Debates of Feb. 26th, 2014

Citizenship Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

(Order discharged and bill withdrawn)

The House resumed from February 25 consideration of the motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kootenay—Columbia.

As the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I welcome this opportunity to rise to speak to budget 2014, our government's economic action plan for creating jobs and opportunities for Canadians.

I certainly encourage all Canadians to take the opportunity to find out how they can benefit from the sound economic leadership provided by the Prime Minister, and our Conservative government, by reading our well-received economic road map. In my remarks today, I intend to highlight those sections of the budget document that are of particular interest to my constituents in the great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, beginning with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.

Atomic Energy of Canada, or AECL, is a federal crown corporation that operates Canada's largest nuclear science and technology laboratories. AECL develops innovative applications of nuclear technology, with applications ranging from research and development to waste management and the decommissioning of nuclear facilities.

AECL continues to be a significant employer in the upper Ottawa Valley, providing well-paying jobs in my riding and throughout Canada. AECL employs approximately 2,000 staff at the Chalk River and Deep River locations, and 3,400 employees company-wide. This is in addition to the thousands of jobs in the nuclear supply chain which help to drive the Canadian economy.

Economic action plan 2014 proposes to provide $117 million, over two years, for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to maintain safe and reliable operations at Chalk River Laboratories, secure the supply of medical isotopes, and prepare for the expected transition of the laboratories to a government-owned, contractor-operated model. The Government of Canada has announced that it would move forward with the restructuring of AECL's nuclear laboratories to ensure that its operations are efficient and continue to meet the needs of Canadians.

While AECL is recognized as a leader in the nuclear power industry, many Canadians are not aware of the significant science, research, and development work that takes place at Chalk River Laboratories. AECL's efforts in environmental mediation and nuclear waste management enable activities that are focused on addressing our government's commitment to a clean and healthy environment for Canadians.

Its main activities include the management of nuclear waste in a safe, secure, and environmentally sound manner; the retrieval and remediation of stored legacy waste to mitigate environmental risks; the development of technologies for waste processing and storage; and the decommissioning of facilities to remove the risks and liabilities of the facilities.

AECL has four specific capabilities: nuclear waste management and water treatment, environmental remediation and engineering, the development of nuclear waste management facilities, and facility decommissioning. Additionally, these capabilities can be enhanced through strategic collaborations and engaging AECL's supply chain.

Here is a quote from the AECL Nuclear Review:

Concern for the environment, along with public health, security, and safety is a ubiquitous feature of today’s social consciousness. Radiation, as a sometimes feared and often misunderstood harbinger of both the beneficial and harmful consequences of nuclear science and technology, occupies a special niche in that consciousness. On the one hand, high-tech, clean nuclear energy provides the means for sustaining our lifestyles while avoiding millions of tons of greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating the environmental consequences of climate change and extreme weather events. On the other hand, the operation of nuclear facilities and storage of the radioactive nuclear fuel waste raises legitimate concerns around the spread of radioactivity in the environment and the perceived detrimental and sometimes multi-generational consequences on people and on the ecosystem. This equation, balancing benefits for people against real or perceived harm to the environment, applies to nearly all nuclear activities, including radiation therapy, nuclear medicine and the production and use of medical and industrial isotopes.

The intention of the piece is to highlight some of the science that informs discussion on radiation, the environment, and health. I quoted from the AECL Nuclear Review to point out that attitudes are changing about clean, greenhouse gas-free nuclear power.

The environmental movement, particularly the more mature individuals in the movement, are recognizing that a green future needs nuclear power.

Those of us who believe that nuclear energy has a critical role to play to ameliorate the effects of global climate change were encouraged by a recent open letter to environmentalists, signed by such people as Dr. Ken Caldeira, senior scientist, department of global ecology, Carnegie Institution; and Dr. James Hansen, climate scientist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

These and other like-minded individuals are urging those individuals who are truly concerned about the environment to support the development of safer nuclear energy systems, such as Canada's success story, the CANDU system.

To quote their open letter to environmentalists:

No energy system is without downsides. We ask only that energy system decisions be based on facts, and not on emotions and biases that do not apply to 21st century nuclear technology. [...] the time has come for those who take the threat of global warming seriously to embrace the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as one among several technologies that will be essential to any credible effort to develop an energy system that does not rely on using the atmosphere as a waste dump.

I have no doubt that the same radical environmentalists who recommended forcing rural Ontario to accept industrial wind turbines and the out-of-control electricity rates that are bankrupting Ontario hydro customers were the same individuals who convinced the Ontario Liberal Party to turn its back on the Canadian nuclear success story.

The so-called Green Energy Act is forcing people in rural Ontario to have to choose between heating and eating.

I mention this because one of the architects of the disastrous policy in Toronto is now the principal advisor to the Liberal Party in Ottawa. Gerald Butts, called the “puppeteer” by the media for the way he controls the Liberal leader, would like to introduce a new version of the disastrous national energy policy of the 1980s that is causing electricity bills to skyrocket in Ontario. Worst of all, the cornerstone of an updated Liberal NEP is a carbon tax.

Ontario needs to cancel its high electricity rate policy. That policy is forcing our manufacturing industry and the jobs that go with it to flee to the American border states that benefit from Ontario Hydro paying them to take power from industrial wind turbines that nobody here wants.

Liberal economic policy has turned Ontario from being the economic engine of Canada into a have-not province.

The future is nuclear, for reliable, economic, greenhouse gas-free electricity, brought to us by the 70,000 Canadians that are employed in the Canadian nuclear industry, including the close to 3,000 people employed at the Chalk River Laboratories of AECL.

As time permits, the other area that I would like to focus on in budget 2014 is our defence procurement strategy.

Our government's procurement strategy is a perfect fit with Innovation Valley North. Innovation Valley North, in addition to developing synergy between existing Ottawa Valley employers, looks to build on AECL as well as CFB Petawawa to stimulate local employment by creating a local supply chain. As my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is home to Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, this strategy is of particular importance as our government ensures that our military have the right equipment to do the best job.

Our government is implementing the defence procurement strategy to ensure defence procurement generates economic benefits and jobs for Canadians, because our government recognizes the importance of building a stronger and more competitive defence sector that is better able to develop innovative products and solutions, delivery high-value exports, and create high-paying jobs for Canadians.

The defence procurement strategy has three key objectives, which I will talk about later.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's comments about atomic energy and how clean a fuel it is.

However, I wonder if she or the residents of her riding really understand that the fuel that is stored near the Chalk River nuclear facility needs to be managed, and it needs to be managed for 500,000 years.

What is the economic action plan going to say about managing spent fuel for 500,000 years?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the budget does speak directly to strategies for managing spent fuel. There are different types of spent fuel. Only 1% of the nuclear energy in a spent fuel rod has been used. That is why they are developing new ways at Chalk River to store spent fuel rods, not waste, but spent fuel rods, so that in the future, when our supplies of uranium have been depleted, we can take these spent fuel rods and use them again for more energy.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech as she tried to attack staff in the Liberal leader's office and imply certain things while accepting no responsibility for the decisions of her own government, in terms of Chalk River and the nuclear energy in this country. Many of the government's decisions have been bad.

However, I wonder if the member would give her thoughts on some of the consequences of this budget, and previous budgets, on rural Canadians who work in the seasonal industries. I know there are a lot of seasonal workers in her riding.

In my riding of Malpeque, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, while trying to pad her nest to protect her own interest in her own riding, rather than operating as a regional minister for the benefit of the whole province, used a cookie-cutter approach to cut up the riding. On one side of the road, a person could work 460 hours and draw 29 weeks of EI, while on the other side of the road, another person would have to work 1,120 hours in order to qualify for the same amount of EI.

Does the member think that is acceptable in rural Canada, for rural development and rural seasonal industries?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies for mentioning the puppeteer for the trust-fund child who leads the Liberal Party of Canada today.

However, I will talk about former budgets, former budgets the Liberals brought in that resulted in the rust-out of Chalk River Laboratories, which subsequently resulted in a shortage of medical supplies for a couple of years. Because of that, people were denied timely diagnostics.

We, to the contrary, have provided extra funds to ensure not only that Chalk River Laboratories is running smoothly and providing a stable supply but that we also fixed up the mess the Liberals left after 13 years.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend's speech. I was surprised to see, yet again, more money in the budget down the wasteful sinkhole of helping out Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. It has been tens of billions of dollars over the lifetime of that organization. I thought when we got rid of it, we would get rid of having to subsidize it.

My friend cited Dr. James Hansen, renowned climate scientist, who is now urging environmentalists to accept nuclear power.

However, that is because he is so dreadfully concerned that the climate crisis is going unaddressed. He specifically refers to the oil sands as “game over for the climate” if we continue to exploit them and he would only be interested in Canada's position on nuclear energy if we had a climate policy.

We now stand at a point where, according to Environment Canada, we will completely, totally, and utterly miss the target that the Prime Minister chose in 2009 at Copenhagen. We were supposed to go from 737 megatonnes to 609 megatonnes. Instead, by 2020, when the due date falls, we will be at 734 megatonnes—a meagre three-megatonne reduction.

Does the hon. member not think it is too rich for the Conservative side of this House to invoke Dr. James Hansen on some issues while studiously and resolutely avoiding his advice on others?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government has set real goals for cutting pollution, and cutting pollution will ensure a more hospitable atmosphere.

In terms of environmentalists, environmentalists who are truly concerned about Canada's air, water, and land are recognizing that nuclear energy is a clean, sustainable, and economically advantaged form of producing energy, as opposed to wind turbines and some of the costs involved in the manufacture of solar cells. Far more emissions occur as a consequence of the manufacture of those than are contained in all the emissions that occur when building a nuclear power plant.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to economic action plan 2014, a road map to take us forward to a balanced budget in 2015.

I want to speak specifically to my riding of Kootenay—Columbia, which provides a variety of opportunities for people who live in that region, from mining to tourism to forestry. We have some of the most magnificent areas in the country in Kootenay—Columbia with four national parks that employ great people. It allows tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people, to come to our national parks each year to enjoy what I take for granted every day when I am driving through there.

One of the main things in the budget that is of great benefit to my riding is the new Canada apprenticeship loan program, which would allow up to $100 million in interest-free loans to individuals who are applying for their first red seal apprentice program. It is a great opportunity for up to 26,000 people per year, that we estimate will apply for these types of loans, to allow them to move forward in a growing and demanding field. In all honesty, we do not have enough red seal apprentice programs. I do not know if we can find enough of them, but this is a great start for 26,000 people a year to move forward.

In communities such as Fort McMurray, my area in southeastern British Columbia of Elk Valley, companies like Teck, Finning, Joy Global, Cummins have a high demand for all of the red seal trades, including welders, heavy duty mechanics, and millwrights, and it is so important that we ensure that our children have the opportunity to get into the trades if they so choose.

We also recognize that we live in challenging times as well with regard to rural Canada. Many students in apprenticeship programs need to travel long distances to go to school for a particular trade, no matter what the trade is. This budget recognizes as well that they have the opportunity to use some of that funding to ensure that while they are at school they can cover the cost of being away from home. In an ideal world, we would like to have our apprentices trained at home if they so choose, but that is not necessarily the reality in rural British Columbia.

One thing I am happy to see in the budget is found on page 72, which is the flexibility and innovation in apprenticeship technical training. It refers to it as in-class simulators, e-learning modules, remote learning sites, and video conferencing in place of, or in addition to, traditional in-class training.

For example, in my riding, in both Cranbrook and Fernie, truck simulators are used to train new employees in the mining industry, to speed up the process in their ability to drive huge 350-tonne haul trucks and larger, which are used not only in my area but also in Fort McMurray and elsewhere in Canada. It is a great opportunity and these are high-paying skilled jobs. Jobs that young Canadians can use, that are in huge demand, and for which we cannot find enough people. I encourage people to go into this line of work if they so choose.

Another thing I noticed in the budget means a lot to western Canada. It started out as an agreement between British Columbia and Alberta. It was initially called TILMA. It was a trade agreement that came forward with the opportunity for British Columbia and Alberta to break down the barriers between the two provinces, allowing them to trade more freely and utilize their workforces more freely from one province to another. It has now morphed itself into an agreement that now includes Saskatchewan. We now have three of the western provinces, British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, morphed into what is called the New West Partnership Trade Agreement. That agreement allows the three provinces to move workforces around unimpeded and allows them to work more collaboratively together.

As the minister has explained in the document, it will be similar to what my colleague from Okanagan—Coquihalla brought forward with his private member's bill on the movement of spirits and wine from province to province. There was a barrier before. It prohibited entrepreneurs in that workforce from moving their product, even internally in Canada, from province to province.

This is a great opportunity for Canadians to work with fewer restrictions from province to province. As we look at initiatives like that within the provinces, it will give great mobility.

The other thing I am quite happy about is found on page 158 of the budget. It has to do with sustaining Canada's national parks. Four national parks in our great nation lie in my constituency: Yoho National Park, Glacier National Park, Mount Revelstoke National Park, and Kootenay National Park. Among them are some of the oldest in all of Canada and some of the most majestic, with the Rocky Mountains and the Purcells.

It was very nice to see in the budget that $391.5 million over five years, on a cash basis, will be provided to Parks Canada to improve the highways, bridges, and dams located in our national parks. Specific to my region, it also says, “...as well as paving and other repairs to the section of the Trans-Canada Highway which passes through Glacier National Park in British Columbia”.

The Trans-Canada Highway is our main gateway from the east coast to the west coast. It was created to allow merchant travel right from Saint John's, Newfoundland to Victoria, British Columbia. However, a bottleneck has been created. That bottleneck starts at the Alberta-B.C. border. From Winnipeg to the Alberta-B.C. border, the Trans-Canada Highway is twinned, and then all of a sudden it goes down to two lanes, with the same amount of traffic on it. It is creating a bottleneck.

It is very good to see that this money has been put in there. The federal government has sole responsibility for ensuring that the Trans-Canada Highway is maintained through the national parks of Canada.

These three national parks, Yoho, Glacier, and Mount Revelstoke, also have the Trans-Canada traversing them, so I am very happy to see that in there. I am looking forward to working with the ministry and with my other colleagues to ensure that it happens.

There are a few other things that are very good for my riding. They include the new horizons for seniors program, which we have increased funding for. The small grants that are provided each year to seniors programs are huge for senior Canadians across Canada. I am very pleased to see that.

I am glad to see that we are providing additional funding for the Special Olympics. It is near and dear to my heart. In the business I own, I work quite closely with the Special Olympics. They bring a smile to our faces every time we see them active in our communities. They have such pride in what they want to do.

Finally, on another note, I am very happy to see in the budget that we have the DNA databank coming forward. It is imperative for those parents who have lost someone. It is imperative that, at the end of the day, we reconnect those who are missing with those who are trying to find them.

With that, I look forward to any questions that may come.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for his remarks.

In the September 2013 Speech from the Throne, the government promised to improve railway safety. The mayor of Lac-Mégantic was even in attendance. However, there is no mention of railway safety in the budget. There is no funding for inspections.

Why has the government not decided to invest in railway safety, when it knows that this is a major issue for people in Sherbrooke, the Eastern Townships and all regions of Canada where derailments are more and more frequent?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would kindly refer the member to the building Canada fund, which will now provide funding for short-line rail across Canada. It will allow us to improve the rail lines. It will be a great benefit for all communities to access the building Canada fund for those specific reasons.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to get the member's comments regarding the tourism industry.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce pointed out in its annual report that at one time, Canada had the seventh largest industry in terms of being a tourism destination. Now it has slipped to number 18. If we were to canvass economists, stakeholders, tourism groups, and so forth, they would tell us that tourism is a phenomenal industry. It creates literally tens of thousands of important jobs. Whether they are full-time career jobs or part-time student jobs, they are critical to our economy.

Why does the member believe we have seen such a dramatic drop in Canada's standing in the tourism file over the last few years ? What has the government done to try to improve tourism? All signs indicate that dropping from seventh to 18th in the world is the wrong way. Something is going wrong. What does he believe is going wrong?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, from the perspective of the Kootenay—Columbia riding, which boasts some of the greatest tourism opportunities in all of Canada, with four national parks, skiing opportunities, and countless golf courses, we have found that when companies promote themselves well through the opportunities our government has provided for promotion from sea to sea to sea, people come to the riding and spend their money in the riding. Tourism, which is part of the backbone of my constituency, is doing very well. It is because of our actions that we are allowing people to come from other countries to enjoy what we have in Canada.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague specifically about National Defence's procurement strategy.

In this budget, why has the government decided to defer the $3 billion earmarked for various Canadian Forces procurement projects?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our armed forces are dealt with very well. I am proud that my son serves in the armed forces, and I am very proud of the fact that he served overseas as well.

We have provided some of the best equipment for our soldiers to ensure that when they go overseas to protect our rights as Canadians, we have taken care of them. We will continue to ensure that this happens.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Nickel Belt.

I am pleased to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the people of Gatineau. I had the pleasure of spending the entire week last week consulting people in my riding in order to determine if the government's budget addressed their concerns.

My remarks will touch on three key points. I will begin with some general observations. I will then talk more specifically about the economic situation in my riding, Gatineau. Then, if I have time—10 minutes is not very long—I will talk about the Department of Justice, since I am the justice critic for the official opposition, the NDP.

I want to make a general observation. When I was a little girl, my mother and father taught us how to budget. However, we did not do things the same way they are done here. My father asked us what was important to us, what we liked and how much money we had saved up. Then, he told us how we could spend that money. It was not a piecemeal approach, as it always seems to be here. I am always shocked to see that.

We start with a real brick, what I call the government's sentimental picture, which allows the Conservatives to go around and give the impression that they are taking care of the things that the real world is concerned about.

The government runs advertising that is sometimes empty but nice to look at. On television, during the Olympics, it looked good and gave the impression that the government was doing something.

First there is the budget. Then there is the budget bill, which people have more difficulty understanding and which I often call the pièce de résistance. It comes from the Conservative government, which as usual introduces an omnibus bill that changes tons of legislation.

There are also the main estimates, which will be tabled at a given time. Technically, they should more or less fit with the budget speech and flesh it out. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will study them next week.

I think the supplementary estimates are like getting to the end of the year and realizing there is not enough money because of poor budgeting. Adjustments are made, which takes more money.

What fascinates me about the parliamentary process in this magnificent Canadian building is how everything is done piecemeal. It is sometimes very difficult to link it all together. That is what I tried to do.

I will now speak briefly about the economic situation in the riding of Gatineau and the greater national capital region.

I was absolutely flabbergasted this morning to read an article by James Bagnall in The Ottawa Citizen that basically confirmed what I was saying. Some said I was a prophet of doom, since the cuts in the region were now done.

I will read a few excerpts from the article I read this morning.

The National Capital Region will trail nearly all of Canada’s largest cities in economic growth this year...according to a forecast published Wednesday [not by the NDP but] by the Conference Board of Canada.

The Ottawa independent think tank said the region continues to suffer from the unexpectedly deep pruning of public servants—a sector that accounts for 30 per cent of its economic activity.

I say this because it is important. People in the region are often almost embarrassed to talk about the economic driver of the national capital region. It goes without saying, because the Parliament of Canada is located in the national capital region. It is our own public service, the service to the public, all the departments that help and serve the public.

The number of jobs in public administration fell nearly nine per cent in 2013

That is huge.

The number of jobs in public administration fell nearly nine per cent in 2013—the “fastest rate on record”—and the Conference Board expects a further, albeit small drop this year.

I have said many times that we must not think that there will be an end to the pain in the greater national capital region this year. Today, I read some Twitter posts, including those of the brilliant President of the Treasury Board, where he threatened the Federal Superannuates National Association by saying that the association should negotiate and resolve any differences or else the government would impose new conditions on the organization by passing legislation. This ties in a bit with the trend of hitting the heart of the greater national capital region's economy.

The government is not content to merely go after our public service and the people who put their hearts and souls into providing services with far fewer staff members than before, particularly since the public service has still not completely recovered from the cuts the Liberals made in the 1990s. The government is going after the people it let go after they provided years of good and faithful services to Canadians and the federal government. It is telling them that the conditions it agreed upon with them no longer apply because it wants to change the rules.

That is like calling someone up to tell them that you are changing the contract you signed with them because you changed your mind. That is not usually done. It is completely indecent. I have a feeling that the Federal Superannuates National Association will have something to say to the minister about this.

These are things that I heard when I was in my riding last week. I met with hundreds of people—I am not just pulling that figure out of the air—and they shared with me their vision for the economy and their opinion of the federal budget that was tabled the previous week. When I listen to my Conservative colleagues speak about the budget in the House, I get the impression that they are living on a different planet from the one inhabited by our hard-working constituents who do not often get a break. The ministers and Conservative backbenchers talk about 165 budget cuts, but no one in my riding told me that they feel richer since the Conservatives took office, and they certainly do not feel richer after having seen this budget.

According to the Conference Board of Canada, if the cuts are not too serious, there may be some economic growth, but this is not a very rosy picture of my region. That is a point I wanted to make since, ironically, the article was published this morning.

I looked carefully at the budget, and some sections interested me much more than others, because they affected Canadians in their everyday lives. For example, the budget talks about investing in families. In my riding, a group called Logement'Occupe is working very hard to ensure affordable housing. This group went through a near-crisis because it did not know whether it was going to be eligible for the HPS program.

Many community organizations provide incredible services that we could not even afford as a society. Without them, the country would be bankrupt big time. We already have a deficit. Imagine If we had to pay for what all those community organizations do for our people. It would be overwhelming.

The Conservatives may be able to live well knowing that children go hungry and people have no roof over their heads, but I think this is a deplorable failure for a society. There are various needs.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

There is not much in the budget for justice. The government added a few extra judges here and there—way to go—but some existing positions have not been filled yet. I wonder how serious the government is. When it fleshes out the budget plan, the government should think about the basic needs for home care and caregivers. It must address these needs.

I will elaborate on that some other time. Those were some of my thoughts on the 400 or so pages of nothing that I read last week.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is correct when she points out that the Liberals cut $25 billion in transfers in the 1990s and that the cuts caused the provinces a great deal of difficulty in providing the services that fell within their jurisdiction. However, the member is equally making a mistake by not acknowledging the fact that under the new Conservative government, transfers to the provinces are at record highs. In fact, we will balance the budget in a way that does not affect those transfer payments in a very difficult economic environment. We are also investing huge, history-making sums in infrastructure.

Why is the member against the infrastructure investments when everyone else is in favour of them?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by talking about transfers.

In my opinion, claiming that there has not been a reduction in transfers to the provinces is also part of the Conservatives' dream. Freezing transfers while health care costs continue to rise obviously puts pressure on provincial budgets. However, the Conservative government brags that it has not reduced the transfer amounts. These repercussions are very real.

As for infrastructure spending, my colleague from Toronto, who is sitting to my right, is doing a fantastic job of making the government aware of the overwhelming infrastructure needs.

Furthermore, the day after the budget was tabled, the mayor of the City of Gatineau said that, for his city, the budget was disappointing on a number of counts, including in terms of infrastructure. The mayors of major cities had high expectations. If you walk around Gatineau, it is obvious that the infrastructure needs are enormous.

I do not believe that the government is doing enough. I think that it can do much better and that the government's funding for infrastructure will not solve the problems and address the enormous infrastructure deficit.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, during the early 1990s, I was part of the Manitoba legislature when health care was a hot issue of debate. The concern back in the early 1990s, at least in Manitoba, was that there were financial arrangements that saw tax point shifts favouring outright cash donations or equalization coming from Ottawa.

What the Chrétien government did was to establish a base and commitment for cash transfers. That is something that was of absolutely critical importance for anyone who believed in a national health care system. I was there. I was a part of that debate inside the Manitoba legislature.

We need to then fast forward. The record high health care dollars that are going into the system today are because of a health care agreement that was achieved by Paul Martin. We have more health care dollars than ever before because of that agreement. That agreement expires this year.

Would the member not, at the very least, acknowledge that it is critically important for all Canadians that the government takes this issue seriously, and that it meet and negotiate another health care agreement that would continue to show a strong federal presence in health care? This is something that I believe all Canadians want.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the questions are so short. They could be the topic of an entire dissertation.

As for the 1990s cuts to health and education—what are called social transfers—if we talk to the Canadian provinces, they will say that they never recovered from them.

In the 1990s, the Liberals, under their minister of finance at the time, balanced their budget because lower interest rates helped them and because they slashed transfers to the provinces. Once again, this was done at the expense of Canadians, and it involved the most crucial services, like health and education.

Now I am being told by a Liberal MP that health and education are important issues to the Liberals, when they blithely made cuts to them in the 1990s. I always find that a bit disingenuous, but we are used to it and we live with it.

Do we need a serious agreement to fix the situation? There must be no going through the motions or band-aid solutions, as in the 10-year agreement, which did not necessarily address wait times, contrary to expectations at the time. This is urgent. Health is the priority for Canadians.

Board of Internal Economy

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. Before we resume debate, I have the honour to inform the House that Mr. LeBlanc, the member for the electoral district of Beauséjour, has been appointed a member of the Board of Internal Economy in the place of Ms. Foote, the member for the electoral district of Random—Burin—St. George's. This is for the purposes and under the provisions of section 50 of the Parliament of Canada Act.

The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord has the floor. He will have 10 minutes for his speech, followed by questions and comments.