Debates of March 8th, 2010

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the comments of the opposition but I do not think our Conservative government needs to take any lessons from the Liberals in terms of how to manage a budget. When we were in a difficult time before. we saw them cut health transfers and social services transfers. They devastated provinces and municipalities.

We are looking at deficit reduction with a modest, reasonable plan. A tax and spend self-described government that looks at increasing GST and an unaffordable child care program, I do not believe our government needs to take any lessons from the Liberals on this.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for her excitement on the Conservative budget.

However, the fact is that the budget squanders billions of dollars on handouts for banks and oil companies. It does nothing for the real victims of the recession. It does nothing for seniors living in poverty and nothing for half a million hard-working Canadians whose EI benefits are about to come to an end.

I do not support the budget as it is written. We have actually moved an amendment to shelve these corporate tax cuts and use the savings for better priorities like supporting jobs and helping to keep seniors out of poverty. We are doing our best to make Parliament work for all Canadians.

Will the hon. member join me and support this amendment to help Parliament work for all Canadians?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the NDP members at least read the budget this year. That is certainly a move in the right direction.

However, I cannot believe they would not vote for the spending of $4.1 billion on housing for low income seniors and people with disabilities. We have many things that the NDP members often say is important. I cannot believe they will not support measures that will help people in their communities.

In order to pay for social programs it is always important to have a robust and strong business economy. That is something that the NDP members have never fixed in on. Business is what pays for the many social programs that we desire.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo a question concerning our government's economic action plan. We have invested billions of dollars in infrastructure right across the country, which is very helpful to get communities going and to get projects underway in various aspects from water, roads, bridges and buildings.

However, we recently watched the Olympics in Vancouver. I know our government is adding additional funding and I would like the member to comment on that please.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think every Canadians was absolutely thrilled. We were all engaged in the Olympics in Vancouver. It was sunny and beautiful and it showed us all at our best. Our athletes performed exceptionally well and I think we are all very proud of them. To continue to support our athletes is very important.

I also want to touch briefly on the importance of the stimulus for our municipalities. The gas tax that has been doubled and came to them early was one of the things I heard in my consultations, and how important the sewer, water and highway programs are. Our municipalities are very pleased with many of the measures that the government has taken.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to advise you that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Trois-Rivières.

On this symbolic day, today being the 100th celebration of International Women's Day, I would like to wish a good day to my spouse, my three daughters and my mother—the five women in my life—as well as to all other women.

I will now tell the House how the Conservative budget tabled last week was received in my riding, particularly by Quebec's many forestry workers.

In fact, with this budget, what the government has managed to prove once again is its inability to meet the needs of Quebeckers, even though identifying those needs was not very complicated. My colleagues and I toured our ridings over the last two months to find out about what Quebec really needs and we reported our findings to the Minister of Finance recently. Therefore, it was easy for him to understand the needs of Quebeckers. But once again, the Canadian federation is turning its back on the Quebec nation. This budget is undeniable proof that federalism is simply not profitable for Quebec.

The forestry industry has been suffering for far too long because of the Conservative government's narrow vision for the sector. Knowing how unimportant the members opposite think regional development is, it comes as no surprise to see them acting this way. As proof of that, the government still does not understand how important it is for people living in rural areas to have access to high-speed Internet even though the minister is well aware that the broadband Canada program lacks funding. There was no additional money in the budget to bring Quebec into the 3rd millennium. As far as they are concerned, if there is no political advantage to be gained, if it will not make their banking and oil company friends happy, there is no point investing time or money.

It is a real shame to see how subjugated the Conservative members from Quebec are to their leader and his conservative doctrine. Fortunately for Quebeckers, Bloc Québécois members are standing up for Quebec, not letting someone else pull their strings like the members opposite.

True to its unfortunate conservative ideological underpinnings, the latest budget has nothing good to offer the forestry sector. By failing to help people affected by the forestry crisis, the Conservative government is holding thousands of workers hostage. Is it aware that this affects families too, not to mention whole communities, regions, and even Quebec's economy, all of which are suffering because of the government's lack of vision?

I am one of the private woodlot owners who have been hit hard by the forestry crisis. According to the Fédération des Producteurs de Bois du Québec, there are 130,000 private woodlot owners in Quebec, 35,000 of whom are legally recognized as forestry producers. Of those, 20,000 ship lumber to market, and lumber sales and forestry work are the primary source of income for some 3,000 producers.

In Canada, 450,000 families own private woodlots. Thousands of active private forestry producers make a significant contribution to sustainable economic activity in a number of rural communities in Quebec and Canada. Private woodlot owners have lost a lot of income since the beginning of the forestry industry crisis, mainly because mills have closed and lumber prices have dropped. Currently, the situation is anything but stable.

Last month we learned of the financial difficulties facing White Birch Paper, which owns the F.F. Soucy plant in Rivière-du-Loup, near my home. From 2006 to 2009, private wood producers suffered losses totaling over $500 million. Despite this economic situation, the Conservative government has completely ignored the needs of forestry producers for a third consecutive budget.

We, on the other hand, met with forestry producers associations, including the Fédération des Producteurs de Bois du Québec, and listened carefully to their requests. Thus, we developed a comprehensive action plan and moved a motion containing some proposals that could be implemented very quickly, with some political will.

Since forests take decades to grow and therefore generate extremely uneven revenue, we are proposing the creation of a registered silvicultural savings plan, which would allow forestry producers to average their income and reinvest it in development projects, thereby continuing to cultivate the forest. In addition to providing socio-economic benefits, this measure would also bring considerable environmental benefits by protecting biodiversity.

We believe that taxation on income is another excellent tool that should be used in order to help wood producers more and support them in developing this resource. This is an intelligent, sustainable measure that all private woodlot owners in Quebec agree on.

But where are the Prime Minister's Quebec puppets when the time comes to defend such ideas within the government? Instead of being the representatives of Quebeckers within Parliament, they are the government's representatives, trying to defend its harmful projects, like the oil sands.

Quebeckers and lumber producers can be sure that we in the Bloc Québécois will not back down. I personally promise to come back again with the excellent idea of a registered silvicultural savings plan, which was suggested by all the private woodlot owners in Quebec.

Forest producers, who have lost up to 70% of their income, are finding it increasingly difficult to honour their financial commitments. We are asking the federal government to consider introducing a capital and interest payment holiday, which would help producers weather the economic crisis.

As for workers, we note that the budget measures pertaining to employment insurance are designed for western Canada and the automotive industry in Ontario, but do not help forestry workers in Quebec. This will be especially true if the transitional measures for the lower St. Lawrence region in particular are not made permanent.

The Bloc Québécois and I have done our homework. We have come up with real, worthwhile initiatives to create a better future for the forestry industry. Obviously, we have worked together with the other stakeholders, such as the Quebec Forest Industry Council.

The Bloc Québécois suggests setting up a program of loans and loan guarantees, relaxing employment insurance requirements to provide income for workers hit by the crisis, providing assistance to stimulate secondary and tertiary processing of forest products and creating a specific diversification fund for communities that depend heavily on forestry.

The Bloc Québécois even introduced a bill in June 2009 to promote the use of wood in constructing federal buildings. That is what we call consultation, cooperation and clear demands to help the forestry sector, which is a very important segment of Quebec's economy.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to a few points made by the hon. member concerning the transitional measures and particularly the employment insurance program measures for the economic zones of Madawaska, in New Brunswick, which I represent, and the Lower St. Lawrence, in Quebec, presently represented by a Conservative member, that must be said.

Transitional measures were adopted to ensure that workers from the affected areas are not put at a disadvantage and that their family can have a decent living. The transitional measures were introduced in 2000 and, after 2005, we had to fight to convince the Conservatives to reintroduce this pilot project.

However, in April, the Conservatives will put an end to the transitional measures in the two areas I mentioned. That will be a devastating blow for Madawaska and I believe that it will have the same effect in the Lower St. Lawrence region. The present Conservative member for the Lower St. Lawrence may be inclined to strike while the iron is hot to make sure that the government makes the right decision and reintroduces the pilot projects in these economic zones.

I would like the member to tell me if the effect of not reintroducing the pilot project would be as devastating in the Lower St. Lawrence region as it would be in mine, Madawaska.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very relevant question.

These transitional measures, which will soon expire, are indeed very important to the part of the Lower St. Lawrence region that I represent as well as a portion of my hon. colleague's riding.

In that region alone, the transitional provision soon to expire represents additional funding of $25 million from the EI fund. Let me point out that $25 million out of an employment insurance fund of $18 billion, per year, is insignificant. But this $25 million makes a world of difference for a number of families at risk of experiencing the so-called spring gap, and therefore going without an income for part of the year.

It has been surprising to hear the comments made by our friend from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup in recent weeks. He said that all seasonal workers had to do was to follow his example and work three or four jobs to avoid having to rely on employment insurance. That is rather pitiful.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the hon. member's comments about the forestry industry.

I see that since the last economic action plan, the government has created the pulp and paper green transformation fund with $1 billion available over three years to support investments by Canadian pulp and paper companies in energy efficiency and performance. In this budget we have added $100 million over four years to support clean energy generation in Canada's forestry sector.

I would like to find out from my colleague across the way if he agrees with those initiatives as being both good for the economy in the forestry sector and also good for the environment.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the measures referred to by my Conservative colleague are almost laughable because we are talking about $100 million over four years, or $25 million per year.

I said earlier in my speech that there is a very broad consensus in Quebec's forestry industry, which is not comprised of just Bloc members and evil separatists. They are people in the industry. There is a consensus: Quebec wants loans and loan guarantees to immediately free up cash flow for these companies so that they can improve their financial situation, prevent further difficulties like the ones they are experiencing and ensure future development.

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

Mr. Speaker, I see that once again the government is bringing in further corporate tax reductions.

We only have to look to the voodoo economics of the United States back in the early 1980s with George H. W. Bush calling Ronald Reagan's economic plan of the time economics where one simply keeps reducing corporate taxes expecting to get good results.

Let me say that despite a 36% drop in corporate taxes, both federal and provincial, in the last decade and with record profits during that time, business spending on machinery and equipment declined as a share of GDP. This comes from Statistics Canada.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will use my remaining 30 seconds to sound the alarm once again. The forestry industry, particularly in Quebec, needs a government with a vision and an infusion of cash right now. Private woodlot owners in Quebec and Canada, the 450,000 families involved, need help.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to speak to this budget. As the natural resources critic for the Bloc Québécois, I was looking for certain measures. Unfortunately, as my colleagues will understand after my presentation, I was very disappointed.

The Bloc Québécois toured Quebec extensively. We consulted various groups involved in economic issues, along with our finance critic and with our colleagues, and we presented a series of measures that would have allowed for some flexibility and some new initiatives in order to eventually achieve a balanced budget.

It is appalling that the Conservatives have once again missed an opportunity to meet Quebec's economic, social, environmental and financial needs. They are proving to us, once again, that as far as Canada is concerned, Quebec does not exist. This budget proves that federalism is simply not viable for Quebec and will never allow us to achieve our goals. The only way forward for Quebec is sovereignty.

With regard to nuclear energy, we have been through the famous medical isotope production crisis. The Conservatives, like the Liberals, literally dragged their feet on isotope production. These isotopes are crucial to detecting and treating a number of serious diseases. Because the core of nuclear reactors is exposed to extremely high temperatures and radiation, NRU reactors have a limited lifespan and must be shut down regularly. The Chalk River reactor dated from the 1950s, and clearly no one was surprised that it was corroded. The widely quoted joke was that it was not a matter of whether the reactor would fail, but when.

The Conservatives' failure to act forced the temporary closure of the Chalk River reactor in May 2009, leaving Quebec health care institutions and hospitals to their own devices and creating an unprecedented medical isotope crisis.

Quebec has been paying for the government's negligence and incompetence on this issue for nearly a year now. Despite the seriousness of the situation and lengthening wait times for treatment, the then Minister of Natural Resources, who is now Minister of Labour, even dared to describe the situation as sexy. The minister showed a total lack of respect for the patients and researchers for whom isotopes can sometimes be a matter of life and death.

Calls for help from doctors did not even rattle the government. The Conservatives committed to having the reactors up and running by August 2010. We have seen delay after delay, and now less than 50% of the repairs at Chalk River have been completed, over six months after the government's estimated date to have it running.

Jean-Luc Urbain, a doctor and president of the Canadian Association of Nuclear Medicine, predicted that patients would experience dark days waiting to receive diagnoses and treatment.

Atomic Energy Canada Limited, AECL, is now talking about starting up the reactor by the end of April. That would mean two more months of anxiety for patients waiting for diagnoses or treatment; two more months of having to pay for the Conservatives' incompetence.

It will soon be a year since hospitals have had a guaranteed supply of medical isotopes. We have yet to see any money to cover the cost of what the Quebec government has had to pay to manage the crisis, and we are talking about over $1 million. Our healthcare system has suffered greatly; waiting lists are growing longer and doctors are becoming impatient. Quebeckers want a long-term solution so that we do not lose any lives unnecessarily or put anyone in danger, and so that patients can get the treatments they need.

The government had no other choice but to invest in research and development for new technologies to produce medical isotopes, and it will invest in the TRIUMF technology.

But why did the government not take action sooner? Why did they take so long to find solutions, when we knew that this reactor, which dates back to the 1950s, would stop working?

Another problem with the nuclear industry has to do with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. The Bloc Québécois believes that the federal government is currently in conflict of interest as both the shareholder of a corporation that develops nuclear power plants and the guardian of public and environmental safety.

In this budget, $300 million is earmarked to cover the anticipated commercial losses and to support the activities of AECL in 2010-11, such as pursuing the development work on the advanced CANDU reactor, safely supplying medical isotopes and maintaining reliable and safe activity at the Chalk River laboratory.

With so much investment in AECL, it is important that the government be transparent in its intentions for the future of this Crown corporation. The government is allowing rumours to swirl about the complete or partial privatization of AECL. We know that the National Bank of Canada did a value study of AECL. The government has to inform the House of its intentions at the earliest possible time: how is it going to use public money?

CANDU reactors, which the government wants to promote and develop on a large scale, currently are not very well trusted. The question is: why is a full scale verification of the safety of these reactors not being done, instead of this blind development?

The government is choosing to ignore the recommendations of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which proposes using a new type of low enriched uranium in the years to come. This would require a massive investment of public funds to the tune of several million dollars. This raises a lot of questions.

What can we say about nuclear energy, this supposedly clean energy? We are wondering why the government insists on considering nuclear energy to be as clean as hydroelectricity and wind energy, when the waste generated from nuclear energy has such disastrous consequences for the environment and the burden on future generations keeps getting worse.

We know that it currently costs more than $100 million a year to deal with this nuclear waste. Why does the government want to invest so much in one of the most polluting industries, and not invest a dime in hydroelectricity?

Funding for the industry is unjustified and unfair. Hydro-Québec, Quebec's pride and joy and a clean energy producer, has never received financial support from the federal government. Furthermore, Quebec refuses to become the dumping ground for Canada's radioactive waste.

That is why we tabled a motion passed unanimously in Quebec's National Assembly. It states that we will never agree to take in more waste than we produce.

Quebec chose clean, renewable hydroelectricity. The federal government's decision to promote nuclear energy will not benefit Quebec. The Bloc Québécois feels that the government should not promote nuclear power.

The government's agenda is clear to us: investment in nuclear energy will support exploitation of western Canada's oil sands. This budget is contrary to everything the Government of Quebec is trying to do to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

Are we all going to end up paying the price yet again to fill western coffers? The government's attitude toward energy is irresponsible and unacceptable to Quebeckers. Once again, the west gets everything and Quebec gets nothing.

In closing, I want to emphasize that the Bloc Québécois will never consider nuclear energy to be clean energy. Investing so much money in technology that will only benefit Alberta oil companies is irresponsible and will have terrible consequences for coming generations. This budget should take Quebec's values and interests into account, but it does not.

For all of these reasons, I will be voting against this budget.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the member's speech. I have two questions. The first is related to nuclear energy. How confident does the member think Canadians are in the government's managing nuclear energy in this country when the person who is supposed to guard the safety comes up with a complaint and is fired? How many more employees now are worried about getting fired if they bring anything forward? How many employees have been fired before or told not to speak up?

My second question is related to isotopes. If someone were diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, most Canadians would think that if they went to the hospital, all the tests would be available right away. They would be absolutely shocked and outraged if they knew that they could be told that they were a lower priority and were put off until later, that the isotopes may not be available. I do not think Canadians understand the severity of the situation the government has created.

I would like the member to comment on those two items.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. He is quite right. I am not at all confident that this government can manage nuclear energy. When the senior manager responsible for nuclear safety in Canada is asked to resign, it makes you wonder what is behind it all. This woman wanted to enhance safety of CANDU reactors. These reactors are problematic and I am very worried about that.

Just last week, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission again alerted managers of nuclear sites to the possibility of explosions and malfunctions with these CANDU reactors. They were asked to assess the possibility of using another fuel, that is, slightly enriched uranium. This type of uranium is not produced in Canada. Therefore, the problems are stacking up and there is no solution in sight. If I were ill and needed isotopes, I would be very worried.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if you had allowed me to speak earlier, I could have asked my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques what he thought about the behaviour of our colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche. They are against the budget, but they will not vote against it. It is the same thing with the member for Yukon, who seems to be against the budget, even if we do not know how he will vote on Wednesday.

I have a question for my colleague. It seems as though those buying isotopes might no longer be required to sell the isotopes produced to healthcare institutions in Canada, and particularly in Quebec. It could therefore sell them to the highest bidder anywhere in the world. So they would be produced here, but we would not have them for ourselves. I think this is connected to the dangers of privatization that she mentioned and the lack of transparency.

I would like to know more about the situation for owners. They are owners, yes, but they do not decide anything and will have absolutely none of the isotopes produced.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that if a private company is in charge of isotopes, there will be problems with its dealings with AECL, which is responsible for all CANDU sites, and which also wants to promote CANDU reactors and sell them around the world. Still, the government may want to privatize AECL, or it may not. The whole issue lacks transparency. We do not know the details.

The latest budget allocated $300 million for this. As taxpayers, we have to wonder whether we will be asked to bear the unprofitable aspects of the operation and the risks associated with nuclear waste. Will private companies have control over the isotopes, leaving us, as parliamentarians, with no assurances that sick people will get the isotopes they need? That worries me.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Selkirk—Interlake.

I rise today to support the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance.

Last year in supporting Canada's economic action plan, I said that this budget would be a test of political maturity. Canadians were watching with great interest and quite literally praying that we parliamentarians got it right. A year later I can say unequivocally, “Yes Canada, we got it right”. We are cautiously optimistic that the economy is recovering, but we must remain vigilant.

The House will hear from many speakers about the good things in this budget, and indeed I will mention some which are important to my riding of Kitchener Centre. However, I will begin by mentioning some things that are not in this budget. Why would I do that? Why would I want people to think about what is not in this budget?

Members of the opposition criticized our government for taking an extra five weeks to consult with Canadians. They did not think we should bother with that much consultation. Now they ask why we bothered to consult only to end up with a stay-the-course budget. The answer is that our consultations told us what Canadians do not want in this budget.

For example, Canadians told us that they do not want the overtaxation of past Liberal governments. When Liberals complain that the government squandered the surplus, they are really just saying that we should not have reduced the GST. The Liberal leader is thinking about hiking the GST back up to Liberal Party levels. In fact, by reducing the GST and reducing tax levels generally, as early as 2007 our government injected consumer spending stimulus into the economy. That helped stave off the global recession in Canada for almost a full year after it was felt elsewhere.

We could take up the Liberal Party's complaints and raise taxes in this budget, but Canadians spoke loudly against that option. That is not in this budget.

We could take up the NDP's suggestion to reverse corporate tax relief. Consulting with Canadians, however, confirmed once again that Canadians know that job growth depends upon competitive Canadian employers, so people will not see any job-killing NDP-style corporate taxation in this budget.

Consulting with Canadians also told us that they do not want permanent deficits. Canadians know that government deficits are a kind of reverse Robin Hood. Even now approximately $31 billion every year is taxed from low and middle income and other Canadians, and paid as interest into the pockets of those wealthy enough to lend money to the government. People will not find any long-term extra spending in this budget.

People will not find an extension of the March 31, 2011 expiry date for stimulus spending. Instead of major spending programs, such as the Liberal Party's mythical daycare plan promised in every election since 1993 but never delivered, people will find restraint in 2011 and beyond.

However, people will not find any reversal of our commitments. We are keeping our word. We are increasing foreign aid to historic levels. We are maintaining funding to arts and culture at levels never before seen in Canada. Our record high provincial transfers for health and education will not be reduced.

We will slay the deficit with gradual restraint, not by abandoning our commitments. I am very proud to be part of a government that delivers what we promise.

There is a unique feature which is in this budget. What is unique about Conservative budgets is that they are multi-year plans. They demonstrate foresight. They take account of changing circumstances. Prorogation provided an opportunity to take Canada's economic pulse, to confirm that indeed our economy is recovering but not yet recovered. That is why this budget stays the course with stimulus spending this year. That is also why our government is planning ahead for restraint in later years.

Canadians across our great land already understand the wisdom of this course. As the Governor General said that rainy-day spending must not become an all-weather practice.

I bet Canadians are wishing that just once the opposition parties would find the self-assurance to say, “The government is right. We need to stay the course this year and then exercise some restraint. It is so obvious Canadians want us to support this budget, so that is what we will do”.

Would that not be a great gesture of national unity in difficult economic times? We cannot be all things to all people, but this budget rings all the right notes. Here is what the Waterloo region Record had to say:

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty walked a fine, intelligent line--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I have to remind the hon. member not to use proper names even when quoting from other publications.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I will re-read the quote, Mr. Speaker.

The finance minister walked a fine, intelligent line Thursday to deliver a budget that serves Canada's most urgent needs.

I would add that most Canadians agree and would like the opposition to support this budget and get on with things such as the additional $19 billion in new stimulus spending to create and maintain jobs. This is especially good news for Kitchener Centre, which I proudly represent. Our manufacturers have been hard hit. In addition to the stimulus funding, budget 2010 goes even further to assist manufacturers.

An example is the government's commitment to eliminate all remaining tariffs on manufacturing machinery. Most of these tariffs were eliminated immediately. The remainder will be phased out by January 1, 2015. These tariff reductions will save businesses an additional $300 million annually. This is a significant cost savings for our manufacturers. It will encourage investment in needed machinery. It will encourage innovation. This is very important to Kitchener Centre.

In my prebudget submission on behalf of Kitchener Centre, I urged the minister to do two particularly important things for my riding. He has addressed both of these concerns. What were they?

First, relief for low or no income Canadians is an important issue to Kitchener Centre, which contains our urban core. Those who study such needs agree that social housing is essential to the solution. It is very important to Kitchener Centre that $2 billion of infrastructure stimulus spending invested in social housing in 2009-10 will be followed by an additional $2.1 billion in 2010-11. This brings the two year total of social housing, including housing for disabled and for seniors, to a total boost of $4.1 billion.

This budget would also assist low or no income Canadians with a one year, $30 million increase in skills linked funding to assist more young Canadians while the labour market recovers. Another $20 million is added to pathways to education in support of disadvantaged youth. Yet another $30 million over two years will support aboriginal education.

My second request on behalf of Kitchener Centre, where unemployment remains high, was for continued support for unemployed workers. Once again, this budget delivers. More than $4 billion would be provided in 2010-11. This includes $1.6 billion for additional benefits, $1 billion in enhanced training opportunities, and $1.6 billion in EI premium relief. Five extra weeks of EI benefits, greater access to EI for long-tenured workers, and an extension of the duration and scope of the work sharing program will all continue into 2010-11.

As the member of Parliament for Kitchener Centre, I wanted our government to assist those hardest hit by the global downturn. This budget delivers exactly that.

As a member of the environment committee, I was also pleased with the measures for green jobs. These include $100 million over the next four years for clean energy technologies in the forestry sector. We are also expanding eligibility for accelerated capital cost allowance for investment in clean energy generation assets. This builds on the $1 billion over five years committed in budget 2009 for the development of promising clean energy technologies.

Last year I said:

The Speech from the Throne lays out a path through a dark forest of economic perils. I call on all of our Honourable Members to seize the opportunity to confidently put on the cloak of open mindedness, transparency and mutual trust. Let's travel that path together with common focus on the needs and well-being of all Canadians.

I repeat this request today, but add that there is every reason to believe that we will soon need our sunglasses as we emerge from that dark forest.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely shocking how misinformed the member could be.

He talked about no new taxes. We have huge EI tax increases for people. He is not telling his constituents that the Conservatives are raising the price of airplane flights by increasing airport taxes. He complained that the poor people are paying taxes. What are they paying for? For millions upon millions of dollars of government advertising of Conservative programs.

He talked about $100 million for clean energy when the Conservatives cancelled several billions from previous governments.

He talked about a mythical child care program, which was in place. Ten provinces had signed agreements and the money had flowed.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will address the issue of taxes because our Conservative government believes in leaving more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians. It is the right thing to do and we have the records to prove it.

Since coming to office in 2006, we have cut over 100 taxes, reducing taxes in every way government collects them: personal, consumption, business, excise taxes and more. We have removed over one million low income Canadians from the tax rolls completely and we have reduced the overall tax burden to its lowest level in nearly 50 years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I hear from those members regarding corporation taxes. They are taking us back to the 1980s with Ronald Reagan. Even George Bush Senior called his economic plan voodoo economics.

We know that reducing corporate taxes has not done what the Conservatives say that it will do. We have reduced corporate taxes now from the year 2000. The prime minister of the day reduced them from 28% to 21%. Now they are proposed to go down to 15%. Guess what has happened? Independent bodies like Statistics Canada have indicated that despite a 36% drop in corporate taxes in the last decade with record profits at that time, business spending on machinery and equipment has actually declined. Do the members understand that? It has declined as a—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I have to stop the member there to give the member for Kitchener Centre about 38 seconds to respond.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose the best way to respond to that is to point out that over 130,000 net jobs have been created or maintained as a result of our economic action plan in the last year. That certainly includes the corporate tax relief that we have put in place.