Debates of March 8th, 2010

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could respond in more detail, but I can tell the member that just prior to that the Liberal government at the time cut funding to science and technology in the last recession. This government has taken an entirely opposite approach on stimulating the economy by putting more funding into science and technology to redevelop those programs that will create jobs and strengthen our economy for the future.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for sharing his time with me.

I want to make one clarification. The minister indicated that the member for Burlington was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry and that is not accurate. I can understand the confusion.

The member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont is that parliamentary secretary and does an absolutely fabulous job with the Minister of Industry. I am actually on that committee and he does a great job.

I am also very excited to stand up today on the day we recognize as International Women's Day. As a father of two daughters I hope and pray that the future for them is as bright as we are trying to make it here in Canada but around the world for women everywhere. That is why our men and women are working very hard on the ground in Afghanistan to ensure men and women and particularly women and girls have an opportunity in Afghanistan which they do not have in other parts of the world.

Today I am here to speak about budget 2010. It is year two of our Canada economic action plan. The budget title is “Leading the Way on Jobs and Growth”.

As we all know the recovery is fragile. We have seen some positive news on the GDP in the last quarter of last year of 5% which is a positive sign that our economic action plan is working on the ground, creating jobs and bringing Canada back to a growth mode that we have been so used to over the last number of years.

This budget has three major overriding ideas, concepts, goals that we would like to deliver on. The first goal confirms the $19 billion that was part of the second year of the economic action plan. Why is that important? People were planning on that money. Communities and provinces were planning on the delivery of the action plan funds. We have committed in the 2010 budget to follow through on our decision last year to have a two year plan to help us get back on our feet in this economy.

The second part of the budget invests in targeted programs to create jobs, and I will speak a little bit about that later. That is what the budget is really all about. It is about creating jobs for those who are young, people coming out of school, and those who find themselves in the difficult situation where they may have lost their jobs during the recession and it is time to get back to work. We are doing what we can from a budget perspective to make sure that it happens.

Finally, the budget also sets out our plan to get us back to balanced budgets. That is important to all of us in the House. We cannot continue as a government, as an individual or as a business to spend more than we have.

We had a unique situation last year with the recession, not just in Canada but worldwide. The decision of governments around the world was to spend money to kickstart the economy. Fortunately for us, it has worked in Canada as we can see from the GDP numbers and how things are progressing.

We need a plan though and the budget sets out a plan to get us back to a balanced position by 2015.

I want to highlight a few things that are important to me as the member of Parliament for Burlington that are in the budget.

First, there is the Great Lakes action plan of $8 million a year that will be given to Environment Canada to handle water quality issues that we are facing in the Great Lakes.

Burlington is a Great Lakes community. It is on Lake Ontario. I grew up in a small town called Port Elgin which is on Lake Huron. Therefore, I have spent my whole life living on one of the Great Lakes.

A number of years ago, after we took over government, I was able to convince the then minister of the Environment to come to the harbour in Hamilton and look at one of the hot spots in those Great Lakes. We have allocated $30 million for the clean up of what is called Randle Reef. The province has also come to the table with $30 million and now we are waiting for the municipality to come with its share.

With the Great Lakes action plan we have identified the importance of the quality of our drinking water for today and for future generations. It is the security of having clean freshwater, which this country has and which the Great Lakes provide for much of the eastern part of Canada, including the St. Lawrence Seaway, that makes our nation strong.

It is also a recreational and commercial waterway. The seaway and the Great Lakes play a vital role in the economic development along the Great Lakes. When this country first started, it was the transportation system that led to the development of the population along the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence. The waterway also provides great recreational facilities. Quality of life is important to us on this side of the House. Having a clean Great Lakes system is important for that to continue.

I wish to speak to and highlight the things we are doing for youth and youth employment in the budget.

We are providing $30 million for an internship program. This internship program will help young people who are coming out of university or college get their first jobs. We are still in tough economic times. The economy is fragile. We are trying to encourage businesses to employ young people in the field of their studies as they come out of the post-secondary education system. The $30 million will help create those jobs through the career focus program. This will give a leg-up to those who are trying to get started for the very first time. It is an excellent program and I appreciate its being in the budget.

We also have allocated $10 million to another program to help young entrepreneurs. In the fall I was at an event in Toronto which celebrated some of the winners, although everyone in the program is a winner, and the businesses that are created by young people. There is unbelievable talent. They are the job creators of the future, not just jobs for themselves but jobs in the companies that they start. With a bit of help from us through our entrepreneur program for young people, they will create jobs for future generations. It is a great opportunity for them to get the funding that is needed to get started.

There is $30 million in the budget for youth at risk. Youth at risk include ones with disabilities, single parents, and aboriginals. This $30 million will assist them in finding work that will add value to their lives and value to their communities, and I appreciate its being in the budget. That is a group that needs our government's support. This budget goes a long way in helping them find their way to be contributing members of our society.

There is $20 million for pathways to education. That is a program that works with partners, other governments, private sectors and NGOs for disadvantaged youth to pursue post-secondary education. These are young people who may be on the edge, who are unsure of what they want to do, and are not sure how they can access a university or college education. The pathways to education program will help those young folks find their way. The more education that young people have, the better off everyone will be in the long run.

There is $30 million over two years for a kindergarten to grade 12 education program for first nations. Obviously poverty is an issue for our first nations; no one is denying that. The best way out of poverty is through education and finding employment, and this money is to provide those employment opportunities, to help those first nations young people.

Business credit availability has been increased. Credit was an issue for businesses in the recession. It was a crisis for many. We continue to fund that. By the end of last year we had put $5 billion into that program, which helped over 9,000 businesses. We are going to continue to fund that program. We are adding half a million dollars for financing vehicles and other equipment purchases to enable businesses to move forward.

My time is running out as is my voice, so in closing, there are a number of good things in this budget that affect my riding and people in my hometown. I am very supportive of the budget and I would be happy to answer any questions.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a few concerns. There were a lot of bromides in there, a lot of generalizations with which we could hardly disagree, certainly when it comes to education. I do believe the lifelong learning process is one that will bring many benefits back to the economy.

There is one issue I want to bring up with the hon. member because it is a concern in my riding. Many of the infrastructure programs he talked about in the budget and some of the ones that he wanted to announce or re-announce, whatever they may be, require the co-sharing of funding. With that in mind, there are many small communities out there that are unable to access the money that is available through the federal government simply because the share of the cost-shared program is hard to attain, especially in some of the communities that have suffered greatly through this downturn.

Could he provide answers to the House and, more important, to my communities about why it is that so many of these small communities are unable to access this money due to the fact that the regulations on cost sharing are so stringent?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to give the hon. member an answer from those who actually represent the small municipal communities, the FCM. This is what the FCM said in its press release on our budget. I would like to read it into the record:

FCM applauds the federal government for protecting core investments in cities and communities as it reduces the federal budget deficit. These investments will help local governments--and Canadian property tax payers--build the infrastructure that is the backbone of our economy and quality of life.

Those who represent our municipal partners are supportive of the budget. I ask the Liberals also to support this budget.

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

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy hearing my hon. colleague speak. He is always full of enthusiasm and is always very positive and very friendly.

He said a very important thing about first nations. He said that the key to eliminating poverty is education. Let me give an example of how he and his party can help. There are 10 first nations in my riding. All of them have students who are waiting for the money so they can go to the positions at which they have been accepted at post-secondary institutions. Couchiching First Nation, for example, has 22 students who have been accepted at post-secondary institutions, but there is no money for them.

Since 1985 there has been no real increase in any funding for post-secondary education for first nations at all. That spans a number of governments.

I would like to ask the hon. member if he supports raising the amount of money that is available for first nations to make sure that all the students have an opportunity to get to post-secondary institutions if they are accepted.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is new funding, targeted funding for first nations in this budget. I would encourage my colleague from the NDP to read that section of the budget. It talks about $30 million over two years for K to 12 education. We also have the students at risk funding, the skills link program, at $30 million.

In addition, the budget talks about working with our first nations partners to find ways to better allocate the cash that is available to make sure that it gets into the hands of those students to use it for post-secondary education and improve their communities.

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

Madam Speaker, I am addressing the Conservative member opposite. Why has his government again discriminated against seasonal workers by excluding them from 20 additional weeks of employment insurance benefits because it does not recognize them as long-tenured workers?

Why is the government discriminating against seasonal workers and their families?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have done a tremendous amount to improve the EI system in this recession and in the future with respect to the additional work share activity. I will be frank. We are not looking at reducing the length of time people have to work in order to collect EI. EI is an insurance program. They have to work a certain amount of time in order to collect the insurance. At present that is not going to change.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the budget. I will be splitting my time with the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.

I want to spend my brief 10 minutes talking about two different aspects of the budget. I want to talk about how it affects people who live in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, but in my role as the aboriginal affairs critic for the NDP, I also want to talk about how it affects first nations, Métis and Inuit throughout the country.

What we know about the recession which the country has been suffering is it hits the most vulnerable. The recession has certainly impacted on seniors, on pensioners, on middle class families who are struggling to make ends meet. The budget provided an opportunity to tackle head-on some of the challenges that are facing these struggling families and to create a Canada where we are creating those jobs and providing that income security so that people can go to bed at night and not worry about whether they are going to lose their homes or whether or not they can feed their children.

What we have seen are failed policies that are simply not addressing the fundamental needs of many Canadians throughout this country.

Let me start first with employment insurance. Employment insurance is one way to provide fiscal stimulus that directly impacts on people living in Nanaimo—Cowichan and the other 307 ridings across the country. According to a Canadian Labour Congress analysis, unemployment is on average 8.5%. It is projected to be 7.9% in 2011. The real rate of unemployment is much higher. It is probably already at 12% and climbing. Oftentimes we count people who have part time, low wage jobs and there are people who have simply dropped out of the labour force. The unemployment rate is going to stay too high and we are actually not counting many people.

For people who think we in the NDP are only in opposition, we actually have proposals that would address some of these matters. The NDP has a number of bills before the House that talk about reducing the number of hours required to qualify for EI, waiving the two-week waiting period and raising benefits so that people have some security.

In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan there are many forestry workers who have either run out of employment insurance or are in the process of exhausting it. The work-sharing measures proposed in the budget simply will not impact a lot of those workers.

The second issue I want to address is pensions. At the beginning of January we were getting many calls from seniors on fixed incomes relying on their CPP, GIS or old age security who said that they simply do not have enough money to make ends meet. Once again, this budget failed to address some of the very serious problems facing seniors, not only the seniors who are on our public pension system, the CPP, OAS and GIS, but also the pensioners with pensions from private sector companies which have gone bankrupt. Once again, New Democrats have proposed solutions. We have a piece of legislation called the Nortel bill that talks about fixing some of those very serious problems in our pension system.

Regarding job creation, one of the easiest and safest ways to lift people out of poverty is to provide good paying jobs. The New Democrats and some of our partners across the country, including the Canadian Labour Congress, have talked about the need for sector renewal strategies to save jobs and promote successful restructuring in many of our troubled sectors such as forestry. We would propose to look at building the green sector or the green job economy.

In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan many people are concerned about the impacts of climate change. They are concerned about some of the job losses in our resource sector, such as in forestry and fishing. They would like to see initiatives to actually create stable jobs in our economy so that they do not have to worry. Many workers are having to leave the area. They are having to leave Nanaimo—Cowichan and go elsewhere to find employment, leaving their families behind. There is certainly room for improvement in job creation.

I would like to briefly touch on food security which falls in the line of climate change as well.

I want to quote the Cowichan Food Charter. These are the kinds of supports we would have liked to have seen in the budget. The Cowichan Food Charter's vision is the following:

We have a collective obligation to ensure that everyone has access to sufficient high quality food;

For Cowichan to thrive, local farmers and food producers must earn a good and fair living;

Food security requires co-operation and communication between the community, farmers and all levels of local government.

Although there were some supports to the agricultural sector for many of the small farms on Vancouver Island, there simply was no help at all. What I hear consistently from farmers is that we need ways to, for example, protect our watershed and ensure that resource is available. We need ways to ensure that local slaughterhouse capacity is available, which currently is not. We need ways to ensure we have ongoing protection for farmland and the farmers who produce the food on the island.

I want to shift gears. In my role as the aboriginal affairs critic for New Democrats, I want to touch on a couple of aspects of this budget.

I want to acknowledge that hearing the government talk about taking next steps to endorse the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was a positive step. New Democrats have been calling for this for a number of years and see the government making a positive move.

However, there is a caveat. It talks about taking next steps. I would encourage the government to move forward quickly on this. As the Assembly of First Nations national chief says, it can use the declaration's principles of partnership, respect and inclusion. Those would be good underpinnings in all legislative proposals that will come before the House if those elements of partnership, respect and inclusion are included in all aspects of developing legislation. That is a positive step in the budget.

I want to turn to the issue of children in foster care. Although there was a mention in the budget about money being available for provinces that would be willing to enter into these enhanced protection agreements, we also know there is currently a human rights case before the tribunal about underfunding in the system.

Currently, the government is continuing at all turns to try to quash that case. A press release that came out from the Quebec Native Women's Association states:

While federal government uses legal loopholes to keep flawed policies for First Nations children in place, documents obtained under access to information say that inequitable child welfare funding contributes to the fact that there are more First Nations children in child welfare care today than at the height of residential schools.

The article goes on to talk about some of the actions the government is taking in trying to prevent that case from being heard.

In light of the move on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it would seem that this would be a good time for the government to drop its opposition at the tribunal, allow that case to proceed and ensure equitable funding is in place from coast to coast to coast so we do not have this legacy of children receiving different levels of service if they are on reserve than if they are off reserve.

I want to briefly touch on the pledge for $10 million to address missing and murdered aboriginal women. We know this is a national tragedy. There are well over 500 murdered and missing aboriginal women in the country. There were $10 million announced. What is not clear in the budget is how that money will unfold. We do not know how that money will contribute toward what the Native Women's Association of Canada, Amnesty International and other women's organizations have called for, which is implementation of a national action plan. That is what we need to address this very serious crisis for murdered and missing aboriginal women.

In first nations, Métis and Inuit communities there are many serious issues, including housing, education and infrastructure. Although there was some move on infrastructure in the budget regarding water, we need a national action plan with the input of first nations communities across the country.

The New Democrats have proposed a number of solutions to the problems that the country is facing. In that light, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain proposed a subamendment to the budget, which addressed some of those aspects. It included that members would see some increases for CPP and QPP, look at the cases of corporate insolvency, examine the harmonized sales tax, which I know impacts on B.C. and Ontario, and we would take a look at the proposed tax cuts for corporations, which could actually fund some of the programs the NDP spoke about for seniors, pensioners, middle-class families and first nations.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, is it true that the Aboriginal Healing Foundation is no longer being funded and has basically been cancelled because of the budget? The reason I ask is that obviously one is dreaming in Technicolor if one thinks a few years of help will heal a lifetime of having one's language and parents taken away, which can lead to substance abuse. A lot of healing still needs to go on in the country and the program is very important.

In Yukon, LAWS, the Liard Aboriginal Women's Society, has done some great work over the years. It sent in another application, but it has not heard back. If this program is suspended, it will be a tragedy. Just because there is money in the budget for the money that is owed to survivors, that is a statutory requirement, that is not generosity.

Is the healing fund cancelled? Would the hon. member agree with me that it should be continued?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Aboriginal Healing Foundation funding was part of a negotiated agreement that will sunset this year. It does not prevent the government from assigning additional funds to carry out the good work that is happening from coast to coast to coast.

The government itself recognizes that the residential school legacy is continuing because it put some additional money in the budget around residential school payouts. People are still applying for that money, whether it is common experience payments or some of the awards for other abuses outside of the common experience payments.

I would argue that because the government recognizes the ongoing need to pay out for residential schools, there should also be a recognition that there needs to be ongoing funding to support the healing process happening in communities.

We know the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is getting its work under way, but there needs to be funding for local organizations that are working within their communities to provide an intergenerational legacy of healing.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments in light of the pension situation. Without a doubt, I have said before in the House and will say it again that it will be an emerging issue. It is an overarching issue that will take up a lot of our conversations within the House in the next 10 to 20 years.

That being said, she mentioned the private sector and pension issues. AbitibiBowater and Nortel are two situations that involve what the NDP feels need some regulatory changes. There are two bills on the order paper from the NDP.

Could the hon. member perhaps provide more comment to the House on those bills? They do require changes, one in the bankruptcy act and also around the status of an unsecured creditor at time of bankruptcy. I hope my colleague can provide her thoughts on that issue and on those two particular—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree we have an emerging crisis in pensions across the country. There are two aspects. One is the publicly funded pension, CPP, old age security, GIS. We know that many Canadians do not have access to private sector pensions and have not worked at jobs that have allowed them to invest money in RRSPs. We need improvements to those, and the bills and the motion the NDP presented earlier address what we are proposing as increases to public pensions, CPP, GIS, and OAS.

On the other side of the coin are private sector pensions. The member mentioned AbitibiBowater and Nortel. There are many other companies in the country that, although they have not gone bankrupt, their financial futures are uncertain.

The NDP has proposed that in those cases those workers would move to the top of the list when we speak about payouts. The NDP has also proposed that there be a fund put in place, a pension insurance protection scheme that would protect those workers' pensions when, through no fault of their own, their company goes under and their pensions, all the money they paid in all their working lives, are lost.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, in light of the fact that Liberal after Liberal have stood up today and spoken against the budget, yet they will sit on their hands when it comes time to vote or they will not show up, will the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan vote for a budget that does nothing for Canadian women, children, seniors, and first nations?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, New Democrats have been very clear that we cannot support the budget as it is written. We simply feel there are far too many Canadians who have been left behind, whether they are seniors, women, first nations, Métis, Inuit, or middle-class families that are looking at their jobs and savings go down the drain.

It is very difficult to support a budget, as written, that leaves so many Canadians out of the picture.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan for sharing her time with me this afternoon.

As we know, today is International Women's Day, so I thought I would take a moment to tell the House about some of the incredible women in my riding. I am proud to say in New Westminster, Coquitlam and Port Moody there are many women making significant contributions to our communities in the areas of education, health care, local businesses and social and community services.

Both the president of the New Westminster Chamber of Commerce and the chair of the Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce are women. The CEO of the major hospital in my riding, the Royal Columbian Hospital and the president of the Crossroads Hospice Society are women.

The Austin Heights Business Improvement Association and the two largest non-profit community service providers in my riding all have women as their executive directors.

I have the honour to share this riding with two provincial NDP MLAs, Diane Thorne and Dawn Black. Both are forces to be reckoned with.

Notwithstanding the pride I feel about my riding and the high-profile women who are helping to shape it, I know we can and must do better over the decades to come to address women's issues.

Last week the government tabled its budget I was very disappointed. First, on the west coast we just witnessed a major collapse of Fraser River salmon run. Yet in this budget there was not a single reference to salmon. This is incredulous. West coast salmon are a significant component of British Columbia's and Canada's economic activity.

In an article that appeared in the Vancouver Sun this past weekend entitled, “Forecast not looking good for B.C.'s salmon stocks this year”, writer Stephen Hume makes a case for the importance of salmon to British Columbians, and I will add “Canadian”, economy.

For the benefit of the House, I thought I would share with the hon. members some of what he says. He says:

Another disastrous season for B.C.'s iconic wild salmon appears to be unfolding even as yet another inquiry gets underway, this time into the collapse of last year's Fraser River sockeye runs.

Meanwhile, some scientists in the department of fisheries and oceans are warning that the outlook for 2010 is already worse than it was in 2009, when only about 10 per cent of expected Fraser River sockeye returns materialized.

Conservation concerns during the 2009 collapse of sockeye runs returning to the Fraser forced federal fisheries authorities to close commercial sockeye fisheries and first nations' food fisheries, which are important both to subsistence and cultural practices in many communities. The inquiry, struck last November and led by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Bruce Cohen, isn't expected to make an interim report before August, with a final report not expected until 2011.

The 2010 forecasts could have serious implications for aboriginal, commercial and recreational fisheries, the fish-processing sector and nature-based tourism. These industries represent a combined economic value in excess of $2 billion a year for the B.C. economy.

Earlier this week, letters from the department of fisheries and oceans were circulated to chiefs, councillors and aboriginal fisheries managers notifying them of the preliminary stock estimates and possible conservation measures. Ottawa has also confirmed it is deferring treaty negotiations involving salmon until after the inquiry into salmon declines makes its findings.

Forecasting salmon returns is a notoriously inexact process. Runs can be influenced by many variables, including weather that affects water temperatures and can influence in-river survival and disease outbreaks, mistimed harvesting during migrations and poorly understood conditions affecting ocean survival.

However, based on estimates from previous spawning escapements and recent ocean survival rates, early assessments for salmon abundance in 2010 predict that only 29 of the 88 stocks evaluated on the West Coast will be at or above the target abundance for sustaining or rebuilding depleted or declining runs.

He goes on to say how difficult and important it is to manage the fishery. He further states:

Although 2009 was a catastrophe for commercially valuable Fraser River sockeye and triggered the judicial inquiry--harvest of these stocks is jointly managed under treaty arrangements between Canada and the United States--a dismal outlook for chinook salmon in 2010 will be of equal concern.

On many spawning grounds, 2009 marked the third successive year in which the number of fish failed to replace even the parental spawning abundance.

On the Cowichan River, once so famous a stream that anglers' catches merited reports in The New York Times, the return of natural-spawning chinooks in 2009 was the lowest ever recorded.

The abundance of wild spawning stock on Vancouver Island's outer coast was the lowest it's been since 1995.

Coho stocks returning to the upper Fraser and its tributaries, the lower Fraser and streams flowing into Georgia Strait, all continue to be of concern due to declines and depressed abundance.

Chinook and coho are the linchpins of B.C.'s vigorous recreational fishery. Although sports anglers harvest only about three per cent of the total catch, research shows they take more than 30 per cent of the chinook and coho salmon caught in coastal waters.

Although counts vary, some recent studies show the recreational fishery sustains almost 7,500 jobs, paying $125 million a year in wages and benefits and more than $75 million a year in taxes to provincial and federal governments.

It generates almost $650 million a year in retail sales and distribution.

As members can hear, salmon are an important economic resource for all British Columbians. They provide both jobs and taxation revenue at the federal and provincial levels, yet the government has committed no funds to dealing with the depletion of the stocks that Mr. Hume talks about.

How can the government sit idly by while this very important resource is devastated? Many of us on the west coast have been asking ourselves how this tragedy came about. While there may not be one specific culprit, a definite trend has emerged over the past few years.

Are members of this House aware that there have been four previous investigations into the decline of Fraser River salmon stocks since 1992? For the benefit of other hon. members, I will briefly outline these:

In 1992 about a half-million sockeye disappeared en route to Fraser spawning grounds. Then fisheries minister John Crosbie named two eminent scientists to investigate..

In 1994, 1.3 million sockeye went missing. Then minister Brian Tobin appointed a panel to investigate and make recommendations.

In 2002, sockeye conservation was challenged by a threefold increase in estimates of abundance, uncertainty over mortality rates and a huge fight over allocation. Then minister Robert Thibault named a panel to investigate and make recommendations.

In 2004, 1.3 million sockeye went missing again, so then minister Gerald Regan named former judge Bryan Williams to head an investigatory panel.

Over the past 18 years, we have born witness to a disturbing trend. It even provoked four separate investigations and now the Cohen Commission is the fifth.

I submit to the House that this constitutes a problem that requires immediate intervention and serious attention in addition to the important findings the Cohen inquiry may determine. This forces the question: Where is the government's commitment to action on salmon and the environment?

Just as action on the environment is missing, so too is a concerted plan to address housing issues that affect many Canadians.

Many may have seen recently the B.C. government's advertisements proclaiming B.C. as the best place on earth. As someone not prone to exaggeration, let me just say that it is.

Residents of B.C. live in a province with one of the most stunning coastlines on the planet. Surrounded by breathtaking mountains and gorgeous ocean views, our province is beautiful. In fact, my riding is nestled between the Fraser River and the Burrard Inlet with the coast mountains as a stunning backdrop.

All this beauty attracts many people from around the world, which also affects the cost of living. The average cost of a home in my riding is over $600,000. This may get a small, three-bedroom home that may have been built half a century ago.

For many in my community, home ownership is--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I will have to interrupt the hon. member. He may be able to continue during questions and comments.

As a new member, he may not be aware but it is not a practice to mention the name of a sitting member, as there was a reference to the member for Halifax West.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I have two questions for the member. I asked one question a couple of months ago so, hopefully, as the fisheries critic he has more information on this, which he was not familiar with at the time.

As the member knows, it is not only the lower part of British Columbia where the salmon are threatened. There are different stocks in the north, in particular, chinook salmon.

What is the Department of Fisheries doing to cut back on the pollock bycatch, the biggest fishery in the world taking our salmon by accident? What about the Japanese fish farms? Are they having an effect? What about the warming of the Pacific Ocean? What type of research is the Department of Fisheries doing to find out the real determinates of these problems?

My second question relates to a point he raised about land claims and putting them on hold until this study is finished. I do not think the people involved are very happy that their lives are being put on hold for months on end while these studies are being done. Why can we not, as they often do in land claims, set that aside to be determined at a later date and get on with these negotiations?

The Province of B.C. and the first nations people are ready. We know how upset Canadians were when their lives were put on hold for a couple of months by the government when it prorogued. We can just imagine how these people must feel when their lives are put on hold endlessly because they cannot continue the negotiations of these land claims that are almost finished except for the fisheries element.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member mentions a number of very good issues: the pollock bycatch, the Japanese aquaculture and ocean warming. There are many issues that affect the west coast fishery. Unfortunately, Parliament was prorogued at the end of December and we have not, as a fisheries committee, been able to meet until today to address these issues. I want to ask these and many other questions. I believe on Wednesday we will get to that point where we can start to discuss the work plan. I will be happy to bring these and many other issues forward at that time.

In terms of the comment on land claims, I quite agree that these land claims are important and they must be dealt with. I do not believe this is something that can be put on hold. They must continue to be addressed as they are very important for many people, and not just the people in my riding of New Westminster—Coquitlam but many people in British Columbia and across the country. I agree that this issue must be addressed.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech with great interest. I certainly appreciate his comments about International Women's Day and his knowledge regarding the fisheries.

I would like to focus on some of the budget elements of his speech. There are many things that we hear regularly in the House in terms of some of the things that the NDP value. I would like to ask the member how he can vote against $19 billion in economic stimulus that will be putting people to work.

There is significant investment of over $4.1 billion in social housing for low income seniors and people with disabilities.

I would like to ask him how, in good conscience, he can actually vote against these very important measures for all Canadians.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, not only is there not a mention of salmon or action to be taken on salmon in the budget, there is no money in the budget to assist leaky condo owners with their huge repair bills and no money for extending the home renovation tax which was a popular program in my riding.

The government promised a lot with the budget but for the people in my riding of New Westminster—Coquitlam, this budget leaves them out in the cold.

This budget leaves much to be desired. I feel every day Canadians are being left behind when issues, such as those that I have pointed out, are not addressed and the government has substituted corporate tax cuts for responsible actions on concerns facing those in my community.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg South Centre.

The government's decision to prorogue the House on New Year's eve did more than simply shut down the business of Parliament. It once again deprived this chamber of the opportunity to continue important work for those who have sent us here. My colleagues and I were here working but we all should have been here doing the people's business.

This institution of Parliament is important to the people of Canada. So much has been achieved here, ranging from Canada's pension plan to national health care for all Canadians. It is here that we make the decisions that chart the course of our country. It is these missed opportunities that I reflect upon today as we begin the budget debate.

What I find most disappointing in the budget introduced last week is the lack of vision and dynamic thinking that has been so much a part of Canada's history. Canadians anticipated that after the break the government might take action to deal with the 8.5% unemployment rate or the highest youth unemployment rate in a generation, along with a host of other issues. The opportunity was there and should have been taken.

We might all welcome the announcement in the throne speech that stated that the government would be proclaiming a seniors day in Canada. As my colleague, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, noted, without real substance the only seemingly beneficiary of the government's announcements may be the Hallmark cards.

In reality, elderly Canadians are finding it increasingly more difficult to manage. Indeed, statistics show that low income seniors are spending over 55% of their income on food and shelter alone. For Canadian seniors, retirement should be more about enjoying life rather than just surviving. Consider additional expenses such as health care costs, clothing and transportation. Times are indeed tough for many of Canada's senior citizens.

Prior to the budget's release, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons polled its members and they overwhelmingly responded with two conclusions: first, the most pressing issue for seniors was pension stability; and second, they expected little from the budget to address this concern.

Right now in this country, 44% of working people have no retirement plans or RRSPs for their senior years. Only 20% of Canadians working in the private sector have a retirement plan. In other words, Canadians are looking not by choice but by necessity to the Canada pension plan and old age security to support them when they reach 65. We must keep in mind that the percentage of Canadians over 65 years is expected to double in the coming 30 years.

What we needed from the budget was real and meaningful action on this issue. We in the Liberal caucus suggested the creation of a supplementary Canada pension plan to allow Canadians to invest more for their retirement. Constituents in my riding of Davenport have told me that they support such a program. The government could have chosen to act on this simple plan but it did not.

Our seniors helped to build this country. When Canada needed them, they were there. Now that they need us, we too need to be there for them. Cities are the lifeblood of any country. Many in the media characterize this budget as a stay-the-course document. For Canada's cities, such as my city of Toronto, that is just not good enough. We need to do better.

It is generally agreed that the municipal infrastructure deficit in Canada ranges from $100 billion to $120 billion. Our bridges are aging, our roads are in need of repair and our sewer treatment systems need renewal, to name but a few of the areas that will have to be addressed. Budget 2010 missed a multitude of opportunities to address these challenges, not the least of which is green infrastructure which would create sustainability, long-term savings and jobs.

My city of Toronto would be well placed to host such job development. Green jobs are the jobs of the future. They represent the single largest opportunity to invest in good and sustainable jobs for future generations. It is the role of government to ensure that Canada is at the forefront of creating such jobs in a way other countries across the world are doing right now. Environmentally friendly public policies extend to energy as well, which is a main driver of prosperity and growth.

Forward-thinking countries such as Brazil have emerged largely unscathed from the worldwide economic recession. Brazil is a nation that has emphasized development of hydroelectricity, which we in Canada are also well-placed to do if we have the political will.

Similarly, we need to undertake a more focused and productive policy toward development of wind power. I congratulate the Liberal government of Ontario for its efforts in this regard, but the federal government must also provide leadership on a national level.

Where is the government's public transit strategy?

Governments across the world recognize the need to invest heavily in public transit across their countries. There are many opportunities for action in this area, including the much needed electrification of Canada's train system, especially in communities such as my riding of Davenport, where rail routes are expanding. Train electrification is the path taken by much of the world. It is an opportunity for job creation and it is important for the health of those living along the railway lines.

I am proud to be part of the previous Liberal government that committed billions of dollars to municipalities under its new deal for cities policy. I am also honoured to have been part of our party's recent round table discussion on infrastructure, where experts joined my colleagues and me to work to create realistic alternatives that will address the infrastructure deficit in this country.

Child care remains one of the most formidable challenges facing Canadian working families. From the beginning of its term in office, the government has refused to work toward what everyone knows is needed, a national system of child care. I am proud to stand with the leader of my party and my colleagues in committing our party to the implementation of a national child care program should we form the next government.

With 8.5% of Canadians unemployed in this country, we need a budget that delivers real job creation programs. The government's budget continues to speak of hiring freezes and job cuts. That is hardly a way to assist jobless Canadians.

My leader and party recognize the need for real action. This is why we proposed a cash advance on the accelerated capital cost allowance to allow manufacturers to access the funds they need to get new equipment. We also proposed incentives, which the federal government should have implemented, to encourage employers to hire younger Canadians.

What about climate change and environmental sustainability? As it demonstrated in Copenhagen, the government spends more energy and effort avoiding discussions on issues of climate change and environmental sustainability than actually addressing the problems. The time for leadership on this issue by the government is long overdue. Once again it is my leader, my party and my caucus that will provide real and achievable goals in this area.

The arts community is not only an essential and integral part of our national life, but it is also an important part of our economy. My community of Davenport is home to one of the most vibrant arts and cultural communities in Canada, and I know how difficult times have been for most of its artists. We need to nurture and support artists in every field and community, not discourage and disparage them.

Finally, there is the question of fiscal responsibility. The world has endured a tough and difficult period of recession, but we must also keep in mind that the government inherited from my party's time in office a $33 billion surplus, which it squandered on misguided tax policies and poorly considered spending initiatives.

Budgets are about people and not just about numbers. My party, while in government, balanced our national budget, reduced our national debt, increased social program spending, assisted municipalities, provided a national child care strategy and worked with Canadians to build upon our dreams of a prosperous, responsible and compassionate country. Budget 2010 needs to continue along this path, but unfortunately, it did not.

There is so much that we can and should do as a country, but the government needs vision. Unfortunately, the government lacks the vision to reach our full potential.

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, I congratulate my colleague on an excellent speech. I have known him for quite some time and he certainly has a passion for the city of Toronto, which he represents, or at least a portion of it and the communities there, including the arts community.

Recently I have seen reports in the media that the current mayor has taken some great exceptions to this particular budget. Would my colleague like to comment on this as it pertains to the city of Toronto?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, when I was on city council for a number of years, one of the things the cities were asking for and received was respect. The cities were asking to be at the table. At that time when Paul Martin was prime minister, there was a minister responsible for dealing with cities and communities. This allowed someone from the cabinet table to be involved actively with mayors, reeves and councillors throughout the country, who could bring up their issues and look at ways of resolving some of the concerns.

Something we did that I was very proud of in the new deal for cities was to add $5 billion over five years from the gas tax and $800 million to improve public transit. We also did something much more important in response to their request for respect, and that was to bring them to the table.

The mayor of Toronto is raising some concerns about this budget because there has been no consultation with the cities. It is that lack of engagement and respect being shown that needs to be restored, so that cities and communities can feel they are in fact part of the process we are going through. If there is pain to be endured, all of us have to share it, but all of us also have to work together. However, pushing cities aside, unfortunately, has not helped to address these issues.