Debates of March 9th, 2010

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with the member that it is important to know where we have been to know where we are going and have our plan for the future.

I would like the hon. member to respond to the fact that upon taking power, our government did handle the surplus in a very prudent way. We paid down the debt. We paid it down by $40 billion, which prepared the way for us to have capacity in spending money during this global economic downturn.

The record of the Liberals that I would like to point out is the more than $500 million that was handed to friends of the Liberal Party in Quebec through the sponsorship scandal, and how their handling of that was so-called good fiscal management.

I would like to ask the member, if planning is such a priority in knowing where we are going, the Canadian people have yet to hear what her party's plan is for our country. Could she respond to that, please?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I will not get into talking about Mr. Mulroney, Airbus and scandals, because what Canadians want us to do is talk about serious issues such as the $56 billion deficit and what is the plan.

Just to remind the hon. member, with all due respect, his party is the government. The Conservatives are the ones who are in power right now. They are the ones who handle the budget. It is up to them to make the plan.

We can stand on our track record and be very proud of it. When we got into office in 1993 there was a $42 billion deficit left by the Conservatives. We dealt with that. We worked with Canadians. Canadians tightened their belts, and yes, it was a tough time, but let me tell you, it will be tough the next time too.

I would like to know what exact cuts you are planning to do to deal with a deficit that is probably going to be double what it was when we got into power.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I just remind the hon. member to make her comments through the Chair and not directly to her colleagues.

The member for Elmwood—Transcona has enough time for a short question.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again we have a government and a Prime Minister here who are basically like ostriches with their heads in the sand, doing things that do not work as opposed to doing things that do work.

For example, the home renovation tax credit, which the Conservatives made much hay out of last year, was a very successful program. What did they do? They cancelled the program. I would like to ask the member whether she agrees that the government's approach is totally wrong in that sense.

In addition, the government promised to look at pension reform. There is nothing in the budget on pension reform. The Nortel workers are still standing out there in the cold. We want to know why the government is not acting.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member raised the issue on the pension front in particular. The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act is a federal responsibility. Amending that act could be done very quickly. It would help thousands of people whose pensions are in jeopardy today. That would not cost the government any money. It certainly would help to protect many of the pensioners out there.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from York West for sharing her time with me. She spoke eloquently about the budget, and I too would like to add my voice to the debate.

This budget does not look at the challenges of our times and it is not a budget the Liberals can support. Therefore, my colleagues and I will be voting against it. However, we will be responsible in opposing it to ensure that Canadians are not burdened with an unwanted election. We will work very hard to provide an alternative, and my remarks today will speak to that. I will identify some areas of concern and provide some alternatives.

The question is: How did we get here today, this March 9? How did we arrive at this point, where the Conservatives had to resort to a sideshow of proposing changes to O Canada simply to distract from the fact they took three months off to present a budget that is simply the status quo? Back in December 2009, the government was being rocked by the Afghan detainee controversy and was desperate to avoid accountability. When confronted with serious allegations, the Prime Minister decided to do what he does best: he shut things down.

In fact, when asked about the Prime Minister's strategy behind prorogation, his former chief of staff, Tom Flanagan, said:

I think...the government's talking points really don't have much credibility. Everybody knows that Parliament was prorogued in order to shut down the Afghan inquiry, and the trouble is that the government doesn't want to explain why that was necessary. Personally I think it was highly defensible action, but instead of having an adult defence of it, the government comes up with these childish talking points. So then you try and backfill with other stuff that doesn't make much sense either. So it's a self-created problem.

That is a quotation of the Prime Minister's former adviser Tom Flanagan. There were rallies across this country against prorogation. Regardless of political affiliation, people came out and expressed their concerns. Over 220,000 Canadians went onto Facebook to present their concerns with regard to why Parliament was shut down.

On January 25, the Liberals came back to the House of Commons. We were willing to work, and we did work. We organized a series of round tables on a range of issues that matter to Canadians. We wanted to listen to Canadians. We had an open and inclusive process to engage people, as opposed to the Prime Minister, who shut things down, including debate. We had over 30 round table discussions.

Why do we not support this budget? There are a lot of reasons, but there are a few issues I would like to speak to that pertain to my constituency of Mississauga—Brampton South. The number one priority in my riding is jobs. People are concerned day in and day out about finding jobs. We needed a real plan. Instead, the government in this budget again reaffirmed that it was going to increase payroll taxes by $13 billion.

This is a job killer, as numerous independent sources have said. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, CFIB, did a study and said that this would kill over 220,000 jobs. It is also another broken promise. The government is raising payroll taxes, killing jobs, increasing taxes again and misleading Canadians about it. It is being intellectually dishonest.

The Liberal Party, as opposed to simply opposing the government and being a protest party, put forward three concrete proposals. First, we were going to support manufacturers by providing a cash advance on capital cost allowances to help manufacturers purchase new equipment. This is very important when it comes to our productivity and innovation agenda. Small and medium size businesses and large corporations need to invest in machinery and equipment to become more productive and more innovative. Thus, the cash advance was a necessary tool and would enable them to create more jobs.

The second initiative we put forward was to tackle the worst youth unemployment in a generation by introducing a financial incentive to hire young Canadians, giving companies the ability to use the tax system and providing them with the incentives to hire young people. We have an unprecedented unemployment rate, but it is almost three times as high in my riding of Mississauga—Brampton South. Close to 20% of the youth in my riding are unemployed. This would have been a key initiative in hiring young Canadians looking for jobs.

We would also encourage investment in startup companies by introducing additional tax measures for Canadians who invest in entrepreneurs and startup companies, especially in emerging sectors such as clean energy and the life sciences. We already have an amazing cluster of life sciences in Mississauga—Brampton South, so we already have the basic infrastructure. This would provide additional incentives to companies in my riding and across the country to make the investments necessary to have the jobs of tomorrow.

The other issue not addressed in this budget and that is a cause of concern, which the hon. member for York West has been working so hard day in and day out to advocate for, is pensions. Canada has changing demographics, but the budget offers nothing on pensions except for further consultations. If the government had its way, it would be consulting Canadians for the next 10 to 15 years without making any concrete proposals. Again, the Liberal Party is not simply going to oppose the consultations, but has provided a set of solutions.

The Liberal Party included three specific proposals on pensions in its reform package. First was to create a supplementary Canada pension plan to help Canadians save more. We want to use the CPP as a vehicle to enable Canadians to have the savings and pensions necessary to live with dignity. Second was to give employees with stranded pensions following corporate bankruptcies the option of growing their pensions through the assets of the Canada pension plan. Third was to protect vulnerable Canadians on long-term disability by giving them preferred status as creditors in cases of bankruptcy. Again, these are all initiatives on which the hon. member for York West has been working hard, and are proposals put forward by the Liberal Party to the government in a letter sent prior to the budget.

The Liberal Party gave the government advance notice before the latter put together the budget. We had round table discussions and engaged Canadians. We said, here are some concrete proposals we would like to see in the budget. Unfortunately, the government again ignored the proposals.

Another area that stands out as a cause of concern to many Canadians is the environment and the government's policy since being elected of really denying the science of climate change and, ultimately, having no action plan. This budget completely ignores climate change initiatives and cuts up to $50 million in funding from Environment Canada.

The Liberal Party has again put forward proposals here, a plan to restore Canada's leadership on climate change, with a target of quadrupling Canada's production of renewable energy by 2017. It is about clean energy, green jobs, the jobs of today and tomorrow, and creating an environment where children can breathe clean air and drink clean water. It makes good economic and environmental sense. The Liberal Party does not treat environmental policy in silos; it thinks that environmental sustainability is very much a part of Canada's economic turnaround.

Again, the Conservatives have failed on that front. It is something that is very important to note as well.

The next area that stood out in the budget as another cause of concern is early learning. Note again that I am speaking mostly from my experiences in my constituency and of the issues raised by people who write to me and call me.

Early learning and child care are not simply about day care spaces; they are about lifelong learning and giving young people the ability and tools to succeed. I have a two and a half year old daughter and am expecting a second baby pretty soon. I am very fortunate and blessed to have young kids. I wish that in my constituency, they and other kids would have a greater opportunity for early learning and child care initiatives, including more spaces. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

When the government came into power, it tore up the agreement signed by Paul Martin, the former Prime Minister. He had worked with all of the provinces and territories to put forward an agenda to create the framework for early learning and child care.

In my constituency in 2008, for every 1,000 children up to the age of 12, there were only 10.5 licensed child care spaces available in the region of Peel. Imagine, there are 1,000 kids and only 10.5 spaces available. What a large disparity, and it is a cause of concern as well.

The other area I would like to mention very briefly is immigration. It is a major issue in my constituency and across the country. Again, it is an economic driver. The government thinks it is simply a matter of a song and dance. Government members will go to cut a few ribbons, give a few speeches and dance around. It is much more than that. It is about making substantial investments in Canada's immigration system so we can provide additional resources for application processing, provide more support for immigrant settlement, and increase the number of permanent residents that Canada accepts.

I want indicate very clearly the resulting savings, because I have put forward a bunch of proposals that I think the government should have included in the budget. There is government waste that could have been eliminated in order to put forward a plan to help create jobs. Approximately $1.2 billion worth of savings could have been included in the budget if the Conservatives had done the following: if the government had restored departmental spending on transport and communications to 2005-06 levels by $820 million, and curtailed the use of management consultants, which would have saved $355 million. If the government had rolled back the expenses of the Privy Council Office, that would have been another $31 million. The list goes on and on.

Thus we have put forward proposals, but we have also identified government waste. This is a fundamental difference between us and the government, and that is why we will be opposing this budget.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I found the speech of the member opposite somewhat disturbing when he talked about the House being prorogued for three months. I am not sure how his calendar reads, but my calendar reads that we were to be back here on January 25. That left a very short period of time when we were actually prorogued.

The second thing he talked about, of course, was the Afghan issue as a result of prorogation. I would like to point out that the Afghan committee is still in place and members will still have the opportunity to ask those questions.

I am concerned about what my colleague brought up. There is also the Liberal scandal that resulted in the Gomery inquiry.

However, why would the member vote against providing $30 million in the budget for youth skills and helping young Canadians? He actually talked about helping youth, but now he is going to vote against the budget.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to prorogation, I find it ironic that the government is still trying to defend that ill-advised move when it shut down Parliament to avoid accountability on the Afghan inquiry. Clearly the Conservatives are still running away from and avoiding being accountable on this important issue. More important, there are advisers like Tom Flanagan, the former advisor to the Prime Minister, who have clearly indicated that the Conservative government was shying away from accountability.

However, I want to talk about the government's record of mismanagement because it is an example of the question the member asked.

We sent out a press release not too long ago entitled, “Conservatives admit job creation funds held back when Canadians needed it most”. It basically outlined $874 million of unspent money in the $2 billion infrastructure stimulus fund; $186 million unspent in the $200 million green infrastructure fund; and $240 million unspent in the $495 million fund for provincial and territorial-based funding. These are examples of mismanagement and incompetence.

The government asks why we are not supporting this budget. Aside from the whole range of examples I gave of the budget not dealing with the job crisis and helping the middle class, this is a clear example of mismanagement. The government is trying to shy away from the real issues, and that is why it is important for Canadians to see these numbers.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was particularly interested in the member's comments on the supposed productivity and innovation agenda. I think about what is going on in Halifax and across Canada and the fact that free trade, corporate tax cuts and deregulation were really supposed to solve the problem, but have not. In fact, our productivity has dropped. What they have done is really reinforced our dependence on natural resources. We are the hewers of wood, the drawers of water and the pumpers of oil.

Innovation, by definition, actually means experimenting. It means promoting diversification in our economy. When I think of Halifax and the incredible thinkers and innovators there, none of this money is going to them. It is going to the tar sands.

Would the member agree that a real strategy for innovation would provide direct support to entrepreneurs and the communities they are a part of? Would a real strategy nurture them in early experimentation and help them network with other centres?

A real strategy would provide basic infrastructure, including social infrastructure like access to family security and other strategies, to ensure that we have a cutting edge economy.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt there needs to be a clear strategy on innovation. This government does a great job at spin and with gimmicks. However, there was no substance around the innovation agenda.

There is an absolutely tremendous opportunity going forward when it comes to the innovation agenda, specifically in terms of jobs. That is a key priority for us on this side of the House. We put forward concrete proposals that would help move that agenda forward and help devise a strategy going forward.

I mentioned three concrete proposals in my remarks. One was a cash advance on the capital cost allowance to allow companies to buy the equipment they need, so they can be more innovative and productive. That obviously would help the innovation agenda as well. The second proposal was to get our young people involved, the ones who have ideas and energy, via the youth employment tax credit.

It is a cause of concern that although innovation strategy is based on education, the government has cut funding time and time again when it comes to education.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to budget 2010. I am also pleased to tell you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission.

In 2009 Canada's government presented Canadians with a viable long-term economic action plan. This side of the House has been endlessly working to deliver that plan to Canadians. Our budget has and continues to be great for my riding of Oxford and Canadians, young and old alike.

Since 2009, Oxford alone has been the recipient of over $26 million in federal funding for multiple programs and initiatives, varying from social housing projects to the upkeep of our national trail system.

I would like to tell the House what one of the mayors in riding had to say about budget 2010. Tillsonburg mayor Stephen Molnar was glad to see a commitment to continue with infrastructure funding for municipalities. He also welcomed the continuation of the federal gas tax funding, calling the distribution transparent, equitable and sustainable. Molnar noted that the way the program was set up there was no competition between neighbours or prioritization to larger urban centres, which he saw as a positive. Mayor Molnar also saw possibilities for technology funding that could work into economic efforts the town of Tillsonburg was pursuing.

This new budget is the right one for the times for Tillsonburg, for my riding and for Canadians.

One simply needs to fly into the soon newly-expanded and upgraded Tillsonburg airport, take in a game at the Embro arena, which will soon be refurbished and updated, or visit Innerkip's revitalized park or ask one of Otterville's dedicated volunteer firefighters about their new fire hall to see Canada's economic action plan at work.

Oxford residents can also look forward to continued benefits of the federal gas tax funds transfer, which has been extended to 2014. In fact, Oxford has been so blessed the Globe and Mail even took notice on October 21, 2009 and placed Oxford as the third-largest recipient of RInC stimulus projects. My only regret is reporting that Oxford ranked third not first.

Families are a vital component to our society as they provide a nurturing and safe environment in which individuals can grow and succeed. That is why our government is investing in families in order to ensure that families receive the support and encouragement they deserve.

The universal child care benefit gives families the flexibility to decide how to best provide for their children. Budget 2010 proposes to improve the taxation of the universal child care benefit for single parent families by ensuring that they receive comparable treatment as single earner two parent families. This change will provide up to $168 in tax relief for single parents with one child under six in 2010.

In addition, it provides support for families of children with disabilities by allowing a 10-year carry forward of Canadian disability savings grants and Canada disability savings bonds and entitlements.

In addition, as a former chief of police, I have witnessed first-hand the effects of crime on its victims and their families. I applaud the $6.6 million over two years that have been committed to the federal victims strategy, which enhances support for victims of crime and provides access to employment insurance benefits for eligible workers who have lost a family member due to crime.

We have not forgotten about the senior pillars of our communities. This month we are taking action and launching public consultations on how to improve Canada's retirement income system. We are also delivering an additional $45 million over three years to the enabling accessibility fund. In my riding the town of Tillsonburg has already benefited from this program by installing public accessible washrooms in the town and audible pedestrian signs at three intersections.

Budget 2010 delivers an additional $10 million to the new horizons for seniors program. The Alzheimer Society of Oxford, the Oxford County Elder Abuse Network, the Women's Employment Resource Centre in the township of Norwich, all in my riding, can attest to the positive impact the new horizons for seniors program has had in aiding them in delivering successful inclusive programs for seniors in the community.

It is plain to see that a healthy, productive and vital part of any community thrives around its professional, amateur and recreational activities. Canada's government is a firm believer in promoting healthy living and a sense of community through sport. One can easily look to Vancouver 2010 for the endless sense of unity, pride and inspiration that was provided at Canada's games.

Budget 2010 will continue to build upon the tremendous success of these uniting events by investing $62 million for Canada's high performance athletes. That is $44 million for the own the podium program and $12 million for Paralympic athletes. In addition to these great programs, we are investing $6 million in the participaction program.

In the coming months, the minister of sport will announce details on this new funding to ensure the existing funding is targeted effectively and encourages private sector investment in elite athlete training. This funding will build upon the success of the current own the podium program.

Canada's government understands the trials and tribulations of Canada's hard-working and dedicated labour force. In these uncertain economic times, we are supporting the Oxford and Canadian workforces, offering a temporary extension of the popular work-sharing program. Work-sharing avoids layoffs by offering employment insurance income benefits to qualifying workers willing to work a reduced work week while their employer recovers.

Budget 2010 extends this measure. Existing or recently terminated work-sharing agreements will be extended by an additional 26 weeks to a maximum of 78 weeks. Greater flexibility in the qualifying criteria for new work-sharing agreements will also continue to be provided, and both of these enhancements will be in place until March 31, 2011. This measure, estimated to cost $106 million over two years, means even more workers will keep their jobs, while employers will also be able to retain skilled employees with years of experience. This extension to work-sharing will continue to reduce the financial impact of the downturn on workers and their communities.

Budget 2010 is freezing the employment insurance premium at $1.73 per $100 of insurable earnings to the end of 2010, the lowest rate since 1982, and delivering five extra weeks of regular EI benefits and greater access to EI benefits for long-tenured workers.

Oxford's manufacturing and transportation sectors can also look forward to a tariff-free zone by the elimination of all remaining tariffs on productivity-improving machinery and equipment and goods imported for further manufacturing in Canada. When fully implemented, this will provide $300 million in annual duty savings to Canadians, while increasing productivity for Canadian business and protecting and increasing employment.

Canada's government is protecting and creating jobs now, establishing them for the future. At the same time, we will be reducing the deficit. The proposed red tape commission, a partnership between parliamentarians and the private sector, will prove to be a valuable aid to small business.

Canada is faring far better than our G8 counterparts. Budget 2010 reminds us all that we must proceed with caution and plan accordingly for the long-term financial well-being of Canada. We are delivering targeted funding initiatives and working toward returning to the budgetary balance. Our stimulus packages will end by following the exit strategies set out in the economic action plan. We have targeted spending growth restraint through targeted measures and we are delivering a comprehensive review of this government's administrative functions to ensure maximum productivity and cost-effectiveness.

Not only have we set a clear, concise and fiscally responsible path to reducing the national deficit nearly in half in two years, we have implemented previously unheard of support programs for our athletes, who have demonstrated time and time again that they do indeed own the podium, and stood up for families and seniors in the communities they are proud to serve. We extended meaningful support and programs to Canada's dedicated labour force and to industry.

The opposition can play games, while we on this side of the House stay focused on the economy and getting things done for hard-working Canadians.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I read today in the newspaper that the major climate studies unit at UQAM, l'Université du Québec à Montréal, will have to shut down as a result of discontinued federal funding. No doubt many of those researchers will migrate to other countries, principally to the United States.

First, would the hon. member tell us how that policy of cutting funds for climate research at universities squares with the government's stated intent of investing in science and innovation?

Second, how does this policy of cutting funding to climate change programs square with all the verbiage that we read in the throne speech and budget about the Conservative government wanting to do something about climate change?

Third, is it in the interests of a government, which has climate change deniers among its ranks, to cut funding to climate programs at Quebec universities?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the term “pretty rich” used on that side earlier today.

I think back to the party opposite signing on to an international accord that was going to do great things for Canada and the world. At the same time, during its time in power, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions rose 35%. It is pretty hard to believe the Liberals have a great belief in what they say. It is frequently what one does that is more important and the past would tell us that their importance was on words and signing agreements or, in some cases, scrap pieces of paper. They did not put it into real action.

This government has taken action and will continue to take action. We are working with the international community. If my hon. colleague were honest, he would know that Canada has actually taken a very major role in international discussions with world powers. Yesterday one of the international communities agreed to sign on to the Copenhagen accord, which probably will bring far more benefit to Canada and Canadians than the Kyoto accord that was proposed by the previous government.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like the hon. member to withdraw his insinuation that I am not being honest. I did not impugn the hon. member's motives in his speech. The honourable thing would be for him to withdraw that reference.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will allow the parliamentary secretary a chance to respond.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not intend to impugn the integrity of my colleague opposite. What I meant was he should be open to telling the world what the Liberals did when they signed on to the Kyoto accord, which was nothing, and then compare it to where Canada is today in leading the world in developing standards as we go forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, clearly the link between tax cuts and performance is a myth. In 1999, one year before Paul Martin's corporate tax cuts began, Canada was fifth on the World Economic Forum's competitive list. Today we are in ninth place.

In addition, since the corporate tax cuts have been phased in, business spending on machinery and equipment has declined, so says Statistics Canada. IT use by Canadian businesses is half of what it is in the United States. As well, productivity growth is actually worse. Clearly the approach of the government is not having the desired effects.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I actually enjoy the opportunity to respond to my colleague's comments. I will provide him with a few statistics. He is probably aware of them, but I would still like to remind him.

Canadian labour markets have fared much better than in the U.S. The Obama administration is reporting job losses that are proportionally three times higher in Canada. The reason for that is the productivity in Canada and the economy is much better.

Canadian domestic demand growth has rebounded more strongly than all other G7 countries since the beginning of 2009. This led Canada out of the recession in mid-2009. The reason for that is Canadians are enjoying a certain level of spending that does not exist in other countries. Our manufacturing and agricultural economies are all doing reasonably well during the worldwide recession. Canada is dealing with it in a very good way. I believe the tariff-free incentive to industry to bring in new equipment will prove to be of great benefit to us all.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise, representing the people of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission where, by the way, the daffodils are blooming and the cherry trees are in flower. On their behalf, I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance on a good budget.

I remember being in a meeting about 18 months ago where we were all expressing concern about the global economic situation. The recession had really not hit us yet but we could see it coming. Like a tsunami, we knew we could not avoid the effects of it. It did not start here, but we knew we needed to take strong action to mitigate those negative effects that were coming and that is what we did.

Since July 2009, 135,000 jobs have been created and that is not including the 225,000 jobs that were maintained through our work sharing program, a very good program. Some 16,000 infrastructure projects have been completed or started and we delivered $3 billion in general personal income tax relief as a way to address this economic downturn.

Statistics Canada recently announced that Canada's economy for the second straight quarter grew and in the fourth quarter of 2009 by 5%. This represents the strongest quarterly rate of economic growth in almost a decade partly due to an increase in infrastructure funding supported by stimulus projects across Canada. So our government is taking action to ensure that Canada leads the global economic recovery and budget 2010 will help us lead the way.

Jobs and growth, which is what this budget is all about, come in a variety of forms. I am here today to speak briefly on this budget and what actions our government has taken to ensure that Canada's fisheries sector is a key player in our goal to lead the way on jobs and growth.

The fishing industry in Canada employs over 80,000 people and is worth approximately $14 billion. The commitments our government has made in budget 2010 prove once again that we recognize the importance of fisheries to a robust Canadian economy. Specifically, budget 2010 contains funding for seafood certification and traceability, small craft harbours, and a new hovercraft for our Coast Guard, among other things.

Let me talk a little bit more about each of these. First of all, there is catch certification. Many people do not realize the contribution that our seafood industry makes to our economy and our coastal community. Canada is the world's sixth largest seafood exporter with fish and seafood being Canada's largest single food export commodity. It is not grain, or beef, or pork, it is fisheries products. So access to international markets is essential to Canada's fish and seafood industry which exports 85% of its production. In 2010, the European Union will implement a new regulation where fisheries exporting countries need to provide catch certificates attesting that the marine fish and seafood products are legally and sustainably harvested.

Our government recognized the need to protect the livelihood of our fishing communities and is committed to ensuring that the Canadian fish and seafood industry maintains access to key markets around the world.

Budget 2010 provides $7.2 million over two years to support a new catch certification office. Through this office Fisheries and Oceans will issue certificates to exporters ensuring that the Canadian fish and seafood industry remains competitive and maintains employment in both the harvesting and fish processing sectors.

More specifically, the funding provided in this budget enhances DFO's ability to: first, provide traceability systems and support to the fish and seafood industry; second, to support IT upgrades to facilitate DFO audits of industry record keeping systems to ensure the validity of legal harvest; and third, to issue Government of Canada validated catch certificates within prescribed service standards to these exporters based on checks of licence status, catch reports, and existence of a fisheries management plan.

Our catch certificate will provide assurance that the seafood products come from a properly licensed, regulated and reported fishery that is regularly monitored and audited to ensure that catches are obtained legally.

Currently, only the European Union has the legal requirement to demonstrate this for imports coming into its countries, but we expect that this might well happen in other countries. This funding will allow our government to support the industry in meeting these new market requirements.

Given that the European market is worth approximately $500 million annually to the Canadian fish and seafood industry, I believe that this is a very sound investment. I know that Canada's fish and seafood industry, as well as its hard-working employees, will feel the same.

Along our coast the small craft harbours program provides a network of safe and accessible harbours. These harbours support the commercial fishing industry and the broader interests of the coastal communities. In many communities small craft harbours represent the only federal presence.

In fact, I have a colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador who reminds me from time to time that harbours in his province are as important as Highway 401 is to Torontonians and the only refuge for vessels during rough weather.

Nearly 90% of all fishing landings in Canada, valued at approximately $2 billion, occur at small craft harbours. This alone illustrates how important these harbours are, not only to our coastal communities but to Canada as a whole and to our economy.

Our government recognizes the important roles that small craft harbours have in our communities. Funding initiated under the 2009 economic action plan for small craft harbours, $200 million additional over two years, will continue in 2010. To date 242 repair, maintenance and dredging projects are in the engineering or tendering process or are under construction and some have been completed and $88 million of this allotment will be spent in 2010-11.

This funding will improve fish harvesters access to better harbours and will facilitate their ongoing operations. It will also provide a stimulus to small communities by maintaining and creating construction jobs, and by supporting employment in other industries such as the service and tourism industry.

This I feel perfectly embodies the title of budget 2010, “Leading the Way on Jobs and Growth”. With our government's funding for small craft harbours we are continuing to lead the way.

More than just numbers, these investments illustrate our government's ongoing commitment to the people who live in smaller coastal communities and rely on small craft harbours so they can do their jobs and provide for their families in a safe and secure way.

In budget 2010 our government continues to invest in the safety and security of Canadians by committing $27.25 million for a new Canadian Coast Guard air cushion vehicle, otherwise known as a hovercraft.

On the west coast at the Sea Island base, the Coast Guard operates two hovercraft, one of which needs to be replaced. These vessels are used to conduct searches, transport ill and injured people, tow disabled vessels and provide logistical support during on-water incidents.

We hope we never have anything like the landing on the Hudson River to deal with, but if we ever do, we will be very glad to have this investment in British Columbia.

Another issue which affects all Canadians in waters from coast to coast to coast is the issue of invasive species. Aquatic invasive species pose a major threat to Canada's biodiversity, our ecosystems, and ultimately to our economy. That is why we have put in place Canada's invasive alien species strategy. Budget 2010 renews the funding for that program to the tune of $38 million.

DFO will receive $8 million over two years to allow Fisheries and Oceans Canada to continue to invest in research, prevention and control of these invasive species, including the management of the sea lamprey in the Great Lakes and the minimization of the risk of new introductions such as the Asian carp.

I am pleased to support the budget. I think British Columbians are supportive of the budget. I know the premier is.

Under the previous Liberal government the federal government starved the provinces. That is not the approach we are going to take. There is $3.6 billion under the Canada health transfer, $1.5 billion in the social transfer. All of those are increases over the previous years and over the previous Liberal government.

That is why the budget has been welcomed by so many across the country. I encourage all members of the House to support the budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague on his speech. I have worked with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for quite some time, being the former critic myself.

I do want to focus on that. There are a couple of things on which I would like to get clarification. Currently, in Newfoundland and Labrador there was a memorandum of understanding worked out between the union as well as the provincial government. It seems that they are now asking the federal government for answers on many of these things. I was wondering what he would like to bring to the House as to the situation on that.

The Speech from the Throne talked about the possibility of new management under the guise of a Fisheries Act, which is very interesting, because before it was brought up, and it lacked consultation, I have not heard of any consultation process. When it comes to the local management of fisheries, I am wondering, similar to the consultation period the Conservatives are planning with pensions, will they do the same under a new Fisheries Act?

One final thing regarding the Coast guard. I believe it is moving to Newfoundland from Nova Scotia. I am wondering if the hon. member could update us on that situation.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his interest in these issues.

Let me just focus on the Fisheries Act. I find it interesting, because while my colleague was the critic for fisheries, he claimed that there was a need to modernize a piece of legislation that is about 143 years old. Most Canadians would agree with him, including the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Yet, when we attempted to do that, he, on behalf of his party, put in place all kinds of mechanisms to obstruct us. People in his province were disappointed by those actions. We hope he got over that and is not inclined to do that again as we move forward on it.

He will know that we did introduce it twice, and both times there was an opportunity for fisheries stakeholders across the country to give us their input, and certainly they did that. In addition to that, he will need to stay tuned about the kind of approach we take in terms of consultation to make sure that we have the very best Fisheries Act possible.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the parliamentary secretary's work as a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I enjoyed his speech because he was talking about fisheries, and I am always interested in hearing remarks on the subject.

We have an expression back home about putting a band-aid on a wooden leg, which is, of course, pointless. In my opinion, that philosophy sums up the government's plan for small craft harbours. An additional $200 million over two years is great. As a first step, this is somewhat encouraging. But the department calculated that it needs $600 million. The government is allocating $200 million to meet a $600 million need.

Clearly, things do not add up. It is likely that when the $200 million program ends in 2011, we will be back where we started with a bunch of harbours that will deteriorate every time they get hit by a storm. Climate change affects harbours too.

In that light, can the parliamentary secretary, who just talked about the small craft harbour file, comment on the fact that there will be only $200 million instead of $600 million, which is only one-third of the money needed?

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his interest, which perked up when we talked about small craft harbours just a few moments ago. This is an important issue.

What I find fascinating about that whole topic, which we talked about before, is that $200 million over two years is a very significant amount of money. He is right, though, that there is an infrastructure deficit with small craft harbour facilities and we need to keep working on that, and it is the commitment of our government to do so.

I find it interesting that the $200 million which we announced in our economic action plan of 2009 and now the continuation of the project that is announced in budget 2010, in both of those cases my colleague voted against those initiatives. I am very surprised by that.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I will provide a few thoughts on the budget. I am pleased to be sharing my time with the wonderful member for Burnaby—New Westminster. He is a real champion in the House on many fronts, but none more important than the battle he is fighting on the international trade front and the free trade agreement which the government wants to impose on us and the people of Colombia.

I stand here today hopeful that we have an opportunity finally to make some choices that did not seem to be there for us until the last year or so. The inevitability of the economy becoming global and unregulated and that somehow that was going to be good for all of us was something we just could not seem to make any headway with.

I believe very profoundly that what happened last year in that economy, the collapse of the financial world and the impact on people everywhere on the planet brings us to a place recognized by Jim Wallis in the wonderful book he recently wrote entitled Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street.

We have the potential for a transformational moment in our history. We can make choices as a government. Government can become important again in providing leadership. We can do things that will be in the best interest of the people we serve and the planet that serves all of us.

We have a chance at this point to look at what went wrong in a very clear way, to name it and then to put forward a different vision for ourselves and those we care about, our country and indeed for the world. We have a chance to make different choices, as we in the New Democratic Party are saying these days, in this budget. We can make different choices.

Until last year, we believed almost religiously that government should be smaller, that government should play less of a role in the life of the jurisdiction in which it is elected to give leadership and that somehow if we deregulated industry and finance, it would serve us better, that it would be more efficient. We also believed that if we created a lower tax regime for industry and investment, the country would be better off. If all of us were honest with ourselves, we would see that that recipe is what got us to the dysfunction in the economy we experienced last year and the very difficult challenge that we continue to face today.

This does not have to be the way it is. We in this country do not have to continue to be driven by an ethos of greed and fear. We can choose to focus on the common good and making sure that everybody has enough.

I think back to my days as a young boy growing up in the small town of Wawa in northern Ontario. Some members may know where that is. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, 1,200 people mined ore, burned the sulphur out of it and turned it into sinter. We sent that to Sault Ste. Marie where 12,000 people turned it into steel.

That steel was sent across the country to communities in the Maritimes such as Saint John, where it was used in building ships. It was sent to Vancouver, Thunder Bay and Windsor, where it was used in making buses and cars. All of those industries had good jobs that paid decent wages. There were benefit packages that looked after families. There were pensions for people when they retired, so they could live in the dignity their work made them deserving of.

We went even further back in those days because we believed in government. We believed in the ability of government to use the very generous tax base to provide supports and services for all Canadians and to create a competitive advantage for locally owned and controlled industry. We brought in health care, employment insurance, the Canada pension plan.

When the government brought in all of those very important and helpful institutions, we found that they became part of the Canadian identity. People around the world admired us for what we were able to accomplish together. We found that also created for us a very competitive advantage in the world as trade began to evolve and become global.

We found that having a healthy and well-educated populace was something in which investors were very interested. We found that providing health care through a government run system provided cost advantages to industry. The cost of health care can be very expensive, as we know when we look south of the border where our American friends are debating that today. That was a very great competitive advantage.

We found that when together we built the infrastructure, the buildings, roads, libraries, recreational centres in communities across this country, not only did it make those communities centres of excellence, but it was also very attractive to people looking for a place to set up shop, do business and create work. Back in those days communities, individuals, organizations and government worked together to make sure that was happening.

Some may say that was then and this is now. Yes, and government made choices back then. We have the opportunity to make choices here right now that could get us to a place where we hold dear those values once more.

Our country is so large, so vast and so remote, and so much of it is in the north. We really need to invest in transportation infrastructure. For example, in my riding people are looking for investments from the federal and provincial governments to make sure the railway does not go the path of so many of the country's corporate headquarters which have disappeared altogether or gone someplace else. We should make the necessary investments to maintain the vital links between communities and manufacturing centres and the markets in which they sell their goods. It should be done in a generous way that not only makes up for the lack of investment in those pieces of infrastructure over the last few years, but also in a way that indicates there is a future for towns like Wawa, White River, Marathon, Nipigon, Red Rock, Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie and Timmins. These communities are important. The resource base that has served the country so well continues to be an important element in Canada's economy going forward.

In one very specific instance, I ask the government to make a choice today to stop the unwarranted and unneeded rollout of further corporate tax breaks to entities that are doing quite well, thanks very much, and to invest those billions of dollars in things that will serve all Canadians better, such as health care and education. In this instance we need investment in the railroad to have a railroad to move freight, and also to once again look at the possibility of having a railroad to move people throughout the country. Canada's demographic is changing. The population is getting older. We are centralizing health care, for example, and people need to travel and our highways are not always the safest way to do it.

We need a huge investment in rail, for example, the same as we need it in health care and education. Investment is needed in all kinds of other important things to protect the environment and make this country the green economy that we all know it has the potential to become.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the hon. member for his speech, and to thank him for his work on the Canada-Ireland friendship committee and to wish him in advance a happy St. Patrick's Day. I am aware of his Irish roots.

The member represents a riding that is outside the great metropolis of Toronto. There are great cities in this country, such as Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Winnipeg, and others, but there are other regions of Canada as well. There are people who live outside the cities in Atlantic Canada and elsewhere.

One of the obvious things in this budget is there will be cuts to the Canada Border Services Agency and CATSA, which handle our airport security. The cuts will affect regional airports, border entry points in the case of the Sault, I imagine, and access to markets and tourism will be hurt. Could he comment on how those cuts will affect not only his own region in Ontario but all of Canada?