Debates of June 9th, 2011

Financial Statement of the Minister of Finance

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but it sounded like heckling and I have been ruling all of that out. I sit too close to you sir to be able to do it. You would certainly catch it.

The member for Kings—Hants and members of his party love to get up and talk about the one or two or three good things that his party once did when it was in power. If we had given my colleague long enough, he would have risen and told us what he was just about to get done. That was the next thing.

The eco-energy program has been a very good program across Canada. The secret to these programs is that they cannot be there forever or people will just keep putting off the changes that they need to make to their homes. We need to have them so that they can be refreshed from time to time and ideas can be made better and that is what this government has done.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with my friend and colleague, the member for Mount Royal.

In some sense, one could say that I only have three problems with this budget, which I would like to address. First of all, it makes the wrong choices. Second, it really is very weak on accountability. Third, it attempts to balance the books on the backs of the most vulnerable in society. Other than that, I suppose we could say it is okay. I would say those are three rather important points.

The budget makes the wrong choices. It lacks accountability, and the government is trying to balance its budget on the backs of society's most vulnerable.

I want to start by talking about wrong choices. The worst choice is probably the tax cuts for large corporations, which will cost the government $6 billion a year.

It is not the only bad choice. There are the untendered fighter jets. There is the billions on prisons. However, this is $6 billion per year, which is a big chunk of the money available.

We think prosperity, growth, innovation and productivity are crucial, but we do not think the best way to do that is through reducing tax on the largest companies. We think it is better to either reduce the taxes on the smaller businesses or to have incentives to invest, like a five-year period for accelerated capital cost allowance or to have incentives like a flow-through shared type of mechanism to encourage investment in green technology and high tech industries. Those are just examples which we think are much more cost efficient and cost effective in raising productivity and promoting growth, innovation and jobs than the measure the government took.

However, the net effect of this decision to proceed with tax cuts to the largest corporations is that it puts families at the back of the line. Either the families get a pittance or they have to wait who knows how many years until the books are balanced. We think since families are struggling to make ends meet, families should be at the front rather than at the back of the line, which is where they are in this budget.

Let me give a few examples. In certain cases, families get something but it is a pittance. The government spends $34 million to help students. There are about a million students in Canada, so that is $34 per student per year. It makes no difference. The government spends money to help caregivers, but the maximum credit is $300. That is not going to be a material help for a caregiver looking after his or her loved ones.

Then there are some more major measures, such as the income-splitting measure, but that comes to nothing until the books are balanced. The government claims that is after three years, four years or who knows how many years.

My point is that by doing these tax cuts for very large corporations, the government leaves families out. This is not the most effective way to stimulate growth and jobs and it has the consequence that either families get a pittance now or a bit more down the road. We think that is the wrong approach.

The second point is the lack of fiscal accountability. When we were government in 2005, we did find $11 billion over five years in savings and we booked every item in the budget, so Canadians were clear on exactly what item was being cut or saved, where it would come from and what was going to happen as a consequence of these cuts.

The problem with this budget is that Canadians do not have a clue as to where those cuts will come from. Whose ox will be gored? We know a little bit coming out. There will be lots of cuts in Newfoundland on fisheries where a bit is coming out, but there is very little information in the budget knowing which services will be cut and which people will lose their jobs.

Instead, we get what I would call weasel words. For example, we are told that the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development will have savings on the order of $500 million. That is interesting. What cuts will it get for $500 million? Here is the answer, taken straight from the budget. This is what the Conservatives are going to do: “Improve alignment of program funding with actual needs; Find efficiencies through improved procurement processes and use of technology; Improve use of internal resources and administrative efficiency; Align program activities with core mandate”.

This is a good one: “Refocus programming to benefit all Canadians”.

That is just gobbledygook. Those are weasel words. That does not tell Canadians anything at all about who is going to pay for these cuts, what services are going to be cut and who is going to lose their jobs. All we get are these weasel words and that is why I say the budget is lacking in accountability.

Third, the government is trying to balance its budget on the backs of society's most vulnerable, both in Canada and around the world. Last year's budget froze CIDA funding that included money for economic development in other parts of the world. In that budget, a quarter of the savings put towards reducing the deficit came from freezing international development funding.

In other words, a quarter from the previous year's budget of all the savings that were found were found by restraining CIDA funding. One quarter of the savings to balance Canada's books came on the backs of the poorest people in the world who received cuts in their development assistance.

I would mark the contrast between the Canadian Conservative government that got savings on the backs of the poorest people in the world and the British Conservative government that made an exemption for only two areas which were not debt cuts. The two areas that were not debt cuts were national health and international development. So, whereas the British Conservative government singled out development assistance for especially preferential treatment, the Canadian government singled out international development assistance for especially negative treatment. I think that is a prime example of balancing the books on the backs of the poorest people in the world.

This inclination to hurt the most vulnerable does not just go abroad. It is also true at home.

We heard today, in the supplementary estimates (A), that some of the money for affordable housing was being put back. However, do members know what was the one area where the cut of about $120 million was not put back at all? Housing on reserves. There is probably the area of greatest need in this country.

The Conservatives cut the money for reserves, they cut international development assistance, they provide firefighters and caregivers and music lesson goers with tax credits, but those tax credits are worth nothing if people's income is low enough that they do not pay income tax.

To conclude, the Conservatives are making the wrong choices in this budget, they are weak on accountability and they are trying to balance the budget on the backs of society's most vulnerable, both here in Canada and abroad.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for being re-elected and for being able to avoid the NDP wave, obviously.

I was actually quite shocked when I listened to my colleague speak about what has been done for families under the Conservative government.

Under the Liberal government, social programs were slashed, funding for provinces for health care was slashed, and every program that Canadian families used was slashed. It had such a negative effect on Canadian families. Certainly, it was something that as a Conservative government we said we would not do.

Instead, what did we do? We cut the GST. We gave families the child care benefit. That was something the Liberals would never have dreamed of doing. We are doing things for families like the sports tax credit and the arts tax credit, things that families are asking for.

I want to ask my hon. colleague, when will the Liberals get in touch with Canadians today? The problem is they are very much out of touch with Canadian values. Instead of seeing what Canadians need, they are again criticizing what this government has done.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend across the aisle for her positive comments about my re-election and the NDP wave, which I somehow managed to survive. I congratulate her as well for her re-election.

However, I take some exception to these remarks about Liberals cutting transfers to provinces, et cetera. She is talking about 16 years ago, in 1995. I would point out that this action was taken, and I would not subscribe to her definition of it, but there were severe cutbacks, she is right about that, because the Liberals of the day inherited a super huge $42 billion Conservative deficit. We were on the brink of a fiscal crisis.

The most important point is, and the finance minister should listen to this, what were the finance minister's colleagues of the day, the Conservative Party and the Reform Party, in the mid-1990s saying to the Liberal government? They were saying, “Cut more. You're not cutting enough”. And now they turn around and say that we cut too much. They cannot have it both ways. They said, at the time, “You're not cutting nearly enough”. I remember those days very well.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also thank the two members who just spoke for their reference to the orange wave. Indeed, I am very pleased that the hon. member was re-elected. Despite everything, I have had some good discussions with him over the years.

Personally, I think both members are wrong. We are once again going through what happened in 1995. For instance, in Gatineau we have our share of problems in health care. We have not recovered from those cuts. No one in Quebec will say otherwise. Whether we blame the Conservatives or not for eliminating the deficit on the backs of the provinces, through cuts to vital programs like health care and education, the fact remains that we are still feeling the repercussions.

Drastic cuts have been made to the public service here in this region, even though it is the driving force of our economy. No one says that often enough. It hurt, and it continues to hurt. People are even more afraid to see what the Conservatives will cut next after all the reviews.

I agree with the member's comment that we do not know where the next cuts will be. Furthermore, that is perhaps the only difference I see in the two versions of the budget. They adopted the slower approach of a one-year review. In a year's time, they will hit us hard.

Does the hon. member think that the 1995 cuts are no longer being felt?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that the 1995 cuts were necessary because of the $42 billion deficit we had inherited from the Conservatives. However, it took maybe three years to balance the budget. After that, we re-invested in the economy and were able to sign the health agreement with the provinces that was in effect from 2004 to 2014. The Conservatives are trying to take credit for it, but that was a Liberal plan, a 10-year plan with a 6% per year increase in health transfers. That was after we returned to a balanced budget. We had the money to make these investments in health, education and social programs.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Mount Royal, that wonderful, diverse and engaged constituency that I am honoured and privileged to represent.

I begin by expressing my appreciation to the electors of Mount Royal who have entrusted me with my sixth mandate in 11 years, as I was first elected in a byelection in 1999, and for their continuing engagement and involvement in the issues of the day.

In particular, I want to commend my constituents for their participation in pre-budgetary public forums. These encounters both inform and inspire my remarks today.

For example, at the invitation of the Minister of Finance, who recommended that such consultations be held, we held a pre-budgetary forum in my riding on February 10 in the presence of a cross-section of some 300 people from the riding. On March 4, I forwarded a summary of the issues discussed, concerns expressed, and recommendations to the minister. On March 17, in the light of emerging concerns, we held yet another public forum.

On March 22, the Minister of Finance tabled the budget in the House and on March 24, I spoke in the House with respect to that budget by way of reply. Indeed, the government's economic action plan and the budget, as an expression of that action plan, formed part of the discussion in my electoral encounters during the election.

Accordingly, and as the minister said in presenting the government's post-election budget and the government's action plan on June 6, all done against the backdrop of the Speech from the Throne, the minister would be continuing where he left off or, more particularly, reaffirming what he said on March 22. As he put it earlier this afternoon, and I quote, “We like this budget so much we introduced it twice”.

Similarly, as my initial critique anchored in the representations of my constituents of the time went seemingly unaddressed and unacknowledged by the minister who invited these pre-budget consultations, I thought it appropriate to reaffirm and refine those responses in my remarks today.

I begin as I did on March 24 by reaffirming that the budget is not just a financial statement or economic action plan, it is a statement of values. Against the backdrop of the Speech from the Throne, it in effect constitutes the government's vision for the future. It is not only a balance sheet, but as the minister himself acknowledged in his initial presentation on March 22, it is a statement of priorities, a balance of needs, indeed, a statement of principles and priorities underpinning such a vision.

Accordingly, I organize my remarks around two things.

First, I will seek to summarize the four major critiques of the government's action plan as conveyed to me by my constituents in the various public forums that we had, including pre-budget consultations.

Second, I will refer to the government's underlying vision, or the absence of an overall strategic vision, as again conveyed to me by my constituents.

In the matter of the critique as conveyed by my constituents, the first concern is the $30 billion for an untendered contract for the purchase of F-35 jets. It is a matter of interest to note that at the pre-budget consultation we held on February 10 I shared with my constituency the proposed or anticipated cost at the time, which was $16 billion. I then said that I thought it was higher, probably $21 billion.

By the time we held the next consultation on March 17, we learned from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that, after conducting an international peer review, the estimated cost was now $30 billion. Indeed, we learned during the election that even the $30 billion may already be outdated.

The cost, as attested to by United States senators and congressmen themselves, was “out of control”. Some countries like Denmark and the Netherlands were rethinking their commitment. There were those in the U.S. who were calling for the scrapping of the F-35 project as a whole.

The issue is not whether we need fighter jets. We have respect for the security needs of this country. The question is whether we should be spending $30 billion, and rising, on an untendered contract. Even the Americans say the costs are out of control and an international peer review suggests that we need an open competitive contract with respect to this particular budgetary item.

Second, there was an extended critique by my constituents of the billions of dollars set aside for a crime agenda and for the building of megaprisons at a time when crime is declining. I have to say, as a former minister of justice and attorney general of Canada, that the government clearly has a responsibility to address the question of crime. Governments clearly have a responsibility for the safety and security of the streets and neighbourhoods of their inhabitants.

As I learned as a minister of justice, let alone in my previous involvement as a law professor in areas of criminal justice sur le terrain, one of the best ways to combat crime is to prevent it to begin with, to provide jobs for youth at risk rather than jails, to utilize an integrated, preventive and rehabilitative approach rather than one organized around over-criminalization, over-sentencing, megaprisons and extended punishments.

Third, my constituents critiqued the $6 billion of proposed corporate tax cuts for the richest 5% of corporations. I am not opposed to corporate tax cuts as a matter of principle or as a matter of rigid orthodoxy. I can appreciate that corporate tax cuts can relate to economic growth and increased employment. Indeed, I was part of a government and sat in a cabinet that reduced corporate taxes from 29% to 21%.

I am not saying that we should never reduce corporate taxes. I understand, as I said, their validity. However, we did it at a time when we had eight successive budgetary surpluses. We did it at a time when we bequeathed to the Conservatives, when we were defeated, a budgetary surplus of $13.2 billion. We did not do it at a time when there was, as there is now, the highest budgetary deficit of $56 billion and we did not do it with respect to the very richest 5% of corporations while those in need were in fact given paltry handouts. That is the point of principle.

I will borrow from the Minister of Finance's own statement when he said, “What are the relative needs? What is the basis of comparative need?” I put the question to my constituents in our prebudget consultations. Their response in terms of the minister's own principle was that this budget spends 1,000 times more on fighter jets than it does on post-secondary students, 1,000 times more on megaprisons than it does on youth crime prevention, more for a single day of the G20 than in a year for seniors who are being given a paltry sum of $1.20 a day, more in partisan advertising than it did on family care, and so on.

The final critique is that the Conservative government has expressly excluded low income Canadians from qualifying for measures under this budget, such as the family caregiver tax credit, a worthy measure but one that is inappropriately being implemented. In a word, the Conservatives have made the tax credits in this budget non-refundable, which only helps Canadians who earn enough income so that they can pay the income taxes. Indeed, those are non-refundable tax credits and are not even available to low income Canadians. Simply put, under the Conservative government, a taxpayer earning $20,000 with a dependant would not qualify for any help as a caregiver, and this is something that we sorely need.

Finally, on the matter of a vision for the future and of having a strategic plan for the future, my constituents shared with me what they considered to be the absence of such a vision or strategic plan. They spoke of the importance of the need for health care. Indeed, I tabled, at their insistence, a nine point action plan for health care. They spoke of the need for early learning and child care and the need for access to higher education and to justice.

They spoke of the concerns of seniors, a disproportionate number of whom inhabit my riding. They spoke of pensions and poverty and of the fact that 700,000 seniors in this country are living in poverty. They spoke of the need for a clean environment and the need to invest in green technology. They spoke of the need for jobs, social housing, social justice and always that the test of a just society is how it treats its most vulnerable.

What do we find when we look at this budget? We find, regrettably, a budget that is disconnected from the needs that I have just shared with the House as my constituents conveyed them to me. We find a budget without a comprehensive strategy for health care, environmental protection, early learning and child care, jobs and taking care of the poor.

It is a budget, in a word, that is disconnected, not only from the needs of my own constituents as they shared them with me, but from the needs of many Canadians across this country who have conveyed similar views.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by very sincerely congratulating my colleague on his re-election. It is good to see him in the House.

One of the parts of the budget that has been very popular and very well supported in my riding is our ending of political subsidies. My hon. colleague has been involved in politics for a very long time. Would he not agree that it is actually healthier for a political party to raise funds on its own, to have policies that individual Canadians support and will actually back with their money? It be healthier for those parties because it would mean that they would need to be in touch with grassroots Canadians. There obviously is the tax implication and the fact that Canadians should not have to put money toward political parties that they do not support or agree with.

I am wondering what my colleague would have to say about that, given his experience in the political field, as well as seeing his party be successful and then not as successful in raising funds.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member opposite also on her re-election and her presence and participation in this House.

On the matter of subsidies and the like, the hon. member is correct that grassroots financing of political parties is important, and all political parties engage in it. However, the whole purpose of the subsidies has to be seen in accordance with the limitations that replace, on the one hand, financial contributions, and on democratization with respect to the financing of political parties, and to enhance political participation in the marketplace of ideas and in the marketplace of advocacy.

To the extent that some members of her party have spoken to it, and I am not saying that the hon. member spoke to it, but this kind of measure can put an end to the Liberal Party as we know it. In other words, we will not only defeat the Liberals but in fact the Liberals will be vanquished. Again, I am not attributing it to this House. I am just saying that the issue of political subsidization has to be seen within the context of maximizing political participation. That is how I look at it.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for Mount Royal for his victory and for withstanding the orange wave. That being said, I know that he was always very open to questions about the status of women when he was the justice minister.

The Minister of Finance will be very pleased to know that I am reading the budget; I am almost finished. I have only a few pages left to read and I did not see much about the status of women.

Did the hon. member read anything about the right to equality, for example, was there any additional funding allocated to the status of women in order to promote pay and other types of equity?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. I congratulate her on coming back to us and anticipate her participation in debates.

This budget and this plan barely touch on the principle of equality and the rights of women. The budget speaks about the anniversaries that will be happening in the coming year but it does not mention the fact that 2012 will mark the 30th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is the 30th anniversary of the principle of equality. This is the same government that dismantled the court challenges program, which provided assistance to women and minorities and helped to meet the objectives of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with my hon. colleague from Prince Edward—Hastings. I would like to congratulate him and all returning and new members who were elected on May 2.

I also thank the people of North Vancouver who, again, have given me the honour and privilege of representing them here in Ottawa.

I am pleased today to speak in favour of budget 2011 which introduces the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. Two years ago, Canada, along with the rest of the world, faced an extraordinary economic challenge. The great recession, as it has come to be known, threatened the jobs and the well-being of millions of Canadians and their families.

To address this global crisis, our government acted swiftly and decisively by introducing Canada's economic action plan which included timely and targeted investments in transportation, colleges and universities, libraries, police and fire stations, affordable housing and recreational facilities, infrastructure and road improvements, and countless other important projects. The actions of our government helped to ensure that Canada was able to avoid the worst of the global economic recession and that we were able to enter into recovery faster than almost any other nation in the industrialized world.

It is with great pleasure that I am able to stand here today and say that Canada has posted the strongest employment growth in the G7 and that more Canadians are working today than before the start of the recession.

Although Canadians should be proud of the success, recent world events have shown there remains considerable risk and uncertainty in the global economy. The American and some European economies are suffering from a massive debt crisis, and although we in Canada are doing much better comparatively, there are still far too many Canadians who remain without jobs. It is with this mind that our government introduces the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. It is a blueprint to the building of a better Canada, a Canada that is stronger, more stable and more prosperous. By remaining focused on our economy, our government seeks to stabilize our fragile economic recovery.

We will do this by investing in Canadians and their families. We will encourage private enterprise to invest and to create jobs. We will help Canadians get the education and training they need to work in the 21st century economy. We will assist Canadian families in the care and well-being of their loved ones.

The major priority of our government moving forward is to continue to facilitate the growth and creation of new jobs. The next phase of Canada's economic action plan includes multiple strategies to achieve this. We will be introducing a temporary hiring credit for small business, designed to encourage additional hiring by this vital sector. We will extend the work sharing program and the targeted initiative for older workers. This will help provide older workers who wish to stay in the workforce the opportunity to do so.

We will support the manufacturing sector by extending the accelerated capital cost allowance treatment for investments in manufacturing and processing machinery.

Most important, we will stay on track to keep taxes low in order to encourage job creators to reinvest profits and create jobs and employment.

Another important aspect in protecting our fragile economic recovery is to continue to facilitate further access to international markets. This is why our government is committed to negotiating new free trade agreements which will further grow our economic capacity.

In addition to negotiating a free trade agreement with the European Union, the biggest economic bloc in the world, our government is aggressively pursuing better trade relations in the Asia-Pacific region. Increasing our market access in these vital markets is a key component to growing our economy and creating new jobs.

Our government has invested millions into port improvements through the Asia-Pacific Gateway initiative. This, combined with an anticipated free trade agreement with India, one of the fastest growing economies in the world, will directly benefit the Canadian manufacturing industry and our resource sectors.

Due to our comparative advantages, Canada has a tremendous opportunity moving forward through the 21st century , and our government is making the necessary investments to take advantage of this.

However, creating economic opportunities and jobs is only one aspect of the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. In order to have a truly competitive economy in the 21st century, it is imperative that we invest in the education and training of Canadians.

The next phase of Canada's economic action plan contains multiple measures to do just that. We will be investing hundreds of millions of dollars for research and development at top ranked universities and educational facilities. We will extend tax relief for skills certification exams. This will make all occupational trade and professional exam fees eligible for tax relief.

We have committed to double the in-study income exemption from $50 per week to $100 per week. This will directly benefit over 100,000 Canadian students by allowing them to work more without negatively affecting their loans.

Investing in the next generation of Canadian leaders will ensure that our country will continue to maintain the positive momentum we achieved through the important investments we have made over the past five years.

I can mention, for example, a project in my own riding of north Vancouver. Capilano University in my riding received, through the knowledge infrastructure program, $15 million toward the building of a new film and animation centre. This state-of-the-art facility will help train thousands of students for careers in the film industry. It is through investments in the arts such as this that our government is not only strengthening our economy, but also our society as well as creating jobs and helping to train our next generation.

The next phase of Canada's economic action plan introduces important measures to help Canadians take care of their families and their loved ones.

We have introduced a children's art's tax credit, a 15% non-refundable tax credit on up to $500 in eligible fees for children's arts and cultural activities.

We have also introduced a family caregiver tax credit, a 15% non-refundable tax credit on an amount up to $2,000 for Canadians to care for loved ones in need.

We have also removed the $10,000 limit on the amount of eligible medical expenses that can be claimed on behalf of a financially-dependent relative.

Also, we have extended the eco-energy retrofit program. This will help families lower the cost of their heating and electricity bills.

In addition to helping Canadian families, the next phase of Canada's economic action plan takes unprecedented steps to aid Canadian seniors.

We have enhanced the guaranteed income supplement so that low income seniors will have additional benefits of up to $600 for single seniors and $840 for couples. This will help more than 680,000 seniors and is the biggest increase of the GIS in over 25 years.

We have also enhanced the new horizons for seniors program. We are investing over $10 million to promote volunteerism, mentorship and the social participation of seniors. The program will also move to protect seniors by raising the awareness of elder abuse.

Our government is also removing the mandatory retirement age for federally-regulated employees. This will give seniors the freedom to choose whether they wish to remain in the workforce.

On May 2, Canadians elected a Conservative majority government. During the campaign, our party promised to deliver on the priorities of everyday Canadians. The next phase of Canada's economic action plan delivers on this pledge.

As we move forward, our government will continue to lay the foundation for a stronger, more stable and more prosperous Canada.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Senator Smith said during the last election campaign and before his appointment to the other place, “it is "normal" that more of Ottawa's money should go to Conservative ridings”.

Will the hon. member tell Canadians who elected opposition MPs that they will receive less federal funds because they did not vote for the Conservative Party?

Is this why the government will not commit to replacing the Champlain Bridge?

Is this why the township of Georgian Bay got $1 million, and it was 86 kilometres away from Huntsville, for a linear park, but Rivière-Beaudette gets told that it will have to buy back its iconic historic lighthouse and assume costs for decontaminating the land that it is on?

That is the government for all Canadians? It presents itself as the government of all Canadians. Why was the equivalent of 4% of all funds directed toward infrastructure spending for the whole country spent in this small part of Ontario?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member were to look at the facts, he would see that every one of the 308 ridings across the country benefited from Canada's economic action plan. Every riding benefited from the stimulus fund.

Canadians across the country are applauding this government for the bold initiatives that we took to implement Canada's economic action plan and the results are there for everybody to see.

Infrastructure projects across the country that will benefit Canadians for generations to come have been built in the last two years as a result of Canada's economic action plan. These projects will increase productivity, increase manufacturing, increase fitness of people with renewed recreational facilities, new bridges, new sewers and new health facilities.

Every Canadian has benefited as a result of Canada's economic action plan.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I want to congratulate you on your re-election, Mr. Speaker, as well as my hon. colleague on his re-election.

I want to thank the voters of Cardigan for finding a way to send me back here for the eighth time. It is indeed an honour to be in this place.

The government has indicated that it has done a number of things. It is going to spend $30 billion on untendered contracts for airplanes. It is going to spend $6 billion to give major corporations a break. It is going to spend billions of dollars on prisons. However, there are much smaller figures at which I hope the Minister of Finance and my hon. colleague will take a look.

The government took $64 million out of ACOA last year and will take $15 million out of ACOA this year. When the government takes $57 million out of fisheries that becomes not only an economic issue but a safety issue. I hope my hon. colleague will not stand up and respond to me about how much his government has done.

We must convince my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, of the importance of these issues before a fisherman looses his life because we could not find the funding to dredge the harbour.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are many fine projects across the country that need funding from the federal government, and many of them have been funded.

The priorities of Canadians are clear. We will be focusing on economic growth and also on job creation with Canada's economic action plan. The best social program is a strong economy and that is why we will be focusing on a strong economy and creating jobs in the years to come.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to welcome my friend and colleague back to the House. It is a joy working with the parliamentary secretary.

I realize the parliamentary secretary has a very large family, has friends who have children and I want to give him an opportunity at this point to celebrate this budget by indicating which measures in the budget are going to help his family and the families of his friends as they progress through this wonderful time and through the summer.

I hope he will please take this opportunity to tell us what he thinks of the family measures in the budget.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on being re-elected and for also being reappointed a parliamentary secretary.

As a result of reducing over 120 taxes over the last five years since the Conservative government came to power, the average Canadian family has over $3,000 extra in its pocket at the end of each year. That is $3,000 that it can spend on its children's education, that it can spend to look after its children and enhance their childhood. These are important measures.

We have also given tax credits for the arts so children can be enrolled in arts programs and cultural programs. We are also extending caregiver tax credits so family members can look after other family members who need it most.

Those are just some of the programs that we have introduced to help families.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with pride and humility today, I would like to thank the citizens of Prince Edward—Hastings for the overwhelming support they have given me in returning me to the House for the fourth time.

I am so privileged and proud to be able to speak on this budget today, a budget that I find has not only overwhelming support across this nation, but such positive attributes for Canadians. The reason is very clear and simple. This budget is about one thing. This budget is about people. It is about the couple on the main street, running its own business. It is about the students who are attending college or university, trying to further their career prospects. It about the seniors who have contributed to their community all their lives. It is about the manufacturers. It is about the farmers. It is about the foresters. It is about consumers. It is about families. Yes, it is about real people.

The constituents of my riding of Prince Edward—Hastings represent many walks of life. This budget benefits them as it benefits people from across this nation.

This is the budget that strikes the critical balance in focusing on the economy, on the jobs and on the growth, while also delivering on the everyday needs of Canadians.

More important, this is the budget that follows up on our commitments, that mirrors our election promises and that effectively does what we said we would do.

This budget, prepared for the 41st Parliament, builds further upon the next phase of Canada's economic action plan.

This government will support job creation by helping businesses and entrepreneurs succeed, keeping taxes low, investing in projects of national importance and in maintaining Canada's brand as one of the best places in which to invest and live in the world.

The next phase of the action plan advances these priorities by providing a temporary hiring credit for small businesses to encourage additional hiring by the vital sector. Having had a successful career as a small business owner myself, who over the years employed hundreds of citizens, I can tell members from personal experience how important this incentive is for job creation.

As well, we will extend the work-sharing program, the target initiative for older workers, to help Canadians stay in the workforce. We will support extending the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance treatment for investment in manufacturing or processing machinery and equipment for another two years. Locally, hundreds of small businesses in my riding to larger companies like Kellogg's or Procter & Gamble have all made significant capital investment and the resultant jobs have been, and will continue to be, created as a result of this magnificent and most effective tax credit.

We will legislate a permanent annual investment of $2 billion in the gas tax fund for municipalities.

As a former municipal councillor and deputy reeve, I know how important predictable and dedicated funding is for effective infrastructure planning.

We will invest to promote innovation in Canada's important agriculture, forestry and mining sectors.

As promised during my campaign, and I certainly thank the finance minister, I am pleased to keep our commitment of $20 million over two years to extend the tremendously successful eastern Ontario development program.

This government will support families and communities so all Canadians can enjoy a high standard of living and our communities can stay vibrant and safe.

The next phase of our action plan is to invest in these goals by enhancing the guaranteed income supplement for those seniors who rely almost exclusively on their old age security and the GIS and who may be at risk of experiencing financial difficulties. This measure will provide a new top-up benefit of $600 per year for single seniors and $840 per year for couples. This measure represents an investment of more than $300 million per year and will improve the financial security of more than 680,000 seniors across Canada.

In my riding of Prince Edward—Hastings, we now have the second highest concentration of seniors in Ontario as well as a significantly lower rural income base. I can assure members that the support of our seniors for this initiative is overwhelming.

We will attract more health care workers to underserviced remote and rural areas by forgiving up to $400,000 of the federal component of Canada student loans for new family physicians and up to $20,000 for nurse practitioners and nurses.

We will introduce a new $2,000 family caregiver tax credit amount that will provide tax relief to caregivers of infirm dependent relatives including, for the first time, spouses, common-law partners and minor children. In many rural ridings such as mine, we have a severe shortage of senior care facilities. Initiatives such as this will certainly go a long way to provide much-needed assistance.

We will also introduce a new children's arts tax credit of up to $500 per child of eligible fees associated with children's artistic, cultural, recreational and developmental activities.

We will introduce a $3,000 volunteer firefighter tax credit for volunteer firefighters who perform at least 200 hours of service in their communities. In my riding of Prince Edward—Hastings and in many similar ridings in rural Canada, the communities are serviced by dedicated volunteer firefighters. This measure demonstrates very clearly our gratitude, our support and our appreciation.

We will provide nearly $870 million over two years to address climate change and air quality, including the extension of the eco-energy retrofit homes program that will help homeowners make their homes more energy efficient and reduce the burden of high energy costs.

This government will promote research and leading-edge technologies by providing $80 million in new funding over three years through the industrial research assistance program to help small and medium-sized businesses accelerate their adoption of key information and communication technologies through collaborative projects with colleges and colleagues. Across the country, and certainly in my riding, we have experienced and benefited from tremendous co-operation among these innovators, the entrepreneurs and our colleges. Across the country, the progression of the knowledge economy is absolutely crucial to our competitiveness.

We will establish 10 new Canada excellence research chairs, some of which will be active in fields relevant to Canada's digital economy strategy.

We will increase the budgets of all three federal granting councils by $47 million annually, including support for indirect costs.

We will improve commercialization and supporting demonstration of new technologies in the marketplace by supporting research links among colleges, universities and businesses.

We will enhance and expand Canada student loans and grants for part-time as well as full-time post-secondary students.

We will encourage skills certification by making all occupational, trade and professional examination fees eligible for tax relief.

Finally and importantly, this government will balance the budget. We will deliver more than $500 million in new ongoing savings from the 2010 round of strategic reviews. We will protect the integrity and fairness of the Canadian tax system by closing tax loopholes. We will launch a comprehensive one-year strategic and operating review of departmental spending across all of government in 2011-2012.

One simply has to listen to the numerous positive accolades for this budget from across the country. Positive comments have flowed from individuals, groups, organizations, municipalities, provinces, labour, management, professionals, small businesses, manufacturers, scientists, educators, students, seniors and parents.

As I said in my opening comment, this budget is about people. It is about where we are and where we are going as a nation. It looks out for the most vulnerable and yet, very importantly, it looks ahead. I am proud and excited to be a member of this government going forward with this budget that will preserve Canada's advantage in the global economy; strengthen the financial security of Canadian workers, seniors and families; and provide the stability necessary to secure our recovery in this uncertain world.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I almost got so caught up with the enthusiasm of the member as to look again at the notes in my budget and wonder if we were looking at the same thing.

I appreciate the member's passion and I welcome him back to the House, but there are a lot of issues that are not being dealt with in this budget. I could talk about the fact that we could be lifting all seniors out of poverty, rather than just having some people helping them out of bed. It could actually be all seniors. They deserve that help.

As well, I could talk about our need to invest more in cities and transportation.

However, there is one issue I know this member particularly cares about. We saw a lot of people, former Nortel employees, who were promised help. I know there are people in his riding who were affected, people who are former Nortel pensioners.

Where in this budget is there any provision to help someone like a former Nortel pensioner or someone who was left on the side? Is there anything in this budget for them?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this question is very important and, as he knows, dear to my heart, as I have one of the largest groups of Nortel retirees in Canada in my riding. During this election and for the last number of years I have known many of these people personally. I have witnessed the heartache, particularly over long-term disability as well as over the pension issue.

I first became aware of this situation when a number of people told me they were only going to get maybe 15% to 20% of their pensions by the time it unwinds. Whether it was fraud or mismanagement is, of course, yet to be determined.

We as a government asked what we could do. We undertook a number of initiatives, and right now the regular retirees are probably going to get well in excess of 80% through a number of concrete actions taken by this government.

Is it enough? Of course not. We always want it replaced. However, I can thank the finance minister for putting actions and activities into the previous budget as well as the current one to deal with that reality.

It cannot be retroactive. We understand that. Even Nortel employees recognize that, but we have to deal with the eventualities of other corporations in the future that can be impacted by legislation that we bring forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the candour in the response addressing Nortel seniors. I want to ask the member a question with regard to the commitment in this budget to seniors.

Canada is a country of great wealth and has so much potential. We can reflect upon what we are providing to seniors, and it would be very difficult to find anyone who would say we are not giving enough money to our seniors. The government has come forward and said how much it is going to give them, and it works out roughly to an increase of $1.60 to $1.70 a day.

Does the member anticipate this is going to be increasing over the next year or two? Is that enough for seniors, looking forward?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right in one context, in that we have one serious problem in addition to the ones we are dealing with as a nation, which is that we are an aging society. Increasing pressure will be put on all governments around the world to address the growing demographic demand of seniors.

As such, we have recognized that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all solution. There are seniors who are wealthy and others who live in poverty. There are seniors who need assistance in various ways and there are others who need assistance in definitive ways. We have introduced a myriad of programs over the past three to five years, and in this budget I am particularly delighted to see a number of initiatives across the board that will help many different people in many different ways.

Will there still be more to do as we move forward? There will be, absolutely. That is why this is the budget for this year and why we introduce a new budget every year. It is in order to deal with the changing demographic demands of our society.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise you that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Davenport.

Earlier today I had the opportunity to extend my deepest thanks to the people of Beaches—East York and to my family for supporting my desire to represent the people of Beaches—East York in this House. Allow me to extend my thanks to the hundreds of volunteers and staff who gave up their time and family life to support our successful campaign in Beaches—East York. It is my hope that I am able to justify their time and effort by my conduct in the House.

Let me begin my comments by saying how proud and humbled I am to be sitting as a member of the official opposition among such a large NDP caucus, a caucus full of such talent, potential and accomplishment and, importantly, optimism. Let me also extend my congratulations to all members on that side of the aisle and a few more on this side of the aisle on their success on May 2. Their sense of pride with their accomplishment on May 2 is manifest.

I would like to suggest that for all of us, as we get on with the business of this House, modesty and humility is more the order of the day. We have failed too many Canadians too often and for too long, so the challenges that we must confront and conquer are now formidable, and increasingly so, but a tremendous opportunity presents itself to us.

It is the opportunity, in a House with this particular partisan configuration, a majority government without the support of the majority of Canadians, to reach across the aisle to invite all members of the House to work together to address these challenges.

It is an opportunity that threatens to elude us shortly by way of the government's commitment to its regurgitated budget. From where I stand in this House, this budget has been seen and already judged and found wanting by the people of Beaches—East York precisely because it did not address the challenges that I have referred to.

It is a budget that leaves seniors in poverty when we have before us both the opportunity to and the imperative of lifting all seniors out of poverty immediately.

It is a budget that fails to address the needs of families for affordable and accessible child care when we should be providing single-parent families, two-parent families, working families as well as families without work, access to the affordable child care that they need to make ends meet.

It is a budget that continues to hang enormous debt around the necks of young Canadians who choose to pursue an education when we should be helping the young people of this country fulfill their potential and, in doing so, fulfill the promise of this country.

It is a budget that continues to leave new Canadians socially and economically isolated, their education skills and energy going wasted when we should be keeping our promise to all those we invite into this country to make use of their skills and energy, and in doing so, engage them in our collective effort to build always a better future for this country.

It is a budget that fails to put workers back into empty factories, businesses back into empty storefronts, and consumers back into shops when we should be using the resources of the Government of Canada to grow a competitive economy with good, well-paying jobs and secure pensions.

It is a budget that ignores the plight of our cities, the fact that our cities are vastly underfunded and carry a $123 billion infrastructure deficit, and have become places of stark, economic disparity. Our cities should be recognized as places with tremendous potential for cultural creativity, for economic ingenuity and growth, for energy efficiency, and a meaningful response to global warming. Our cities should be at the forefront of our national agenda.

Finally, this is a budget that is short-sighted in that it is nothing new. It seems in fact to be something of a tradition passed on between Conservative and Liberal and Conservative governments. Both minority and majority governments have, for years and years, carried on without looking to the horizon to see how to navigate through the challenges ahead, to see the critical issues that will inevitably and profoundly reshape our future.

And so, we have a budget that pretends that there is no health care crisis for this country's seniors and their families. Time after time, seniors in Beaches—East York talked to me about their struggles, trying to provide care for their partners because there was no other care available.

Time after time, people my age answered the door, wanting to talk about their difficulties providing care for their parents while raising their kids. Very often the conversation turned to the need for the government to provide help with the growing need for psycho-geriatric care.

We have a budget that pretends there is no climate change crisis. Islands are sinking below water in our oceans and seas, the permafrost is thawing below communities in our north, and the government carries on giving taxpayer money away to big oil corporations so that we hasten that process.

It is very clearly the expectation of the people of Beaches—East York that the government of this country think beyond tomorrow. We will never leave our children a great country if we do not do so.

I urge the government to seize the opportunity that we have before us. I noted at the beginning that we have an opportunity to recover our vision to build a great country. We can begin modestly, one practical step at a time. I believe it to be our responsibility to do so, and it is very clearly the expectation of my constituents that we do so.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the hon. member for Beaches—East York whose constituents will be very well represented. We heard how thorough his speech was. I agreed with it. I would like to give him the opportunity to talk a little more about this issue since I know he represents a riding with many pockets of poverty.

What could the budget have included to provide more assistance to the people of Beaches—East York, particularly its seniors? Does the hon. member believe that an amount of less than $2 per day is sufficient to help many seniors get out of poverty?