This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!

House of Commons Hansard #5 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

3:35 p.m.

Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission B.C.

Conservative

Randy Kamp ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and for the Asia-Pacific Gateway

Mr. Speaker, because it is my first opportunity, let me thank the voters in Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission for the opportunity to be back here again.

I listened with interest to the enthusiastic comments made by my colleague. He said the move to change the political subsidies weakens democracy. However, I do not think he made his case. He kept saying it, but he did not ever make his case as far as I could hear.

He talked about the ability to do what he does in his riding in Hamilton, which is to raise money to run his campaign, and he seemed able to do that without difficulty. I think all of us have met that challenge.

Would he not agree that these changes that are being suggested in the budget in terms of removing the subsidy over four years, that really, we are then going at the national level to the same system we already have at the local level, that EDAs have to raise the money from individuals to run their campaigns? Would he not agree that is where we are going, that it works pretty well at the local level and it will work as well at the national level?

3:35 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the member's interest and the question.

I want to ensure I understand. When he was talking about “local”, was he talking about municipal politics? Am I correct? Is that what the hon. member means?

No. Then I am sorry. I did not quite understand the point he was making with regard to the example because if we talk about municipal politics, there are many problems there too in terms of the wide open nature of money and the influence that it has.

I admit I would have made a better case if I had more time. I do get a little long-winded. I accept that. Not to worry though, I will have many more opportunities to be on my feet talking about this, so that the member will know 100% what the case is that I am making.

I am basically saying that the public subsidy was a reflection of the will of the Canadian people when they voted. The $2 only went to the party that got the vote. Therefore, that member's vote actually meant something because if one was a New Democrat or a Liberal or a Green member running in Alberta, the fact of the matter is that most of that member's votes did not matter because the first past the post meant that he or she could win with 40%.

Do not forget that we have a government in this place right now that has 40% of the support of the Canadian people, but because we have first past the post it got 100% of the power.

There are all kinds of problems. I say to the hon. member that this just exacerbates it.

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Glenn Thibeault NDP Sudbury, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again thank the hon. member for his usual passion in his speeches and for talking about issues that are truly important to Canadians and especially to the people in his riding.

I know you were specific on some of the things that we could be doing to enhance our democracy.

When we are looking at the budget, we are losing the subsidy. What do you truly think is the important thing we could be bringing forward here to make the changes necessary to bring forward the reforms that we can see in democracy without having to bring in the mighty dollar to ensure we can do that?

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Just a subtle reminder to members to remember to direct their comments through the Chair. That keeps our deliberations civil.

The hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

3:40 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sudbury for his support, for the real, positive changes that we could make to this place that quite frankly would make us prouder of the democracy we have.

I mentioned two of them. I would be glad to talk about them over and over, but the heading is to abolish the Senate. If we want to save money on wasted expense, there is $100 million that we can save with one little bit of surgery. Just cut off that house over there. It is $100 million. However, it really does not make that much difference except to those who get the cash for life lottery Senate appointment.

The other thing we can do is proportional representation. I started to get into that when I was mentioning that in our current system, the $2 per vote subsidy meant that every vote made a difference. It actually had an impact whether the member won that seat or not.

With our first past the post system, although the government received less than 40% of the vote of all Canadians who voted, it got 100% of the power not because it did anything wrong but because we have a system that does not serve our democracy as well as proportional representation would.

We will be making suggestions in that regard. We will continue to do that until those changes are actually brought about and we have true democracy in our House of Commons.

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Claude Gravelle NDP Nickel Belt, ON

Mr. Speaker, that is going to be a hard act to follow.

I am honoured to rise in the House once again as the member of Parliament for Nickel Belt. I was born and raised in Nickel Belt. I worked for 34 years at Inco. I was married and raised my family in this great riding.

There is no greater privilege for me than standing in the House and defending the interests of my constituents. I humbly thank them for the confidence they have placed in me and for returning me to this great chamber with an even larger majority than in 2008.

I also want to congratulate all of my colleagues in the House for their election to this great institution.

I wish to congratulate my leader, the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, for his energy, for his commitment to the people of this great country, for his unwavering belief that we can make a difference for families everywhere and for his historic success on May 2. I am honoured to sit as a member of the official opposition under his great leadership.

During this election I had the opportunity to connect with constituents from Foleyet to Onaping to Chelmsford and Azilda, to Killarney and Garden Village, and to Noëlville and Sturgeon Falls. While these communities are distant and unique from one another, the voters of these communities share a lot of common concerns.

At doorstep after doorstep voters shared their worries over their jobs and their pensions. They spoke about the challenges of caring for their loved ones. Seniors spoke about the lack of adequate pensions and access to health care. Active and involved citizens told me they are quitting their volunteer work because they cannot afford to fill their cars with gas.

Just two days ago, splashed across the front page of The Sudbury Star was a report that read:

The high price of gasoline isn't just costing Sudburians at the pumps. It is hurting community service organizations that rely on volunteer drivers for vital programs to help seniors and others remain at home and out of institutions. Meals on Wheels has experienced a sharp drop in the number of volunteers delivering meals to thousands of clients in Sudbury every month since gas prices began spiking about a year ago. In some cases, particularly in outlying areas such as Rayside-Balfour, Valley East and Onaping, the shortage of volunteers is so severe, it could soon affect client service.

The reality of the north is such that people do not have access to public transport. Their cars are their lifeline to work, to their extracurricular activities and to their educational institutions.

These are some of the issues of foremost concern in northern Ontario, and these are some of the issues that are neglected in the budget.

Speaking of the budget, I want to start by noting that the government listened to New Democrats and Canadians by restoring the eco-energy home retrofit program. I stress that this program should be reinstated permanently, not just for one year.

I have met with constituents who were cut off when the government abruptly cancelled the program. These people had already signed contracts for renovating their homes, assuming they were going to receive support from the federal government. I ask the government: will these people be able to apply retroactively for this program?

I also have businesses in my riding that had to lay off employees when this program was cancelled. I was very pleased that my leader came up to Nickel Belt and held a press conference at the site of one of these businesses to bring much-needed attention to the consequences of the government's short-sighted decision to cancel this program. Let us make it permanent.

On another positive note, the budget extends the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors for an additional year. New Democrats have been calling for this measure and welcome it.

This week many of my colleagues have stood for the first time in this chamber and given their inaugural speeches on behalf of their constituents. After listening to their eloquent remarks about the short-sightedness of the budget, it is clear that whether one is from British Columbia, the Prairies, Quebec, Ontario or Atlantic Canada, the budget ignores Canadians.

The budget does almost nothing for improving access to rural health care. The loan forgiveness for doctors and nurses does not go far enough because it does not increase the actual number of doctors and nurses in the system, which is what we need.

The budget does nothing to strengthen CPP and does nothing to provide relief for the family budget. Despite Conservative claims, we still have 300,000 more unemployed since the recession, and of the jobs that have been created, an overwhelming majority are part time.

The number of involuntary part-time workers in Canada is now at 500,000. How are families going to pay down their debt, save for their children's education or put away for their retirement? They can barely pay their heating bills.

With respect to employment insurance, over the next five years EI premiums will exceed benefits by $15 billion.

During my first term as member of Parliament for Nickel Belt, my team helped over 1,400 constituents with various issues, but that figure does not include the processing of passports. Over 4,000 passports were processed with the help of my office.

Over one-quarter of the 1,400 cases had to do with EI. Workers who paid into the system were losing their benefits and could not access training. Let me remind the House that miners went through a strike almost a year long as a direct result of the government's refusal to protect the interests of workers and their communities from foreign takeovers.

I also wish to say a few words about the government's ideological move to pressure municipalities into public-private partnerships, also known as P3 projects. There are countless Canadians and international examples of failed or flawed P3 projects, yet the City of Greater Sudbury is planning a $40 million P3 biodiesel plant with $10 million of federal funding.

Here are just five of the failed P3 projects. There was the Hamilton Entertainment and Convention Facilities Inc. P3 project; the end result was that it was abandoned because it was inflexible and reduced access. The Hamilton-Wentworth water and wastewater treatment P3 project was abandoned in the end because of maintenance problems, legal disputes, high costs and poor risk transfer. In the case of the Royal Ottawa Hospital P3 project, the end result was that it was flawed with high costs, secrecy and bed cuts. In the case of the Timmins and District Hospital dialysis centre P3, the end result was that it failed because no bidders were interested. The end result of the Welland Community Centre P3 project was that it failed because the project was deemed not viable in the P3 format due to secrecy.

Over the course of my remarks I have offered a snapshot of the reality in the north, yet this budget offers nothing to help.

The government also could have given the north its own independent economic development agency. It could have made FedNor an independent agency.

It is no accident that my first act in Parliament was to table a bill to make FedNor a stand-alone economic agency. The minister from the riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka likes to harp that making FedNor independent creates a new bureaucracy, but nothing could be further from the truth. I ask the two ministers who are now responsible, the Minister of Industry and the President of the Treasury Board, why southern Ontario can get its own independent economic development agency, but not the north. Why is there the double standard? Is it too hard to relinquish political control?

It is clear that the negatives of this budget far outweigh the small positives. It is also clear that the government paid no attention to the 60% of Canadians who did not vote for it. If, as it claims, it is the government for all Canadians, then we should have expected the Prime Minister to back that claim with meaningful support for Canadian families in this budget. Unfortunately, he did not.

There are billions in corporate tax cuts that do not create jobs, and billions in planned service cuts. There is nothing for small businesses, nothing for improving access to rural health care, nothing for lifting seniors out of poverty and nothing for addressing the needs of Canadian families and their youth. Northern Ontario remains without is own independent economic development agency.

In summary, the concerns of my constituents remain unaddressed. I cannot support this budget. I will not support this budget.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise. I also would like to take a turn to thank my constituents of Scarborough—Agincourt for returning me for an eighth term.

I listened with interest to the debate. It brought me back to the debate when my colleague from, I believe, Hamilton Centre was talking about proportional representation. I am sure his colleague might want to jump in on this and let us know his views.

The figures for what happened in the last election show that nationally the Bloc had 6.5% of the vote, but in Quebec it had 23% of the vote. The Green Party had 3.91%. The Green Party, at 3.91%, has one representative, while the Bloc, at 6.5%, has four representatives. In some countries that have proportional representation, and unlike our country, which has first past the post, if the government of the day does not support the minority that a member represents or where the member is from, it takes that level of 3% or 4% and raises it to 10%.

I am speaking specifically of Turkey, where this upcoming weekend there will be an election. In order for a party to get a seat in Turkey's parliament, it must get 10% of the vote.

If that were the case and the Conservatives were all of a sudden to raise it to 10%, we would not have any representation from the Green Party and we would not have any representation from the Bloc. I wonder if this is the right move--

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Order, please.

The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Claude Gravelle NDP Nickel Belt, ON

Mr. Speaker, I did not really hear a question in that statement. However, with regard to proportional representation, I think it would be the way to go.

A lot of European countries have proportional representation. With proportional representation, everybody in Canada would be represented. That would make their vote count.

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to you on your new job in the chair.

I also want to congratulate my colleague from Nickel Belt on his resounding victory. Like the victory of my other colleague from Sudbury, it came about because of their dedication, particularly to the steelworkers of Vale Inco, who, as we know, were on strike for a very long time. Their fight for decent-paying jobs and quality pensions has obviously paid off. I am delighted that they are back.

The member just gave an eloquent speech about what is positive in the budget. Yes, having the eco-energy home retrofit program restored is indeed a positive in this budget, and I am glad he talked about it.

However, he also focused at some length on the most vulnerable in our community. In particular, he had the chance to address the plight of seniors. All of us who were knocking on doors in this last campaign are very well aware that seniors were the innocent victims of this global economic downturn. They have worked all their lives and have played by the rules, and now everywhere they turn, with every bill they open, they are paying more and getting less.

The government missed an important opportunity in the budget to seize the moment. Instead of taking $700 million to raise every senior out of poverty, it chose to help only half the seniors or, alternatively, to give all the seniors half of what they need to be lifted out of poverty.

Mr. Speaker, you well know that in our province some of that $50-a-month benefit is going to be clawed back if they live in subsidized housing. Other parts of that $50 are going to be clawed back by the provincial government.

Would the member comment and tell us whether he thinks $50 a month is really enough for the hard-working seniors and pensioners in his community of Sudbury?

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Claude Gravelle NDP Nickel Belt, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. Fifty dollars a month just does not cut it. I have seniors who come to both of my offices in Nickel Belt on a regular basis who are hurting, and $50 is not going to do it.

We have seniors who cannot afford to pay their heating anymore. They have had to block off sections of their homes so that they can heat the parts of the home they are going to be living in. We have seniors who are using the food bank.

This is not acceptable in a great country like Canada.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

James Rajotte Conservative Edmonton—Leduc, AB

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to indicate that I will be splitting my time with the new member for Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon.

I want to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your ascension to the speakership, as well as your colleagues. I know you will serve this House very well.

I also want to thank the constituents of Edmonton—Leduc for electing me to this chamber for a fifth time.

I would like to congratulate all re-elected and newly elected MPs. It is certainly a very different chamber from what it was before the election. It shows, in fact, that elections matter, that votes matter, that voters can fundamentally alter the political reality and the leadership of political parties in this place, as they have done. It also shows that we should always treasure the form of government we have. Our form of government is obviously, as Winston Churchill said, not perfect, but we should embrace the positive aspects of our political system and the results it delivers.

I also want to acknowledge all of those who put their names forward in the last election, in my constituency and across the country, who were not successful. It takes courage, that virtue which Aristotle said was the greatest virtue, to put their name forward, knock on doors, go out there and participate in forums. I want to commend all of those people who put their names forward.

Lastly I would like to recognize all those who volunteer, those Canadians who give their time and efforts to volunteer for their candidate and party. They deserve our recognition as well.

Today we are debating the budget introduced earlier this week by the hon. Minister of Finance, which is substantially the same document that our government presented in March of this year. During the election, we explicitly promised to reintroduce this budget if re-elected, which is exactly what we have done.

What does this budget do? First of all, it continues to support job creation. We have created 540,000 jobs since July 2009, an outstanding figure when compared to other industrialized countries.

How does it do this? It provides a temporary hiring credit for small business to encourage additional hiring by this vital sector, something that was very strongly put forward and endorsed by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

It extends the work-sharing program and the targeted initiative for older workers to help Canadians in some of the hardest hits areas stay in the workforce. This has helped companies like Argus in my constituency in the Nisku area. It had experienced a sharp downtown, but the measures I mentioned allowed it to keep employees. Because it kept these people and did not lose them and is now experiencing more growth, it can fulfill the increased orders. This was a very good program that we are continuing.

The third point I want to mention in this area is our support for the manufacturing and processing sector by extending the accelerated capital cost allowance rate for investment in manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment for an additional two years. This was first put forward in an industry committee report in February 2007. It was put in the budget of March 2007. It has been extended until this point and, obviously, will be extended for another two years once the budget passes. It is a credit to the committee that I had the privilege of chairing.

Mr. Speaker, I know you spent some time on that committee. All four parties endorsed that measure, and I hope they all endorse this measure and this specific budget.

The last thing in this area is providing renewed funding of almost $100 million over two years for research, development and demonstrations of clean energy and energy efficiency.

The second thing we do in this budget is preserve Canada's fiscal advantage. We reaffirm our plan to eliminate deficits a year earlier than previously projected without raising taxes, without cutting transfers to persons, seniors and families, and without cutting transfers to provinces for things like health care, education and social services. In fact, transfers to provinces for health care will increase by 6% per year and by 3% a year for education and social services.

This hit home very strongly during the recent election campaign. People said they wanted the government to balance the budget as quickly as possible, but they wanted to see essential programs, like health care and education, maintained going forward.

We should recognize that the deficit in 2010-11 is projected to be 25% lower than it was in the previous fiscal year and to shrink again by more than 25% in the next year. This is very good news. We are on track to meet our targets and we should continue to do so.

The third area I want to talk about is strengthening our families and communities. Obviously in this House there has been great discussion about how we help these low income seniors. We are proposing to enhance the guaranteed income supplement for low income seniors by $300 million, providing additional yearly benefits of up to $600 for single seniors and $840 for couples.

The second thing is to introduce a family caregiver tax credit of up to $2,000.

The third thing is providing nearly $870 million over two years to address climate change and air quality, including the extension of the eco-energy retrofit program, which will help homeowners. It is a very popular program and we have proposed extending it by a year.

I want to talk about an area of passion for me personally, that of research and development and innovation. I had the experience, as I mentioned, of serving on the industry committee and meeting a lot of the scientists and creators across this country, who are absolutely inspiring.

This budget continues our efforts along these lines by investing in innovation and the economy of tomorrow. It provides $80 million in new funding over three years through the industrial research assistance program. The IRAP program under the National Research Council, in my view, is one of the best government programs in targeting resources towards small- and medium-size businesses to improve their efficiency so that they can grow. One of Canada's fundamental challenges going forward is how we get those small- and medium-size businesses to grow and become larger businesses. It is exactly why we are investing in the IRAP program.

Another thing we are doing is establishing 10 new Canada excellence research chairs. I should point out that I am very proud of the university in my city of Edmonton. The University of Alberta has already been successful at obtaining four Canada excellence research chairs. The university president had a function here in Ottawa in February, where she had all the excellence research chairs from across the country present their ideas and research. It was absolutely fascinating. Our government is obviously adding to this program in this budget, which is an excellent initiative.

We are increasing the budgets of the three federal granting councils by $47 million annually. This was requested by the Association of Universities and Colleges and by researchers across the country, who were saying that we still needed to fund basic research and the three granting councils at an even better rate.

The next story I want to talk about is our support for students. Since 2006, we have supported students in a number of ways. We have created the Canada student grant program. It is providing up to $250 per month of assistance to low income students and up to $100 per month to middle income students.

We have also provided $140 million per year to encourage more young Canadians to pursue apprenticeships, including the new apprenticeship incentive grant and apprenticeship completion grant. I do want to recognize Sam Shaw from the city of Edmonton. He was president of NAIT, which trains the highest proportion of apprentices across this country and does a fantastic job in doing so.

Where we are going from here with this plan is to talk about student loan forgiveness for doctors and nurses working in rural and remote areas. Practising family physicians will be eligible for federal student loan forgiveness of up to $8,000 per year to a maximum of $40,000. Nurse practitioners and nurses will be eligible for federal student loan forgiveness of up to $4,000 per year to a maximum of $20,000.

We are also supporting Canadian students abroad. Many student groups have approached us as members of Parliament for this. We are reducing the 13-week minimum duration requirement to 3 consecutive weeks with respect to the education and textbook tax credit. We are doubling the in-study income exemption and we are reducing the in-study interest rate for part-time Canadian student loan recipients.

I want to touch briefly on my own province of Alberta. The budget demonstrates strong federal government support for provinces like Alberta, including transfers for vital areas like health care, education and social services. In fact, we have increased transfers to the Province of Alberta since 2005 by nearly 50%, totalling nearly $3.4 billion. This is outstanding, allowing provinces to address their health care, education and social service needs.

I ask all parliamentarians to endorse this plan. It is a prudent plan. It is a plan that has been endorsed by economic organizations the world over.

Relatively speaking, our country has done very well. We understand that there are some challenges out there and a significant amount of risk, if we look at the tragedy that occurred in Japan, the European debt situation, and the U.S. economy and fiscal situation being weaker than expected. That is why we need a prudent plan going forward, and that is exactly what this budget is.

That is why I am asking members of Parliament to endorse this budget.

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Glenn Thibeault NDP Sudbury, ON

Mr. Speaker, first I must apologize, as I did not congratulate the hon. member in my last question. I send him my congratulations.

With that, I would like to ask the hon. member a question. First, why is he a Bruins fan? The second question relates to something that is of the utmost importance.

Truly, we have had some great discussion over the last few years on the Conservatives' idea of corporate tax giveaways. We on this side of the House see the corporate tax giveaways as not doing what we would like to see, which is addressing the needs of Canadian families and helping seniors, and addressing the needs of family doctors and bringing them to rural and northern Ontario.

Why is there such a push to go to the wall for corporate tax cuts when they are not necessarily creating the jobs we need right now to help Canadian families?

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

James Rajotte Conservative Edmonton—Leduc, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the question about the Bruins is in order, but I will start with that one.

I am in fact an Oilers fan, but when I was growing up as a young man, there was another young man from Parry Sound named Bobby Orr who inspired me to become a Bruins fan. I have to make that confession in the House of Commons.

I do want to congratulate my friend on his re-election. We work on opposite sides of the aisle, but we do work together on many issues.

In terms of corporate taxation, I encourage him to read the report by the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters. The opposition often points to banks and the oil companies, but let us talk about the manufacturing sector. The Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters put out an excellent report in January of this year listing all of the benefits of reducing corporate tax rates.

The second thing I would encourage the member to do is to go to the OECD website and compare the corporate tax rates across the OECD. Compare our rates with those of Chile, South Korea, Sweden, Denmark and Norway. In fact, we are very competitive if we move to a combined 25% federal-provincial corporate tax rate across this country. We would be in the middle of the OECD and that is where we want to be. We want to be competitive to continue to attract investment to create jobs in this country.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Mr. Speaker, congratulations.

I would like to address something that I know is of interest to my colleague.

Alzheimer's disease and other dementias are among the most significant and critical health care issues in Canada. We cannot ignore them.

Today, 500,000 Canadians suffer from some form of dementia. The impact on those who have the illness and their families is profound, as is the cost to society of $15 billion today and $153 billion in 30 years.

Why does the federal investment in programs, research, and income support and assistance pale in comparison to the health, economic and social impacts of this devastating disease?

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

James Rajotte Conservative Edmonton—Leduc, AB

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. It was addressed by the member and me in this chamber in February when we spoke about the motion that I brought forward on Alzheimer's. She spoke for her party very well in endorsing that motion. The motion was adopted unanimously by the House of Commons.

The member is absolutely right on what the costs Alzheimer's will be for society, not only the fiscal costs but also the tremendous human costs for people who have Alzheimer's and for their families. That is exactly why I would ask her to support this budget. This budget allocates up to $100 million to establish a Canada brain research fund to support the very best in Canadian neuroscience and accelerate discoveries to improve the health and quality of life for Canadians who suffer from brain disorders. This is in the budget.

In fact, the member should take credit for that because she endorsed that motion put forward on Alzheimer's. I encourage her to take a specific look at that and endorse this budget.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member from Edmonton—Leduc for the fine work he did as chair of the finance committee and the input he had into this budget.

This budget deals a lot with supporting job growth and making certain that we continue to create jobs. I wonder if the member, who spoke so eloquently, would give us an indication as to what this budget does to bring down our deficit.

I know there were some long-term goals on the deficit and coming back to budgetary balance. Could he explain to us what this good budget does in bringing us back to a balanced budget?

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

James Rajotte Conservative Edmonton—Leduc, AB

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his re-election. I think he received 84% of the vote in this election.

4:10 p.m.

An hon. member

He squeaked through.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

James Rajotte Conservative Edmonton—Leduc, AB

He barely squeaked through. I do not know who the other 16% are.

In terms of the deficit reduction--

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Notice of MotionWays and MeansGovernment Orders

June 8th, 2011 / 4:10 p.m.

Blackstrap Saskatchewan

Conservative

Lynne Yelich ConservativeMinister of State (Western Economic Diversification)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on being acting Chair, as well.

Pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on June 6, 2011.

I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.

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

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the explanation by the member for Edmonton—Leduc and rundown on the election in Crowfoot. That was quite gratifying. However, I wonder if you would allow him the time to actually answer my question.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

As it turns out, that is just a continuing debate issue.

We will resume debate with the member for Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon.