planet, of the world's economies, contracted. Last year was the first year in 60 in which that had happened.

In that context, we have done a very good job of steering the economy through this time and the results speak for themselves.

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

Madam Speaker, yesterday we listened to a very long speech, 23 pages in fact, very long on rhetoric and short on substance.

The opposition is certainly not always all negative on this particular Speech from the Throne. We would be remiss if we did not recognize a number of good elements in the speech yesterday. For example, the speech promised: to investigate the murders of 500 aboriginal women; to recognize the concern about workers affected by corporate bankruptcy, and we support action on this particular issue; to recognize the help for military families; to endorse the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous people; to support President Obama's efforts on nuclear non-proliferation; and also a commitment to boost support for apprenticeships and skills training.

I make these comments to show that we in the opposition do appreciate at least some of the elements in the Speech from the Throne yesterday.