Debates of March 8th, 2010

Employment Insurance

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, happy International Women's Day.

I am also tabling in this chamber a petition calling for the passage of my bill, Bill C-343, which helps the victims of crime and their families by reducing the qualifying period for employment insurance—a real plan this time—and allowing the families of victims to take time off work and keep their job for an indeterminate period of time.

This petition was signed by more than 15 organizations and a number of municipalities in my riding and throughout Quebec. These signatures show that citizens are concerned about the plight of victims' families and that they want the government to act as quickly as possible.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today on behalf, not just of my constituents of Scarborough Centre, but also on behalf of the many concerned Canadians across the country. I will be splitting my time with the hard-working member for Random—Burin—St. George's.

One of my constituents visited me not too long ago and I would like to read what he said as I make my comments on the throne speech as well as the budget statement. When he uttered his words in my office, I could see the concern on his face and hear the fear in his voice. In response, I said to him that he was a constituent, a taxpayer, and a Canadian and that as such, he was entitled to his views. I asked if I could use his words in the House of Commons so I could convey, not just to the government but also to Canadians, exactly what constituents like him were thinking. He said okay, so today I am authorized to use the name of Mr. James Frandsen, a constituent who lives at 223 Ellendale Drive in Scarborough. He said, “If the Prime Minister can behave and do what he is doing while having a minority government, can you imagine what he will do if he had a majority government?” That is a direct quote from James Frandsen.

Imagine the concern that people have.

The other day we heard the budget and the throne speech the day before. The budget was based on nothing but assumptions about this and that. It was based on assumptions. If someone told me I would grow a lot of hair if I drank a lot of water, that is an assumption. I have been drinking a lot of water for many years, but instead of growing hair I have been losing hair.

The Conservatives also assume that by trying to tamper with our national anthem, they could divert the attention of Canadians. That backfired also.

The budget could be called the misleading budget. Throughout the short 10 minutes that I have, I will point out specific examples of what I mean not just by a budget that misleads Canadians, but also about it being inaccurate. I use the word “inaccurate” and not others because, often, when we ask questions from this side of the House, the government members stand up and tell us that we did nothing during our 13 years in government. I will refer to that in a couple of minutes.

When we ask questions about the budget, the Conservative members do not answer. They simply say, “read the budget”. I know all Liberal members have been reading the budget. Some of them will read it twice again, and the more they look into it, the more loopholes they discover, as I have. I am going to point out the discrepancies that I referred to.

The finance minister said:

deficits are a cancer; the accumulating total national debt progressively limits the government's freedom to act.

So true. We agree with that, and that is why in 1993, when we inherited the largest deficit ever of just over $42 billion dollars, a growing debt, high unemployment, and a nation that was down and out from the then Conservative government of Prime Minister Mulroney, we addressed the cancer that the Minister of Finance referred to. We did so in a responsible way, and we did it by consulting with Canadians from coast to coast.

What was the result? The result in a short three and a half years was that the deficit was eliminated. We provided eight consecutive balanced budgets and surpluses never seen before in the history of our country. We had the longest uninterrupted economic growth in the history of our country. Those are facts that nobody can dispute.

At the end of the day, when we stand up, the Conservatives tell us that we did nothing. For us to appreciate where we are today, we have to take a step back. The first throne speech of the Conservative government was basically six pages, and maybe about 13 or 14 minutes, long.

I will quote the throne speech because it is very important. It states:

Through hard work, foresight and good fortune, we have come together to make our vast country one of the most successful the world has ever seen.

The Conservatives had just become government and they admitted in their throne speech that we were one of the most successful countries in the world. How did they do that in less than 10 days in government? They obviously inherited it from the hard work that the Martin Liberal government brought forth.

Then the Conservatives went on to say that the government was proud of what Canadians had accomplished so far. That was in their own words. This was right after they won the election on 2006. When they stand and say that the Liberals did nothing in those years, then what were they so proud of?

I now will go to the second throne speech, which was seven and a half minutes, a very nice looking pamphlet. I think it took a couple of minutes to read it. The throne speech, page 2, says:

Our Government approached the dialogue in a spirit of open and non-partisan cooperation...Acting on the constructive thoughts and suggestions that have been received, our Government will tomorrow present Canada’s economic stimulus plan.

That was the poison pill of the century. They ask us why we are upset as members of Parliament and as a party. We all know very well what happened with that presentation. It was a premeditated and deliberate attempt to shut down the opposition and democracy, to take away the tools that are necessary to run a democratic country.

We come to the throne speech of the other day. It was almost an hour, three times longer in time and words than the two previous ones. What it adds up to is a lot of rehashing of everything that has taken place in the last three and a half years since the Conservatives have been in government.

For example, it talks about expanding our trade associations, the Colombia trade agreement, Panama, trade with Europe. This is old news. The Conservatives are not telling us anything new. They talk about the $100 child benefit. This is old news. The $100, if I may elaborate for a moment, works out to about $65 a month for only children under six. Try to address a child's needs with less than $2 a day.

Then the Conservatives talk about food safety. We all know what happened with listeriosis, and they did nothing. How did they address it? They state that the government “will hold those who produce, import and sell goods in Canada accountable for the safety of Canadians”. How will they do that when all they did was cut those programs, staff and resources? I do not know how they will do it.

It is odd because the current Minister of Finance was also minister in the Harris government. I am sure he remembers what happened in Walkerton. I do not know how they will protect Canadians.

Since I have only one minute, I will summarize. I found this old article. It states that the Prime Minister's tactics mislead voters. Today this throne speech is misleading Canadians once again because of false data, because of false information. The Conservatives talk about our debt to GDP going down. In essence, it is going up. They talk about our debt going down. It is not. It is going up. They talk about other nations, saying we are going to move forward. They also talk about how the debt to GDP ratio of all our major trading partners, the United Kingdom, the U.S., Japan, et cetera, is going up. If theirs is going up, where is the economic stimulus that is going to generate revenue for us to eliminate the deficit? I know how the government is going to eliminate the deficit. It promised 50-some-odd billion dollars in stimulus and it used coded words such as allocated, assigned, et cetera. The money is never getting out.

It is a very misleading presentation. I hope I have another round to talk about this. There is a lot of data that I wish to put out.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must admit to being a little confused by the member's speech. Perhaps I missed it. The Liberals like to talk about Brian Mulroney and the Conservative government a lot, but I must have missed it when the 1993 elected Liberal government cancelled the GST. Perhaps I missed the free trade agreement with the United States that it cancelled, or the North American free trade agreement that it cancelled. I must have missed all of those things, or was it just that it took over every single economic thing the previous Conservative government did to recover from years of Liberal mismanagement and ran with it?

He talks about cuts. We all know it is very easy to cut the budget on the backs of the provinces like the Liberal government did. We all know that it cut $25 billion in transfers. Thank goodness we have people like the member for Dufferin—Caledon and our Minister of Finance, who dealt with that situation when the Liberal government simply transferred their debt onto all the provinces.

The Liberals did not cut their own spending. They did not look at their own health. They just transferred the responsibility onto a different level of government because they never had the courage to deal with the problems themselves.

That is why Canadians threw them out of office. That is why Canada, under the leadership of the current Prime Minister, now leads the world. That is why we are creating jobs. That is why our economy is starting to turn around. That is why, in the second year of the economic action plan, more countries all over the world would change places with Canada in a second. They are excited by what Canada is doing. They are studying what Canada is doing because we are a successful country. Unlike the members opposite, we know that Canada's best days are ahead of us.

I must have missed where the Liberals voted against all the budgets and throne speeches that we have presented since coming to office. As far as I know, they voted for every one of those budgets and the economic action plan. Good for them. That is what Canadians want: a focus on jobs. That is what we are doing and that is what we are giving them.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member would not have missed anything if he were running for the Liberals at that time. I would be glad to give him a red book. I would be glad to show him where it says that we would replace the GST with an equally revenue-generating country.

This country does not run on thin air. It takes money. There is a price for civility and that is contribution to the treasury. We need to have revenue. If that member thinks otherwise, he is living in la-la land. This is a challenge. I would be more than happy to debate the member publicly in his riding and deal with the facts. I would be prepared to do that at any time, putting his seat on the line against my seat.

In his legacy of broken promises, the Prime Minister said that there was no greater fraud than a promise not kept. This was in the Prime Minister's proclamations literature. It goes on to talk about all the broken promises: fixed election dates, the Senate, the refusal to transfer the $6.9 billion to Ontario, hospital wait times, an elected Senate, Kelowna and the income trust.

The list goes on and on. According to his own brochure, this Prime Minister is a fraud. In conclusion, he cannot be trusted. Those are the facts.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my Liberal counterpart has mentioned many things that are wrong with the budget. We in the NDP agree with him. We think this is a bad budget. It does not do very much for individual Canadians. It does a lot for those companies that are making record profits right now. They will make even more down the road, yet average Canadians are going to have it quite difficult.

We either say yes to something or we say no to something in the House. That is called our vote. When it comes time to vote for the budget, will he and every member of the Liberal Party be in their seats voting yes or voting no against the budget?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe this Liberal team will act responsibly for the country in these trying and difficult times. The last thing we want to do is plunge this nation into an unnecessary election.

We will stand here to fight. We will stand here to point out the discrepancies and misinformation that the government puts out. We will not go to an election just for the sake of having an election. We will go to an election when it is the right time to go to one.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today to respond to the budget, particularly today on International Women's Day.

Without a doubt this budget was a resounding disappointment. The Prime Minister indicated he needed an opportunity to refocus his government and suspended Parliament for six weeks to do so. Canadians had high expectations. Canadian families are still reeling from the recession and were looking to the government for initiatives that would help stabilize the economy, create jobs and increase productivity.

The Conservative government has failed to do anything about the jobless recovery the country is currently experiencing. Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page tell us there are 400,000 more unemployed today than in 2008 and people are staying unemployed longer. Youth unemployment is double the average national unemployment rate.

For many communities around Canada sustainable full-time jobs have been replaced by lower paying, unsustainable part-time jobs. With the loss of 300,000 jobs and the rise in unemployment forecasted in the federal budget, Canadians are wondering what exactly it was the Prime Minister meant when he said he needed to recalibrate.

This budget contains $13 billion in payroll tax on small business. We all know that small business is the engine of growth in small communities in particular. Naturally those small businesses will think twice about hiring. There is a very real possibility of a further loss of 200,000 jobs because this short-sighted measure.

Jobs are hard to come by in small rural communities at best, especially when those communities bear the brunt of the recession.

The health of any economy is measured by the degree of employment. I have only to look at the province of Newfoundland and Labrador where the unemployment rate is approximately 15% and even higher in my own riding of Random—Burin—St. George's where it is approximately 24% to know that we are indeed in a jobless recovery. Extra measures need to be taken to help create employment opportunities for Canadians.

Many families in the riding of Random—Burin—St. George's, for instance, know only too well about having to leave home and go to work elsewhere in the country. This should not be about that. This should be about creating employment opportunities in the place where Canadians live.

I fail to understand how a government cannot see the benefits of having people employed. Employment means paying taxes to the treasury. Unemployment means receiving benefits from the unemployment program administered by the government or, if an individual is not eligible for unemployment benefits, relying on the provincial government for benefits from the social programs it administers.

Not only is the health of the economy measured by the degree of employment, but the health of Canadians is affected by employment. It is well known that people who have a job are healthier and in a better frame of mind overall than someone who is unemployed and clearly stressed because of it.

This budget is very evasive about where the cuts will fall. On this side of the House, we suggested the government start with the $1.2 billion in wasteful spending that has gone into partisan public relations, advertising and self-promotion. The government has spent well over $100 million for economic action plan ads alone, funds that could be far more effectively distributed to assist vulnerable Canadians.

I would sincerely hope that instead of cutting valuable programs that help Canadians the government would cut their own waste first.

One of the ports of call for Marine Atlantic is in my riding. Everyone associated with the service provided by Marine Atlantic has been asking for funding that will allow the organization to implement a long-term plan. Even the Auditor General is on record indicating the ferry service is at risk because of its aging fleet which leaves it unreliable. In fact, the Auditor General was very specific and said that $1.6 billion would be required to meet the challenges confronting Marine Atlantic.

Marine Atlantic is a critical part of Atlantic Canada's transportation system and essential to Newfoundland and Labrador's economic well-being and the well-being of the people of the province who have no choice but to rely on the service for fresh produce and other necessities.

While I am pleased to see that marine Atlantic was mentioned in this year's budget after being ignored last year, I am concerned that the funding provided does little to address these long-term needs. The government has been told repeatedly of the need to replace the fleet that services marine Atlantic and the need for infrastructure improvement but it has not acknowledged the need for a long-term plan.

While $175 million over two years is welcome news, there is no indication in the budget of the $1.6 billion stated by the Auditor General as the investment required to address the shortcomings in marine Atlantic in its current form. Clearly, if $1.6 billion are required to fix the service so it will not be at risk, as stated by the Auditor General, without it the risk will continue to exist and the fear is this essential service will continue to deteriorate.

The shipbuilding industry is an important component of the economy of the Atlantic provinces. Budget 2009 did little for the industry with $175 million, and the 2010 budget does little more. Because of the timing of contracts, the federal government will spend $82 million this year on shipbuilding and another $93 million next year.

However, there is the outstanding question that remains in the minds of the people of the Burin Peninsula in particular in my riding about the contract that the government was ready to award just hours before the last federal election. It was a $2.9 billion contract for the construction of three joint supply ships for the Canadian navy. The contract would have meant 700 jobs over eight or nine years in a rural area of the country where jobs are scarce and it would have been at the shipyard in Marystown in my riding that has a reputation for doing excellent work, on time and on budget. The contract itself is for $2.1 billion and, associated with it, was an $800 million 20-year service contract. To quote the mayor of Marystown, “Getting the contract would make Marystown's economy rock like a continuous AC/DC concert”.

What happened to the contract to build those joint supply ships for the Canadian navy? At the time the contract was cancelled, the federal Minister of Public Works and Government Services said that the price shipbuilders wanted to build new vessels was more than anticipated. However, according to one of the shipbuilders involved in the bidding, the decision to cancel the bidding process shows that the government is not keeping up with industry price increases. This is problematic when the involvement of the federal government is crucial to the health of the shipbuilding industry in the country.

The government continues to ignore the industries that play a vital role in the economy of Atlantic Canada. Once again we see the fisheries being shortchanged by the Conservative government. The only mention of the fisheries is the funding to ensure the seafood industry maintains access to the key markets around the world through the new catch certification office. This is included because the European Union introduced a new regulation which requires exporting countries to provide catch certificates attesting that marine fish and seafood products are legally harvested. If it were not for the European Union regulations, there would be no mention of the fisheries, an industry that has been looking to the federal government to work with it to restructure the industry.

I have enormous pride for the many residents of Random—Burin—St. George's who are currently serving our nation and the world through the Canadian military. From my riding alone there are 820 men and women serving in all sectors of the Canadian Forces. Our veterans are the heroes of our nation. We owe it to them to listen to their concerns and ensure they receive the help and support that they and their families deserve and need when they return from active duty. One in five veterans who are suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome will attempt suicide.

Tremendous challenges face modern-day veterans and their families. These are the men and women who put their lives on the line for the safety of Canadians and the future of democracy around the world. They need our help.

How could the government not respond to some of the issues that previous speakers have raised and are in keeping with the same issues that I have raised here today but can continue to spend money on promoting Canada's economic action plan, spend money on travel around the country by the Minister of Finance to promote the budget, and the list goes on.

With Canada's aging population in the midst of a pension crisis, Canadians look to the government for action. Instead, we get a seniors day.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I share my colleague's pride in our Canadian military.

As I was listening to my colleague's comments about the job factor in this budget, I wondered if she had gotten hold of one of Paul Martin's old budgets because she seems to have missed the fact that our finance minister has pumped another $19 billion of new stimulus into our economy to create and protect jobs.

I want to just bring her attention to the fact that we are putting $2.2 billion into targeted support to industries and communities to help create and maintain jobs in sectors such as forestry, agriculture, small business, tourism and culture. How can she not support us in that? We are putting $1.9 billion in R and D to develop and attract--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would like to give the hon. member a chance to respond. The hon. member for Random--Burin--St. George's.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Madam Speaker, the reality is that even the Minister of Finance is predicting an increase in unemployment rates. We will go from 8.2% to 8.5% under the Conservatives' watch.

In the riding of Random--Burin--St. George's, a mill closed in Stephenville that put 300 people out of work. I can tell the House of examples throughout my riding and throughout the country where, under the watch of the present government, people have gone on the unemployment line. They are hurting and the government is doing absolutely nothing about it.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, Liberal after Liberal has spoken today against the budget.

Will the hon. member and her colleagues show up and vote against the budget or will they sit on their hands and vote against Canadian women, Canadian children and our Canadian seniors?

I want to assure the Conservatives on the other side that the Liberals are supporting the budget.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Madam Speaker, let me assure my hon. colleague that this is one member who will be voting against the budget. I can assure him as well that we will do what is in the best interests of the Canadian people and Canadians from coast to coast to coast are telling us that the last thing they want is a federal election.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague talked a bit about Marine Atlantic, an essential transportation link for Newfoundland and Labrador and for the rest of Canada in ensuring goods and services and the free flow of trade. Over the last number of years, we have known serious problems with Marine Atlantic and there is a small stipend in this budget to address the problems.

Does my colleague think it is enough and, if it is not enough, how much more is required to ensure we have proper service in Newfoundland and Labrador?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Madam Speaker, my colleague understands totally the situation that Marine Atlantic finds itself in.

Where have we ever heard an Auditor General come out and say that an organization needs a certain amount of money? The Auditor General is saying that Marine Atlantic needs $1.6 billion just to maintain the service or else the service is at serious risk of not being able to provide the service for which it was intended.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry and the hon. member for Burlington.

I am very proud to stand here today as the hon. member for Cambridge, North Dumfries and as Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario) to outline new investments in the science and technology sector that underscore the government's solid continued commitment to developing Canada's economy of tomorrow. Even as we continues to face challenging economic times, our government recognizes that Canada's future prosperity depends on our collective capacity to innovate and compete.

Science and technology creates jobs, improves the quality of life of Canadians and people around the world and it strengthens our economy for future generations. There can be no doubt that the government has a long-standing, unparalleled, extremely strong commitment to science and technology.

We realized and released our science and technology strategy mobilizing science and technology to Canada's advantage in 2007. In every federal budget since that time, including this year, the Conservative government has increased science and technology investment.

Science and technology investments included in the budget 2010 economic action plan, phase two, build upon the more than new $7 billion in science and technology funding that the government pledged in budgets in 2006, 2007, 2008 and, of course, as part of Canada's 2009 economic action plan.

This year, 2009-10, our government's annual budget will reach a record $10.7 billion for science and technology.

As members can see, we have increased funding for Canada's research granting councils since 2005 budgets by more than 20%. No country in the G7, including the United States, is better at supporting higher education research and development as a percentage of GDP than Canada.

I want to take a few moments to think through and read how budget 2010 builds on our science and technology strategy. With the current budget, we continue to demonstrate our commitment to build a talent advantage in science and technology through support for the best educated and most skilled workforce on the planet. This budget will increase the federal granting councils' combined annual budgets by $32 million per year. We will also add $8 million per year, as we have been requested to do by the universities, to the indirect costs of research programs to help Canadian universities, colleges and research hospitals absorb the additional activity resulting from the increases to our granting councils' budgets.

Budget 2010 will also provide another $45 million to the granting councils to establish a flagship Canada post-doctoral fellowship program that will retain and attract global research talent and leaders to Canada. When fully implemented, this new program will annually fund about 140 new two-year post-doctoral fellowships valued at $70,000 each per year, which is, by all accounts, the most attractive post-doctoral program in the world. This program builds on our support for Canada graduate scholarships, for the Canadian apprenticeship program and for the Vanier graduate scholarships to cover the full spectrum of support for the development of high quality research talent.

Budget 2010 also offers increased support to strengthen our knowledge advantage in specific areas of advanced science and technology, including: $222 million in funding over five years to support research and commercialization activities at TRIUMF, Canada's premier laboratory for nuclear and particle physics; $75 million to Genome Canada to allow it to launch a new research competition and sustain funding for the regional genomics innovation centres; and 45 million new dollars over two years for research and development relating to medical isotopes.

Budget 2010 also takes steps to strengthen Canada's entrepreneurial advantage, to encourage greater private sector performance in research, development and innovation. This is crucial to build Canada's economy of tomorrow. Our private sector must now adopt these initiatives and drive innovation, and we will compete. We will win in the new global economy.

We are the first federal government to recognize the value so significantly in colleges. Given the important role that colleges play in enhancing innovation in Canada, we have doubled the annual budget of the college and community innovation program by providing an additional $15 million per year to support additional research collaborations between businesses and colleges. This follows last year's incredibly successful investment in the CIP and the massive boost to the CFI's budget.

Further, our government provides $40 million over two years for small-sized and medium-sized enterprises through the innovation commercialization program, a pilot initiative through which federal departments and agencies will adopt and demonstrate the use of innovative prototype products and technologies developed by our small-sized and medium-sized businesses.

The budget goes on to support innovation in many other ways, by renewing and making ongoing $48 million in annual funding for the regional development agencies to support local innovation all across Canada.

Budget 2010 further provides $397 million over five years to the Canadian Space Agency to develop the RADARSAT constellation mission, the next generation, the leading generation of technology in the world of advanced radar remote sat sensing devices.

This type of critical investment builds on our ability to protect Canada and remain at the forefront of advanced technology in space and support our government's policies in the Arctic.

Finally, budget 2010 provides $135 million over two years to the National Research Council's regional innovation clusters, plus $8 million over two years to extend the international science and technology partnerships program, again to promote collaborative research and development activities with our international partners.

Our government continues to demonstrate an unparalleled and unprecedented strong commitment to our science and tech community to make Canada a world leader in science, technology and innovation. To suggest otherwise is to not have done the research.

I look forward to working with my parliamentary colleagues and all Canadians to create the economy of tomorrow in which Canada can realize its vast potential as a world leader in science, technology and innovation.

In closing, over the last few months I have had the opportunity to conduct many roundtables all across southern Ontario, consulting with business leaders, municipal leaders, community leaders, scientists and researchers, and on, on how best to conduct phase two of our economic action plan.

In my own riding of Cambridge and North Dumfries, I have received dozens of emails, letters and phone calls, and through my website even more information. I want to thank everyone who took the time to submit and share their thoughts with me. This has been very helpful in the development of the throne speech and the budget. It is very heartwarming to see so many ideas show up in this budget.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague talk about investments in research, innovation and clean energy.

I have a concern that I would like to discuss with this House about the investments that are not taking place in innovation. I noted with interest in last year's budget that there was actually a cut of $148 million in actual bench work that is going on. This is not investment in infrastructure for science. This is actually bench work. This is people actually doing the science. I am quite concerned.

I know the Conservatives have added back $32 million of that $148 million cut. This is a serious concern. Canada is slipping in its innovation agenda. I would like to ask the hon. member for his reassurance and a commitment.

The other thing is the cancellation of ecoEnergy program for renewable power production. How does he see this as being a benefit to Canada when we are looking at an innovation agenda and the jobs of tomorrow?

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for allowing me the opportunity to clarify her figures. The fact is $148 million is absolutely false. What members opposite have done is added up year one with year two and year one, then with year three, year two and year one. The number is absolutely incorrect.

We have increased funding to the granting councils on average by 20%. All of the money that was in fact correctly taken back under a strategic review was put back into the granting councils. All that money went back to the granting councils. The member's figures are wrong.

The final point I would like to make is that when the concept of a strategic review was brought up in the House, not one member on the Liberal side stood to object to it.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to read the last line of page 96 in this budget:

Increasing foreign investment is an important way of strengthening market competition and attracting new capital and innovative ideas from abroad.

I would like to speak about just three companies: one is U.S. Steel, that the government is taking to court; the other one is Vale Inco, that is refusing to negotiate with employees in Sudbury and wants to implement its third world ideologies on these workers; and the third one is Xstrata, that is raping the natural resources by high-grading the ore under our feet.

With the conditions that these foreign companies bring to Canada and our workers, why would we want more foreign companies to invest in Canada?

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Obviously, Madam Speaker, the member and I differ on this idea of free trade and freer trade with other companies around the world. It is the goal of this government to invest strongly in science and technology as we have done. We have provided $2.2 billion in our first three budgets and $5 billion last year.

In fact, the whole idea of creating jobs for Canadians is to invite companies to come to Canada, to set up shop here, to create jobs here, to take the discoveries that our scientists make, and get those discoveries out to the factory floor where workers can earn a good wage in a highly paid job, and best of all, get those technologies built and sold to the marketplace so that Canadians can benefit from those discoveries, so that people around the world can benefit from those discoveries.

I think of a company in the Waterloo region, Bend All, that received an investment from this government, repayable. As a result of that investment, it has brought its workers back from the United Kingdom. Manufacturing jobs are coming back to Canada.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, in 2000 the Liberal government of the day announced the Atlantic innovation fund, $300 million over five years. It was renewed in 2005, $300 million over five years, $60 million a year. The budget announced that it is now down below $19 million from $60 million. In fact, we do not even know how much it is because it is combined with the innovative communities fund, a different fund for different kind of work, not for research. So--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I will have to give the hon. minister of state 20 seconds to respond.