Debates of March 8th, 2010

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was a little perplexed to hear the member for Davenport's comments about Conservative municipalities. I was on city council, too, for five years, and what I have been hearing across the country is an incredible amount of support for these 12,000 or 13,000 projects. People are ecstatic about the unparalleled investment in infrastructure, something that we did not see under the previous Liberal government.

The biggest contrast between how this government has managed the budget during a recession compared with the previous Liberal government was the latter decided to cut health care during a recession, by cutting transfer payments to the provinces by 40%. That affected infrastructure, health care and education.

If he were in power today, would he have adopted the same approach of cutting hospitals, medical recruitment and critical social services like the government that he supported did when it was in office?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about his experience when he was on council. I talked about my experience on council and how frustrating it has been for us to engage.

When I was here in 2004, here are some things the Liberals did when we were in government: a $41.3 billion agreement with the provinces and territories for health care; $5.5 billion for a wait-time reduction fund; $5 billion for national child care development and lifelong learning; equalization payments of $33 billion over 10 years; $5 billion for environmental investment; $3 billion for research and regional development; $5 billion in the Kelowna accord for aboriginal people; the new deal for the cities; and increases for seniors. Those are the things Liberals were doing when we were in power.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was pleased to hear some of the member's remarks.

I first want to thank the member for his contributions to the international trade committee, where he does a great job. Through that experience, he has a great knowledge and understanding of how other countries and economies are doing.

I just wonder how he might compare Canada's economy with those of other countries in the world, such as the United States, Britain, Japan, for example, or Greece, for that matter.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will support the hon. member again being chair of the trade committee.

I mentioned Brazil as a key example. It was one of the countries that did not go unscathed through this recession. What is it doing? Let us look at those countries and the emerging markets and see how they are carrying forward. We have a lot of lessons to learn from them.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to the government's budget.

After months of recalibration, the government has come forward with what I would call a replay of budgets past. Not much is new since I stood in the House to speak to last year's budget. Like last year, a new session of Parliament has just begun after the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament to avoid a difficult time; but, apparently, this budget was the most difficult for him to bring forward, and I wonder why.

There is nothing new here. There is no real investment in job creation, no action on pensions, nothing on youth employment, nothing on culture, very little for post-secondary education, little on social programs and the list goes on.

I have chosen today, International Women's Day, to focus on the matters of concern to women in this country and, indeed, to their families.

Canada started the period 2006-10 with a $12 billion operating surplus and a new $5 billion child care plan that supported both children and their families, allowing mothers and fathers to go to work, to go school and contribute to the economy.

At budget time 2010, Canada has an estimated $40 billion net operating deficit for the period 2006-10 and no national child care plan. That $1.4 billion a year was spent on the universal child care benefit, which many tried to pass off as a child care program, which is far from the truth.

Before even asking what to watch for in budget 2010, we deserve an answer to the question, what did women get from the budget? Where did the $52 billion from the former surplus and the new deficit go? The budget certainly has not done much for women.

The only major announcement for women in the throne speech was to change the words of O Canada, but that needed recalibration because, two days later, the Prime Minister rescinded it.

I continue to wonder, where are the new ideas, where is the vision? Indeed, is there a vision for this country?

Only a few days ago, we celebrated the remarkable success of Canada's female athletes. We saw real national pride in Vancouver as our athletes gave their all for us. Medal after medal, gold after gold, they showed the true Olympic spirit. These women, and it was a disproportionate number of women, showed strength and courage in Vancouver and they truly represented this country with honour.

I would particularly like to acknowledge and thank Cindy Klassen and Clara Hughes, both of whom are Manitobans and are retiring, for their extraordinary ability to inspire young people. I particularly note Clara Hughes' ability to give back by giving forward through her financial contributions to the community around her.

The government boasts about its achievements for Canadian women, but it unfortunately comes up very sadly short. The statements of the government are selective. As Carol Goar pointed out in today's Toronto Star, in reflecting on the minister's speech to the UN in New York, “...it was selective to the point of misrepresentation”. As an aside, I commend to members here the real and substantive speech that inspires pride, delivered by the American representative at the UN, a remarkable document and remarkable commitment to American women.

As a group, women are poorer, have fewer savings, hold less secure jobs and own less property. Some 40% of working women in Canada do not even make enough money to pay income tax.

This is a government that talks about having more women in cabinet, but under its watch the proportion of women on the government benches has fallen to 11% from 25% under the government of Paul Martin, and 23% under that of Jean Chrétien.

Women's equality has suffered from the regressive policies of the government. It has bargained away women's rights to equal pay for work of equal value. There is little evidence of gender-based analysis in the budget and in the action plan, let alone in most pieces of legislation. The government has cut the operating budget of Status of Women Canada by 43%, while removing the word “equality” from the mandate of its women's program.

There are no dollars available for women to advocate on behalf of their concerns and issues. There is certainly nobody over there advocating for women.

They have removed the gender equality unit in the human rights division of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. They have eliminated the funding, as we all know, for the court challenges program. They axed the $1 billion annual early learning and child care program, as I referred to earlier.

They axed the Kelowna accord which would have provided much-needed health and education funding for aboriginal men and women. If the Kelowna accord had been implemented, funding in the area of $1 billion would have been spent on education for aboriginal children and their parents. It is a major travesty that that was not done. Housing would have been in place, infrastructure would have been in place, a capacity of organizations would have been in place.

The government has failed to produce the action plan announced in budget 2008 to advance the equality for women by improving their economic and social conditions, and their participation in democratic life.

The government has ignored a November 25, 2008, motion passed unanimously in the House of Commons to develop a violence against women prevention strategy. Violence against women is of epidemic proportions both in this country and beyond. It undermines gender equality, it negatively impacts women's health, and it negatively impacts their educational opportunities, their political and economic opportunities.

The minister speaks of building a network of shelters, and this work is not unimportant but it is not the symptoms that we should be dealing with, we should be dealing with the issues at their root problem and working hard on them.

Last week's budget offered little if anything to rectify all the cuts the government has made to women's rights. As the Canadian Federation of University Women pointed out, “The budget really left women behind on the issues that would lift women out of economic recession and poverty, this budget is shamefully silent”. And as stated in a seminal study, and I recommend it to all, by Kathleen Lahey of Queen's University, “--women have only received about 7 to 22 per cent of federal infrastructure spending--”.

Why were there no gender equity requirements in the dispersal and the planning for these infrastructure spending programs? Was there a real gender-based analysis done? I think not. Did the government look at setting up funding for social infrastructure? As the House may have heard me say earlier, the government managed to allocate $0.5 million or thereabouts to women's shelters while three times that amount went to animal shelters. That is a shame, an absolute shame.

We know that small numbers of women will benefit from the GST cuts. We know that for 40% of women, their incomes are so low that they receive no benefit from personal income taxes. They do not pay them. And the 36% who receive EI enhancements, that is certainly not enough.

We all know that access to child care is a growing concern for young parents. We know that in whatever forum we meet with individuals, whether it is talking about women in non-traditional trades, farm unions or businesswomen, the overriding issue is access for early learning and child care. It is more than a social program. It is an economic program that would very much help stimulate the economy of this country and provide opportunities for individuals to be the best that they can be.

It is 40 years since the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. Since then women have made some advancement while hoping for much more. I would say that in the last four years women in this country have gone backwards.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her comments and also relate to her some of the infrastructure investments that would be specific to women and also be specific to many people. I represent the largest first nations community at Six Nations of the Grand River.

When I arrived here in Ottawa a year and a half ago, I found that there was a file that was resting with the previous government to give this community clean water. I would suggest that clean water is a necessity across all genders.

We invested in providing a $23 million water treatment plant for clean water for all people of Six Nations, one that had been stalled, one that had been previously talked about by the hon. member's government and previously promised by her government, but never delivered.

I would like you to respond to that and ask, why did it take a specialized infrastructure program under these economic circumstances, which our government made happen, and why did you not provide that to the women of Six Nations?

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I would ask all members to address themselves through the Chair in their questions. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to answer this question. I would ask the member opposite if he is aware that under the Kelowna accord, $400 million was indeed allocated to water infrastructure, and had the Kelowna accord been honoured, as it was passed, that would have been well on its way to happening?

I have met with the members of the Six Nations in the hon. member's area several times. In fact, I have visited it. I am well aware of the deficiencies at Six Nations. I am well aware of the lack of response to the educational requirements of Six Nations and the tepid response to some of the issues related to water.

I would say to the member opposite, if Kelowna had been agreed to, we would be well launched for men, women, children, everyone in this country, on education, health issues, infrastructure matters for first nations people and aboriginals in an urban setting.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I cannot help but get up to ask a question. We hear a lot from the opposite side and from this member about how close the Liberals were, after 13 years, of getting things accomplished. They were close on child care. Of course, it was promised in 1993, but they did not actually get it done. They were close on Kelowna, but it was toward the end of the mandate. They did not get the job done.

[An hon. member]

They did cut health care.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Yes, that is true, they did cut health care. They did cut transfers to the provinces.

I am glad the hon. member actually talked about infrastructure because in my riding and in the riding I share with the hon. member for Markham—Unionville, the skating rinks, the community centres, the emergency preparedness centre, the new hockey arena, these are lasting things that everyone will enjoy. The women I speak to are so proud and very excited, and know the best days are ahead. In my riding, 51% of the people are women. They are heads of business, the heads of government--

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order. I would like to give the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre the opportunity to respond.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member talk about all the wonderful things that have gone into his riding, and I can only say that it would have been very nice if all ridings in the country had been able to benefit from those same opportunities had they not been targeted to certain ridings.

When the hon. member speaks about Kelowna--

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order. The hon. member for Oak Ridges—Markham.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I have to clarify that the investments I had been talking about were actually in the riding of the member for Markham—Unionville and not--

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order. That is not a point of order. The hon. member can continue her answer.

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

If I can continue on, Madam Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member that the agreements for early learning and child care were signed with every province. The deal was done. His government cancelled it. The Kelowna accord was done. His government chose to cancel it. It was done and the Conservatives chose not to do it.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

It is a great honour and privilege for me to rise in the House today to speak on behalf of the budget. I would like to begin by noting the significant progress Canada's economy has made in terms of economic growth and job creation during these challenging times. Canada's economy has shown resilience in the face of a world recession, a resilience that can be directly attributed to the leadership of the Prime Minister and the foresight of the finance minister.

In my riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell I attend hundreds of events every year, hold countless meetings in my riding offices, and engage the communities through town hall gatherings. During these dialogues I listen carefully to the concerns and priorities of my constituents.

At this time the items that are viewed as most important for my constituents are jobs, agriculture, and reducing the deficit. I am proud to state that the 2010 budget addresses all three of these items.

Canada was hit by the worldwide recession, but a strong economic and financial foundation helped us deal with the crisis better than the other industrialized nations.

The government carefully regulated our financial system to make it the most solid system in the world. Since taking power in 2006, the government has also managed to cut taxes and lower the debt. Today, even with the effects of the recession, Canada is proud to have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of all the G7 nations.

This sensible approach enabled us to take extraordinary short-term measures in the economic action plan. These measures were necessary to protect Canadians during the recession.

Our plan has produced results. More than 135,000 jobs have been created since July, and 16,000 infrastructure projects have stimulated long-term economic growth.

All around us, we see signs of recovery. Nevertheless, although the world's financial state has improved over the past year, it is not yet back to normal.

That is why our government gave Canadians a budget that protects and creates jobs, while still promoting strong, sustainable and balanced growth.

Budget 2010 focuses on three core goals. First, the government will follow-through on its commitments to Canadians and G7 and G20 partners to complete the implementation of Canada's economic action plan. Budget 2010 confirms $19 billion in new federal stimulus, under year two of the economic action plan, to create and protect jobs.

Second, budget 2010 invests in a limited number of new targeted initiatives to build growth and jobs for the economy of tomorrow, to strengthen and harness Canadian innovation, and to make Canada the choice for new business investment.

Third, the budget charts a course for returning to budget balance once the economy has recovered. This includes ending the temporary stimulus measures as promised, restraining growth in spending through targeted measures, and additional restraint through an indepth review of administrative functions and overhead costs.

Let me compare the Conservative government's action to protect Canada's economy with what the Liberal Party has planned. The Liberal Party leader has described himself as a “tax and spend Liberal”. If he were to become Prime Minister, he says he would have to “raise taxes”. In addition, senior members of the Liberal Party have suggested that the government needs to raise taxes. That is not the way to strengthen Canada's economy.

It is clear that whenever the next election happens to be, if one votes Liberal, one is voting for higher taxes. The Liberal Party has been clear on this point, and it continues to be clear. If elected, the Liberal Party will raise taxes: one can count on it.

It is not what Canadians want. It is definitely not what the people of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell want.

The government's approach is different. The province of Ontario will continue to receive increased federal support through budget 2010. Total transfers will hit $18.8 billion in 2010-11, an increase of $801 million from last year and $6.9 billion more than under the previous Liberal government. While the Liberals starved provinces and municipalities of much-needed support, the Conservative government increased key transfers such as $972 million through equalization payments; $9.9 billion through the Canada health transfer, an increase of $243 million from last year; and $4.3 billion in social transfers, an increase of over $1.2 billion since 2005-06, or an increase of 36.6%.

I would like to take some time to talk about our deficit reduction plan because I know that is one of the most important concerns for my constituents.

Like all other industrialized countries, Canada went into deficit to implement its economic recovery plan. Once that recovery is entrenched, the government will implement a plan to reduce the deficit and return to a balanced budget.

The three key elements of our deficit reduction plan are as follows: spend the money planned for recovery according to our schedule, limit the growth of government spending in specific sectors, and undertake a comprehensive review of government spending on overhead and administrative costs.

It is important to explain some features of our deficit reduction plan. First of all, we will not balance the budget on the backs of retired Canadians, by reducing transfer payments for health and education or by raising taxes paid by hard-working Canadians. Our bold plan will allow us to reduce the deficit by half in two years and by two-thirds in three years. Shortly after that, our budget will be completely balanced.

With respect to initiatives that would directly benefit my constituents, I would like to first mention the tax relief that they would receive through budget 2010.

Year two of Canada's economic action plan would provide over $1.3 billion in personal income tax relief in 2010-11 to help workers and families in Ontario manage through difficult economic conditions. This would include allowing people to keep more of their hard-earned money, which they would in turn invest in our economy.

Budget 2010 would also assist Ontario by providing support to create and protect jobs, as well as assist those who are in need.

Some of these measures consist of providing over $4 billion to help unemployed Canadians find new and better jobs, including up to five extra weeks of regular employment insurance benefits and greater access to regular EI benefits for long-tenured workers. We have implemented a temporary extension of work-sharing agreements to a maximum of 78 weeks. We have frozen employment insurance premium rates at $1.73 per $100 of insurable earnings for 2010. We are providing $1.15 billion to make an extra five weeks of employment insurance benefits available. We are committing $1 billion to enhance employment insurance training programs.

The economic action plan helps businesses in Ontario to create jobs, to modernize and to become more competitive on world markets. It does so by eliminating tariffs on manufacturers' inputs and on their machinery and equipment.

Innovative small and medium-size businesses from Ontario will benefit from the new $40 million pilot innovation and marketing program. With that program, federal departments and agencies will be able to use innovative products and prototypes developed by small and medium-size businesses.

Ontario's 61 community development organizations will benefit from the $11 million per year commitment in resources provided for in the 2010 budget for the community futures program.

Finally, as parliamentary secretary for agriculture, I am very pleased to see in budget 2010 that our Conservative government plans on building on previous investments by announcing measures that extend support for the agricultural sector.

I know that cattle processing facilities in Canada would definitely benefit from the $75 million in funding allocated by budget 2010 to support investments that help improve their operations. This would contribute to ensuring Canadian cattle producers in all regions of our—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Newton--North Delta.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and he raised a good issue that is also very popular in my part of the country, Newton--North Delta. He stated that the constituents of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell were concerned about the deficit. About 15 months ago the Prime Minister said that there would be no deficit, but the deficit came into effect and it has skyrocketed to $53 billion.

How can we trust the Prime Minister and the Conservative government to balance the budget in the next five years?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really must encourage my colleague on the other side of the House to pay attention to the economy. Clearly, Canada is in difficult economic times. Extraordinary action is required and has been taken by our Conservative government through our Canadian economic action plan. We are spending and investing in communities all across this nation.

However, the strange thing is the Liberal who spoke just before me was lamenting all the things that were not in the budget. If the member is so concerned about deficit, where will the money come from for all the programs that the Liberals want to launch? They will drive us into further deficit.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, I, too, listened to the parliamentary secretary with great interest, especially to the piece on jobs.

He is absolutely correct. I am sure there are residents of his constituency who talk about jobs, but let me just draw his attention to his government's budget, on page 34, in table 2.1, which talks about employment rates for 2010. It also talks about 2009. What it shows is the government's own forecast, by the finance minister's own words, is conservative by its estimates. It is telling us that unemployment this year will be higher than last year. Yet the parliamentary secretary was telling us that they concentrated on ensuring that we were going to have an abundance of jobs this year, ensuring Canadians were back working and we were going to be prosperous once again.

What the government is telling us in this budget, what the government is telling Canadians, is that it failed Canadians when it came to creating jobs. It is failing my constituents. It is failing his constituents when it does not generate enough jobs to ensure that folks are off employment insurance.

We know that at least 12% are unemployed, not 8.5%. If that is the number, then clearly the government's estimates are not only weak, they are wrong. What the member has not done is fulfill the promise he made to his constituents, which was the Conservatives would put jobs first and foremost. However, their finance minister says that unemployment is higher this year than last.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I really must encourage my colleague to step outside of his ivory tower and to look at the reality. Our Conservative government has helped to create over 135,000 jobs since July 2009 and we have saved 225,000 jobs through our expanded work-sharing program.

Budget 2010 talks about a retraining and workers' support program worth over $4 billion. Within that $4 billion, we are talking about investing $100 million to extend the maximum length for work-sharing agreements and even more interesting, offering over $100 million in support to young workers.

What could the member have against financial support for young workers to help them find jobs in these difficult economic times?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to join the debate on year two of Canada's economic action plan and support the budget tabled on March 4. We are at a key moment in history, as we emerge from the global recession, where we must maintain our commitment to the nation's economic recovery. We cannot stray from our course and risk the gains that we have made.

The focus of this year's budget on jobs and growth will help to address the needs in my riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. It is important to start by acknowledging the very difficult circumstances families and communities found themselves in over the last year. Through no fault of their own, the deepest global economic recession since the 1930s took its toll on cities both large and small.

One example that stands out in my mind is the community of Clearwater, which is located in the North Thompson Valley. With a population of 5,000, they enjoy living in a stunningly beautiful area in the interior of British Columbia. The residents rely on tourism, farming and the forestry industry for their livelihood and all these areas experienced significant challenges during the recession.

In July of last year, the community received the very difficult news that the mill was closing down indefinitely, affecting hundreds of employees. Long-tenured workers found themselves without employment. Families had to live with drastically reduced means and the impact resonated throughout the community, from the hockey rink to the local shops.

With fortitude of spirit, they have maintained optimism, searched for ways to diversify their economy and ensured that they leverage maximum support from the two years of our economic action plan. Funding from the community adjustment fund, the job opportunities program and RInC will create much needed jobs and build important infrastructure for the future. Job retraining, support for long-tenured workers and an extension of EI benefits have provided and will continue to provide necessary assistance for families.

This need for support will be transitional and the community remains confident that the forestry industry will turn around in the upcoming year. Therefore, maintaining the stimulus for a second year is of critical importance to help mitigate these difficult times.

We all recognize, however, that these measures are no replacement for a vibrant sector and economy. Clearwater is just one example of both the hardships faced in my communities and how our action plan has provided assistance. The story is similar in South Cariboo, Valemount and many of the small towns in the interior of British Columbia.

During the month of January, I engaged in an extensive public consultation throughout the riding in order to provide input into the budget process. This included meeting with local governments, seniors groups, chambers of commerce, students, the agricultural community and individual constituents. The input received recognized the significant challenges that the economy was facing and their suggestions were modest, practical and focused. It was with great pleasure last Thursday to see some of these specific concerns addressed effectively in the budget.

An important issue that I heard from the business community was that access to credit remained a significant challenge. I am pleased to hear that year two of the economic action plan will extend access financing through the business credit availability program and also the creation of the vehicle and equipment financing partnership.

Another example of an outstanding program made possible by our action plan was the $4.1 billion committed for social housing. I recently had the pleasure of announcing a contract for low-income housing for seniors. Using modular unit construction and pine beetle wood, a local Kamloops company will be building the units, which will be located in communities throughout the province. Not only will this support the forestry industry and much needed jobs, but it will provide an attractive and practical rural solution for low-income seniors who are experiencing housing challenges.

A less costly but no less important program is the increased funding for community futures. Representatives of small urban and rural communities in my riding said that they found great value in the program and were very happy to see this measure continue.

Agriculture is another important sector in my riding. With a proud history of ranching, our cattlemen have had to deal with many challenges over the last year, ranging from BSE to the recession. Our economic action plan last year provided $5.5 million in British Columbia for repairing pine beetle-damaged fence lines on Crown land. Additional support for the slaughter improvement program in this year's budget represents another area of critical funding.

The ultimate solution to ensure our hard-working ranchers survive these tough economic times requires increased demand for our beef and expansion in foreign markets. The Prime Minister's December 2009 announcement that Canadian beef exporters now have full access to the key market of Hong Kong, with an estimated value of $.5 billion, is a great start. This represents some of the important overseas trade negotiations that our government remains committed to.

In terms of mining, our government sees an opportunity for increased economic diversification. The extension of the mining exploration tax credit will help companies raise capital, modernizing the regulatory review process will support projects moving forward in a timely fashion and extra resources provided to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to support consultations with aboriginal communities is also imperative for moving forward on upcoming mining projects.

Budget 2010 recognizes the importance of returning to a balanced budget. Unlike the Liberal government in the 1990s, our strategy does not include simply shifting the burden to provinces and municipalities. We have committed to maintaining important social and health services and, in addition, we will not reverse the important gains and tax reductions that individuals and families have enjoyed.

We have established a three-point plan to return to a balanced budget and I would like to talk briefly about the strategy. Ending stimulus spending requires important timing and, although we are seeing important signs of recovery, we must remain focused on jobs and economic growth. In order to keep the momentum, we must fully implement the $19 billion in temporary stimulus. My earlier example of Clearwater is a prime illustration of the importance of continuing the stimulus.

Restraining spending, reviewing government operations and a few additional measures, such as closing tax loopholes, is anticipated to save $17.6 billion over five years. Many Canadians have had not only to live within their means over the past year, but in some cases they have had to significantly cut back. Private citizens expect the same of their government.

Freezing department budgets for 2010 and requiring the 1.5% negotiated wage increase to be found internally is a reasonable measure toward spending restraint. Measures such as a comprehensive review of all government administration and reduction in governor in council positions will ensure value for taxpayer dollars.

With the changing demographics, reductions through attrition will be less painful and the impact on our valued public service will be remarkably reduced. Who from British Columbia can forget black Friday when massive layoffs in the public sector resulted in the loss of many of our brightest and best? With creativity and ingenuity, departments will be able to adapt and continue to provide Canadians with the programs and services that we currently enjoy.

Of critical importance, our budget recognizes that we must create an environment where business will thrive. Lower taxes, free trade and the proposal to make Canada a tariff-free zone will all help businesses succeed.

I am very proud of our government's management of the global economic recession and I am relieved that although we are not comfortable with debt, it is at a manageable level and the envy of many around the world. Budget 2010 represents a strong plan that will lead the way on jobs and growth. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important budget and plan.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, since the member is new I want to give her a brief explanation of how Conservatives managed the economy.

In 2006, they inherited a $13.2 billion surplus, which carried over the following year to about $9 billion. Today, we find ourselves with a $56 billion deficit. When we add that up, it works out to over $70 billion in three and a half years that we have lost. That is really good management.

She talked about Clearwater and tourism. Why has her government punished the tourism industry? I was the parliamentary secretary when the Canadian Tourism Commission was created. It eliminated the GST rebate for tourists. The rebate helped tourism flourish. That is the first question.

She talked about how pleased she was with tax reductions. I want her dig back into her math class and tell me what is higher, 15% or 15.5%. Why I ask the question is as follows. We had the lowest tax rate of 15% for the average Canadian. In their budget, the Conservatives raised it to 15.5% and called it a tax reduction.

On page 52 of their budget, they say that they froze EI premiums. They have never dropped them but it says here that from 2000 to 2005 the rates were coming down. That was the Liberal administration. Then they froze them. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business says that over the next couple of years $30 billion in EI taxes will be slaughtered by the government.

I agree also with this statement, “It is one of those job killing taxes, a direct tax on employers and employees”, said by the Minister of Finance. Does she agree with that?