Debates of March 9th, 2010

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, 9/11 created a whole new regime of bureaucracy at borders which has impacted very negatively on trade and the free movement of people and goods back and forth across the border. I live on a border. Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario is the sister city to Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. Literally thousands more vehicles used to travel back and forth across that border every day. That was very important to the local economies of both of those wonderful cities.

The government makes choices that we in the NDP would not make. The Conservatives have decided that they will cut government yet again, a government that has already been cut to the bone in the interest of managing the present deficit and significantly because of the big corporate tax cuts made, frankly, by the former Liberal government as well, which have been rolled out to corporations over the last 10 to 15 years.

There is another way. There are other choices. We could invest intelligently in safety at our borders. We could use some of the money that we would recoup if we simply did not flow those corporate tax breaks any more.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, very recently I met someone from Sault Ste. Marie who asked me to thank the member for his work for the poor and those in our community who need to have a government that cares.

I noted in the budget that the homelessness partnership strategy is to end in 2011. The money for this strategy is used for emergency shelter for people in desperate need. In my own community of London, there are several agencies that provide help to the most desperate, such as homeless people and women who suffer from mental illness. I would like my colleague to comment on the fact that this program will be ending despite the fact that the government seems to be able to find $60 billion to support profitable corporations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleague from London—Fanshawe that, absolutely, this is a stark example of the choices the government is making. It is going to continue to roll out billions of dollars in corporate tax breaks to financial institutions and big oil companies that frankly do not need it and cut funding to homeless shelters, people who are the most at risk and marginalized in our society.

What kind of a country are we building when those kinds of choices are made knowing the resources exist to do it differently?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is anticipated that EI benefits will lapse for about 500,000 Canadians during the coming year. The government is boasting about how the work share program is going to reduce the financial burden on employers and employees. The member may want to comment on the fact that the government has also announced a $13 billion increase in EI premiums, job-killing premiums for small and medium size businesses which will be particularly hard hit. I think the government has it wrong.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right when he again points out the choices the government makes that are wrong. It is going to tax the ordinary working man and woman and small business in this country with this increase in the contribution that each will need to make in terms of employment insurance and, at the same time, roll out literally billions of dollars in tax breaks to corporations that are doing very well.

I do not see this as an intelligent choice. It is certainly not the choice that we will make as a caucus in this place. We are waiting for the government to indicate that it might do something different.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow my colleague for Sault Ste. Marie who is one of the foremost advocates in this House of Commons for the middle class and poor Canadians. He is a very eloquent speaker and it is an honour to follow him, particularly in light of what this budget means.

There is no doubt that this budget is clearly an attack on middle class and poor Canadians. I will explain why in just a moment. Many of my other NDP colleagues have expressed the same concerns over the budget. The important thing is to start with what the context is in this country right now.

The government does not deny that unemployment will grow throughout the course of this year. We also have record levels of seniors living in poverty despite the prosperity and the resources that we have in this country. We are seeing record levels of student debt.

Because this is probably the fundamental difference between the NDP as compared to the old parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives who love to shovel money at the wealthiest of Canadians and love to bring forward these great ideological concepts like free trade, the most important division in this House is that the NDP is the only party that recognizes what has happened to the middle class over the last 20 years.

Under the former Liberal government and under the current Conservative government, we have seen the most sustained decline in incomes for Canadian families that we have ever seen in our history right across income categories. Once we put aside the very rich, who are wealthier than ever and now take most of the income pie, middle class, lower middle class and the poorest of Canadians have all seen a sustained decline in their family income. As a result of that, the average Canadian family, not the wealthy, the lobbyists who the Conservatives and Liberals love to sit down with, but the average Canadian family has actually seen its debtload double over the past 20 years.

That quiet crisis was present even before this very clear full blown economic crisis that we have seen over the past year or two. That is the context in which this budget was developed. One needs to ask what kind of measures the government is taking to actually help middle class Canadians.

What it is doing is actually cutting back on public services, services that provide supports to middle income Canadians. It is middle class Canadians who benefit the most from the services the federal government produces. It is the public services, those who help the middle class, who are under attack by the government.

What did the government choose to do? It chose to go into one of the largest deficits in Canadian history; a $54 billion deficit that is largely due to massive corporate tax cuts.

In this corner of the House, we read through the budget, as we do diligently. The NDP members in this House of Commons have been likened to army ants because we are the ones who are diligently doing the work and, in the great Canadian tradition, doing our homework.

I would ask the Conservative members opposite to take the plastic off their budget, take it out of their desks and look through it. On page 281 we see that the finance ministry itself is undermining the premise of what the Conservatives have done with this budget. On page 281 there is a very interesting graph that expresses what the NDP has been saying all along. This comes from the finance ministry and it is written into the budget. It talks about the dollar impact on the level of GDP of a permanent $1 increase in fiscal measures.

Mr. Speaker, I know it is no surprise to you and no surprise to the NDP caucus that when one invests in infrastructure there is a 100% return. If $1 is invested, that multiplier effect is 100%. There is no secret there. It is very clearly written in the budget document.

Housing investment, which the NDP has been pushing for some time, is contained within the amendment that we have brought forward. It would be a 100% benefit as well. When the government makes that decision, there is a 100% benefit to Canadians as a whole.

We can look at other spending measures and it is an 80% benefit, a very important benefit, the full range of other benefits that are provided by the federal government, by the public services that we are talking about. For measures for low income households and the unemployed, it is again an 80% return on investment, which is still pretty good.

Then we get to the measures that the government loves to bring in. For fiscal measures, personal income tax measures are not the best investment of federal government funds. We have said that all along. It is reflected here in the budget document itself. It is a 40% return.

The federal government loves to invest in personal income tax measures for the wealthiest and most privileged Canadians but for middle class and low income Canadians it is a 40% return. Personal income tax measures are the worst possible use of funds.

According to the Conservative government's own budget documents on page 281 are corporate income tax measures, 90% of which is simply blown away. It is like going to the casino and wasting Canadian taxpayer money by throwing it at the corporate sector. That is written into the budget document itself.

One has to wonder if any of the Conservatives in the House have even bothered to read the budget documents to see that they are making the worse possible use of Canadian taxpayer money, of fiscal policy, by blowing away 90% of it on corporate income tax measures. There is simply no return to the federal government and no return to Canadians by cutting back public services and throwing all of that money at profitable corporations.

We must remember that this is borrowed money. The government has a $54 billion deficit largely due to corporate income tax measures, the money it is shovelling at very profitable Canadian banks, at very profitable energy companies and shovelling out the door without any due respect, due diligence and any sense of responsibility, while cutting back on the services that help Canadians the most. According to the government's own documents, that money is not being effectively used.

I know there are well-meaning Canadians who vote Conservative in Conservative ridings but those Canadians, those who are listening in today, need to know that the Conservatives are knowingly making the worse possible use of Canadian taxpayer money in fiscal policy. I know well-meaning Conservatives right across this country would say that does not make sense.

When the budget documents state that this is the worst possible use of money, why would we use all of that resource that Canadians have in common and push it at a very profitable corporate sector when Canadians need help?

We have referenced some of the other needs, such as the fact that right now up to 800,000 Canadians are running to the end of EI.

Just to reference and close the debate around these huge income gifts the Conservatives love to shovel out the door to the wealthiest and most privileged Canadians, it now turns out that the lowest marginal tax rate in the country is paid by the wealthiest of Canadians. Lower middle class Canadians are now paying the taxes. According to figures from 1990 to 2005, the poorest of Canadians are now paying a higher marginal tax rate than the wealthiest of Canadians. Yes, this did start under the Liberals. That is absolutely irresponsible.

I would like to briefly reference for British Columbians why we are voting against this budget. There is not a single reference to salmon, to the pine beetle or to leaky condos. The only reference to softwood lumber is the softwood lumber sellout that, in my riding of Burnaby--New Westminster, cost us 2,000 direct jobs and the closure of three softwood mills.

What we have seen under the Conservative government is a completely irresponsible approach to fiscal policy and to balanced budgets with a self-inflicted $54 billion deficit.

All the Conservatives had to do was be responsible and read their own budget documents to realize that was an appallingly irresponsible use of taxpayers' fiscal capacity and the resources that we have. They then would have pulled back on the corporate income taxes, the further ones that they are implementing, on the recommendation of the NDP, and it would be putting forward policies that would help people, such as investing in infrastructure, in housing and in social policy, all of which provide a multiple of additional benefits to Canadians as opposed to corporate taxes.

There is one reference in the budget that British Columbians find offensive and that is the reference to the HST. There are pages and pages on the HST but nothing on the salmon, leaky condos or on the pine beetle. That is why we are voting against this budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite carefully to my colleague's speech hoping to hear the NDP plan if it were to bring in a budget. However, I found it quite disturbing, although expected, that it was mostly socialist diatribe.

He made a comment about what was in the budget regarding corporate tax. I want to correct one thing and then make an additional comment. I do not know if he read the footnote there but it reads:

Corporate income tax measures have a limited impact on aggregate demand over the periods displayed in the table but have among the highest multiplier effects in the long run. This is because they increase the incentive to invest and accumulate capital, which leads to a higher capacity to produce goods and services.

I listened carefully, and I apologize if I missed it, but I do not think I heard once the word job. Jobs are what this budget is about, which is what we should be about, jobs. I have not heard anything from the NDP on how it might actually create something for somebody to have a job and earn a living.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what the member is identifying is exactly my point. It is the worst possible use of moneys that the Conservatives could hope to make and it is right here.

I understand. He is reading the table for the very first time. He is now opening it up and wondering if it is really true that there is a 100% return for infrastructure investment, a 100% return for housing investment and yet only a 10% return for corporate investment.

Now that he has read it and understands that it is the worst possible use of money, from the finance minister's own internal documents, he has a responsibility to his constituents to justify why they are wasting Canadian resources by throwing them at very profitable Canadian companies.

I referenced jobs a whole number of times in my 10 minutes, so I will not go over that ground again, the softwood sellout being the most egregious decision by the government for loss of jobs in British Columbia. I referenced 2,000 lost jobs because of the softwood sellout. That was appallingly irresponsible, but then he--

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I will stop the member there so we can allow for more questions.

The hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government is proposing to grow out of the fiscal deficit. Scott Clark, the former deputy finance minister, said that there was no advanced economy, ever, that has grown out of a deficit.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has gone even further and has said that there is a structural deficit and that we cannot grow out of it. So there is a problem.

It comes down to trust and, if we want to talk about trust, maybe we want to think about income trusts and the broken promise: how they taxed income trusts when they said that they would not; how they broke the law on fixed election dates; how they bought an election by reducing the GST when they could not afford to reduce it; having a 200-page binder to make Parliament dysfunctional; the Afghan papers; and the list goes on.

There is, however, a social deficit. I know the member is very concerned about jobs, as are all the opposition parties, but not the government. EI benefits will run out for 500,000 people over the next short while and, at the same time, the government will be introducing about $13 billion in increases of EI premiums, job-killing premiums that will hurt not only businesses but also employees.

I wonder if the member wants to amplify on the need to protect Canadian workers.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we need to protect Canadian workers from the Conservative government because it has sold out so much of what has been the backbone of our industrial and manufacturing economy in this country.

The Conservatives like to sit down with lobbyists and hand out corporate tax cuts. They just love to be irresponsible with the public purse but they have no job strategy. That is why unemployment has continued to rise and even in the budget documents themselves will continue to rise over the course of the next year. They simply have absolutely no solutions.

I appreciate the member referencing the Parliamentary Budget Officer, because what he says, to back up what the ministry of finance folks are obviously telling the government as well, is that the structural deficit is due to the corporate tax cuts that the government is bringing in so recklessly and irresponsibly.

It has no jobs plan. It simply does not know how to generate employment. It has no industrial strategy. It is a failed government and this is a failed budget.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House today to speak on behalf of the people of Lévis, Bellechasse and Etchemins in order to show my support for the government's budget 2010. This is an excellent budget because it will help solidify a recovery in the Canadian economy and manage expenditures in order to return to a balanced budget.

We are at the halfway point of our economic action plan and already, in less than a year, 135,000 net jobs have been created in Canada. Thanks to our work sharing program, 225,000 jobs have been saved and businesses have been able to keep their labour force. Now those businesses have new contracts and can be optimistic about the economic recovery thanks to a skilled, qualified labour force that has been able to stay employed by the business.

This year in Quebec and across Canada, the Canadian government has invested more in infrastructure than any government over the last 60 years.

Consider the example of the water treatment plant in Lévis or the sports centre that will be built north of Montreal. Consider the projects in Laval or Saint-Louis-de-Gonzague, both of which had no sewage system. We are investing, along with the Quebec government, to ensure that the citizens there have a waste water treatment system that meets modern standards.

Our economy is doing well and Canada is emerging from this economic crisis in better shape than before. Why? I think several factors are at play. First of all, our businesses are productive and boast a skilled, qualified labour force. One of this country's greatest resources is its people, who are innovative, creative and resourceful. Our businesses are supported by a sound banking system that is recognized as one of the safest and most reliable in this world. Not only do we have a good banking system, but we also have our economic action plan, which has provided the boost our economy needed to recover from the difficult economic times we have just been through.

We are entering the second year of the economic action plan, even though the debt represents 31% of the gross domestic product. In fact, our debt to GDP ratio is the lowest of all G7 countries. In Canada, the unemployment rate is 1.4% lower than that of our American neighbours. We hope to continue to bring these numbers even lower across the continent.

Canada has made the most significant recovery in the G7. One thing that leads us to believe we can continue on that path is that with our tax measures, not just the economic action plan, but also Advantage Canada, our tax system will be the lowest for companies. By the end of 2012, we will have the most advantageous competitive tax system for companies, which will encourage them to create jobs.

Today, our ministers are pointing out that there are no longer any tariffs for manufacturers. They can buy equipment, inputs and goods under existing legislation. As such, there is more room for investing, creating jobs and moving forward.

Our government continues to move forward with measures to stimulate the economy. In total, we are injecting more than $19 billion into the economy. The best way to stimulate the economy is to put money in the pockets of taxpayers. They know how to meet the needs of their families. Seniors have significant needs. We are cutting taxes by $3.2 billion. That money will circulate in our economy and create wealth. Since our tax policies came into effect, one million Canadians with the lowest incomes no longer pay income tax.

We have a tax system that benefits low-income earners. We continue to ensure that taxes are low for all taxpayers.

We are also investing in our workers, with $4 billion in additional employment insurance benefits and training as well. For sectors that are losing ground, we want to make the transition to value-added sectors in order to meet the challenges and ensure prosperity in the long term.

I spoke about infrastructure projects. We continue to move forward. In Lévis—Bellechasse et les Etchemins, as elsewhere in Canada, the needs are great and we will continue to invest in our infrastructure to support development.

This budget has the smallest increase in the overall envelope since 1997. We can clearly see our government's desire to cut expenses. However, one area where it has not cut back is research and development, especially scientific development. We want to develop and attract talent and brain power, enhance research capacity, improve commercialization, accelerate private sector investment and expand access to the market and competitiveness in order to maintain our leading-edge economy. Naturally, for the hardest hit sectors, we have measures in place such as the community adjustment fund, among others.

I was shocked by the response to the throne speech from the new Bloc finance critic. Two things he said surprised me, and I would like to use my time today to mention those two things to my colleague opposite, the member for Hochelaga. He said that there was nothing in the budget for social housing. Nothing could be further from the truth. I invite my colleague to look at page 236 of the budget, which states that our government is investing $1 billion this year, in addition to the $1 billion it invested last year, which he did not have the chance to vote for. This time, I am sure that he will be able to convince his colleagues that this measure and the entire budget are worthwhile, so that they will support this unprecedented $1 billion investment in social housing in Canada. This is part of the second phase of our economic action plan.

As a Quebecker, another thing that shocked me was when the Bloc finance critic said that there was nothing in the budget for Quebec. Once again, I invite the member for Hochelaga to check the figures for equalization and social transfers. Quebec has never received as much from the federal government as in budget 2010, the second year of the economic action plan.

Quebec will receive increased federal support under budget 2010. Transfers will total $19.3 billion in 2010-11, $281 million more than last year. That is $6.8 billion more than when the Liberals were in power. What does that mean? It means that budget 2010 maintains investments in health and education and maintains quality services across the country. For Quebec, it means $8.6 billion in equalization. So Quebec will get more than ever before, and the government will invest in all sectors.

This budget was drafted to be balanced and fair. It includes special measures. There is one measure I take a particular interest in. The budget corrects a historical error to enable Mouvement Desjardins to incorporate as a federal entity. It also contains money to help farm producers modernize slaughterhouse capacity. Of course, a symposium on biomass will be held in Les Etchemins on May 14. The theme of this symposium is “I heat with biomass”. The budget already includes $100 million for developing clean technologies in the forestry industry.

I urge my colleagues to support this budget, which will strengthen Canada's economic performance.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, my grandfather used to say that if you are not sure how to corner someone, either you set a trap or you shoot straight.

What was your stance, sir, when your government caucus was talking about assistance for the forestry industry? What was your stance when small municipalities kept saying that one-third/one-third/one-third was too much for them? What was your stance when everyone was talking about a March 31, 2011, end date, which is not viable? Where were you on the $2.2 billion tax harmonization issue—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I just want to interrupt the hon. member briefly. I would ask that he address his remarks through the Chair.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is much more pleasant to speak to you than to the member for Lévis—Bellechasse.

What was his stance when we were talking about sales tax harmonization and the $2.2 billion that his government, the Government of Canada, has owed Quebeckers for 18 years?

Some people just do not measure up, and it is up to the member opposite to tell us where he was on those issues.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

In my speech, I said that the project in Saint-Louis-de-Gonzague, a wonderful municipality in my riding, would receive funding for more than one-third of the costs, to take into account the municipal taxpayers' ability to pay. The economic action plan allows for such flexibility, which is another good reason to support it.

I am happy that my colleague brought up the importance of the forestry sector to Quebec. Wood is a renewable resource. He was not yet here to support the $1 billion we invested in the pulp and paper green transformation program and the $170 million we allocated to natural resources, but he has an opportunity to support the 2010 budget.

The Canadian Forestry Association has recognized the importance of this investment and said that the government was right to invest in leading-edge sectors, in sectors of the future in the forestry industry. The government is investing $100 million per year in projects to develop value-added products. Quebec is a leader in the wood processing sector and must take this opportunity to support the 2010 budget.

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

Madam Speaker, the flaws in our pension system certainly showed up last year. Clearly the Conservatives have had a year now to think about this whole issue and do something about it. For example, they could have brought in changes to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Nortel workers have been in trouble now for about a year, and the Conservatives have known that. In fact, they could have made movements already to set up an insurance fund for pensions, an issue that has been discussed for a while, but there is nothing in the budget to deal with any of those issues.

Why is the government so slow in responding to an issue that concerns all of Canada?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for highlighting the important contribution made by our seniors, who may fall victim to the tough economic times.

I can assure him that our government is maintaining all of its measures for seniors, and has implemented a number of measures, for example, support for New Horizons for Seniors.

To answer my colleague's question more specifically, our department is carefully examining the issue and will organize a federal-provincial summit in May 2010.

We know that 90% of pensions are regulated by the provinces. So it is important to examine the issue. We will work with the provinces to examine this in the spirit of open federalism. We will continue to work to find solutions.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to follow my colleague, who is no doubt one of the hardest working members of Parliament and an advocate for his constituents.

A number of important points about this budget have been brought forward already. I would like to highlight two of the mains reasons why I support the budget.

First, it is a transition budget. It recognizes that last year we were in the midst of one of the worst global financial crises the world has ever seen. Across the border in the United States, banks were failing and the markets crashed. When Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers went under, it ignited a financial panic that we had not seen since Black Monday.

It is important to remember how bad it actually was. Even though our banks were strong, the Canadian economy was hit. Retirement savings plummeted, exports fell and Canadians lost their jobs. The first year of our economic action plan focused on holding the line, ensuring our banks did not collapse, holding back job losses and stabilizing the economy. I am proud that it worked.

Our infrastructure spending was rolled out in record time, creating jobs at a time when they were needed the most. Our tax cuts, such as the home renovation tax credit, encouraged ordinary Canadians to help stimulate the economy, while improving their homes. Now it is time to get Canadians back on their feet, to create new jobs and to get the economy growing again. This budget shifts the focus from crisis management to economic growth.

Economists across the country have made it clear that although the worst is over, the economy is still fragile. One of our priorities is to help the unemployed. The work-sharing program was a massive success, saving thousands of jobs across the country. In my riding, companies like Horton CBI and Advanced Engineering Products Ltd. have used this program. This program saved 166 jobs in my riding alone. It was an important part of our economic action plan, and my constituents very strongly support the extra 26 weeks as proposed in this budget.

As I mentioned earlier, I believe the focus on job creation in the budget is a key reason for supporting it. Infrastructure is one of the best ways to help the economy. Not only creates jobs, but it leaves a legacy for decades to come. I am sure many of my colleagues know of projects in their own ridings that are improving roads, improving universities and building community buildings.

In the city of Fort Saskatchewan in my riding, Highway 15 is a major route and is receiving a major upgrade. This is creating local jobs and boosting the regional economy. It will also make transportation more efficient and help my constituents by making their commute faster and safer.

However, it is not just building roads. In Sherwood Park, Millennium Place, a multi-use recreational facility, is an important part of our community that brings us together as families, friends and neighbours. It is being upgraded through Canada's economic action plan. Millennium Place received much needed funding to add an additional leisure ice centre and a new refrigeration room. This funding will go a long way to improving opportunities for minor ice hockey organizations in my riding as well as providing additional wellness and recreational skating opportunities for our residents.

The infrastructure programs have been a major success, creating over 135,000 jobs in the first year alone. Now we need to finish the job and the funding in this budget will do that. By the time the second year of the economic action plan is finished, the economy will be fully recovered and the infrastructure stimulus will be winding down.

That brings me to my second reason to support this budget. As a Conservative, I believe in small government, lower taxes and living within our means. Governments sometimes have to go into deficit, but only in times of crisis or serious recessions. This is why it is important that our spending is temporary.

When we started the economic action plan, we said it would cover over two years and we meant it. Unlike the opposition, we are not going to raise taxes. Once upon a time when governments needed money for their projects of the day, they would just hike taxes on Canadians yet again. The era of tax and spend government is over. We will not take more money out of the pockets of Canadians. As Conservatives, we believe Canadians should keep more of the money that they earn and they should decide how and where to spend it.

This government will not slash health care funding like the Liberals did. Passing the burden on to Canadians just is not responsible. Instead, we have a plan to balance the budget that is responsible. I have already mentioned that the stimulus spending was temporary, so the first step is to start at home.

We are freezing the salaries of members of Parliament and ministers because it is not right to give raises to politicians when we are making cuts elsewhere.

Then we are going to cut the extra boards of directors, commissioners and other appointed positions that crop up around governments. There are hundreds of them and many are not delivering any value to taxpayers. The budget will start with 245 positions, and I hope we will find more. We will take a long hard look for the loopholes and pointless spending. This means actually taking time and effort to go through the books.

As Conservatives, we are very aware that even when governments are well meaning, a lot of the time they end up wasting money. One example of this is the medical tax credit. It is an important program, but for some reason it also gives tax breaks for Botox and teeth whitening. Now maybe some people feel that facelifts are a human right, but I am pretty sure Canadians do not want to spend millions of dollars subsidizing Botox treatments. We are going to stop it. There are more of these frivolous money wasters and loopholes and we are going to find them and eliminate them.

Finally, we are putting a cap on spending. Department operational budgets, salaries, programs and overhead, is going to be held steady. This is much more important than it seems at first glance. After all, we have a tendency to think that our own projects are the most important, that they should be bigger and deserve more funding. It is just human nature. However, the end result is that it is very hard to stop government spending from rising. My colleagues on the Liberal side, who have been in government, understand this very well.

Our solution is that if government departments want to spend more on programs, they have to find savings elsewhere in cutting their overhead, in becoming more efficient. To spend more in one area, departments will have to save somewhere else. We have a very dedicated and talented civil service and I am confident it will find ways to deliver programs for less now that we are setting up a system that encourages saving money rather than spending more. This is a responsible approach to cutting the deficit without slashing transfers to provinces, which would affect health care, seniors and education.

During my extensive consultations over the past few months, I have met with chambers in both of my communities, small businesses and constituents to hear their thoughts. Throughout my conversations, the same themes emerged. Creating jobs and proposing a responsible plan to deal with the deficit were most important to my constituents. This is why Canadians support the budget. I encourage my colleagues on the other side of the House to also support this budget.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. mentioned in his speech that his government was not a tax and spend government, yet his government has increased payroll taxes and run a $56 billion deficit. It will also increase spending on the building of prisons.

How does the hon. member reconcile those facts with his statements?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, this global economic crisis hit the entire world. As I said, it also affected Canada, but not as much as other countries because the Conservative government paid down our debt and came in with strong balanced budgets. However, it is important to spend in times of crisis or in times of global economic recession. We created jobs and invested into our infrastructure, which is helping the economy all across Canada. That is the responsible thing to do. We have cut taxes. We brought the GST down. We have cut personal taxes. Being a responsible government, we have to spend when the time is right and save money when the time is right.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, the Speech from the Throne talked about Canada becoming “a leader in green job creation”, but unfortunately the budget does not walk that talk.

I was reading a budget analysis by the Pembina Institute. It talks about China, where 1.12 million people work in the renewable energy sector and more than 100,000 new jobs are added every year in this sector.

Right now the Conference Board of Canada says that Canada ranks 14th out of 17 countries for innovation.

The U.S. set aside $98 billion for environmental and sustainable energy projects in the last budget. It outspends Canada 14 to 1.

What is the excuse this time for the fact that Canada is lagging desperately behind when it comes to green technologies?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is very important to invest in science and technology and the environment, and the government is doing that.

In my province and in Edmonton we are investing in the National Research Council's regional innovation structures on nanotechnology. We are investing in the high Arctic research station. There is additional funding for colleges and communities programs and the National Research Council's innovation clusters. We are putting over $400 million into Canada's Space Agency.

We are investing in the jobs of the future and those will include green jobs as well. We have invested a great deal in carbon capture and storage.

The investments we have put into my riding of Edmonton—Sherwood Park, in the area of Fort Saskatchewan, are helping the residents and are increasing the number of jobs.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, the speech by my colleague from Edmonton—Sherwood Park was excellent. I heard three themes: first, continue stimulus to get us out of the recession; second, move toward deficit reduction; and third, Canada and the international world.

Canada is way below our companion countries in the industrialized world in terms of debt to the GDP ratio. It is something like one-half of the Americans and perhaps even less vis-à-vis the U.K.

We have moved toward the lowest corporate tax structure in the G7. We have continued to cut personal taxes. This is all in the year of the Olympics and the Paralympics when the world's eyes are on us.

How would my colleague respond to our role in terms of attracting investment in business and making Canada continue to be the best place on earth?

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The member has 30 seconds to respond.