Brent Rathgeber

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise and contribute to this budget debate, especially in light of the fact that in approximately one hour the budget will be determined in the House.

On December 7, 1867, Prime Minister Sir John A Macdonald's finance minister, Sir Alexander Galt, tabled Canada's first ever budget. It was a modest effort by today's standard, just $5.3 million in government spending. It included a rather sizable surplus of $2.1 million.

Since then, members of this hallowed House have debated 142 budgets, 22 mini-budgets, interim budgets and economic updates tabled by 38 different finance ministers. They have debated them in high and in low economic times. They have approved spectacular surpluses and devastating deficits.

There is perhaps no better historical indicator of the ups and downs of prosperity and recession than the federal budget, and this year's is certainly no exception.

However, this budget, Canada's 143rd, is in many ways unlike any this country has ever seen. In years past, when governments faced financial peril and wrestled with the notion of deficit spending, they did so largely from self-inflicted economic conditions. Challenges relating to dwindling revenues and a waning economy could usually be traced to something domestic: a short-sighted policy decision or some kind of over-regulation for example.

Unfortunately, in 2009 Canada has entirely imported this economic turbulence. Let me be perfectly clear. What we face today has absolutely nothing to do with Canada. Canada did not issue billions in questionable mortgages to under-qualified applicants. Canada did not turn a blind eye to its lending institutions as they passed around bad debt like a hot potato. Canada did not tell American banks to close their wallets and did not tell consumers to stop opening theirs.

In fact, while the American economy spiralled into oblivion, Canada continued to adhere to its high standards of fiscal regulation and prudent budgeting.

I was taught at a young age to never live beyond my means. It is something that I still hold strong to today. Whether it is a household, a corporate venture or a government, they will always be on solid ground provided they do not spend more than they take in. When they do so, invariably there will be consequences.

Canada was not living beyond its means when this economic storm hit. Regardless, here we are facing a once in a generation economic downturn. We are not in this alone. This economic torrent is pulling the world into a tailspin, swiftly dragging economies into recession and governments into deficit, regardless of how innocent or how guilty they were in forging this crisis.

Canada, by every economic indicator, is in the best shape of any G7 country to weather the economic storm.

In Alberta, where I come from, we are particularly insulated but by no means immune to the economic downturn. Stimulating demand and investing in public infrastructure is need even in Alberta.

I am here to tell the House why I believe that the government's economic action plan is the answer to our nation's economic woes and why a short term deficit with targeted stimulus measures is the best and perhaps the only way to restore prosperity to this great country.

This was the earliest budget in modern Canadian history. It was by far the most widely consulted budget ever undertaken. It represents a product of the consultative process and the input of literally thousands of Canadians.

We do not relish deficit financing. It is with a heavy heart that we announced the $34 billion in projected revenue shortfall. However, extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures.

I am one of the many small c conservatives in the House. As we all know, we do not always respond favourably to the d word. During my years as a member of the Alberta legislature, the thought of running a deficit would have been unthinkable. However, if ever there was a time to set aside political dogmas, this is it.

The last thing Canada needs right now is a chamber full of ideologues trying to score style points in an age old debate that will never be resolved. We need to get on with the business of managing the economy and that is exactly what the budget proposes to do. If it means a deficit, so be it.

However, let us look past the ugliness associated with the word “deficit” and focus on what it will mean for Canada.

First, it will mean jobs. One of the earliest Public Works projects commissioned in Canada lies just down the street from this House: the Rideau Canal. For five years, the British Crown employed thousands of workers to build a waterway. Ever since then, public infrastructure projects have been some of the best ways to get Canadians working and the economy moving. With just over $7 billion in provincial and municipal infrastructure stimulus over the next two years, a host of new construction jobs will soon be available to Canadians.

Second, it will mean savings. The tax relief measures in this budget will save Canadians a total of $20 billion over the next five years, which means more money in their pockets when they need a cushion the most. In challenging economic times, tax reductions are an essential part of the government's effort to stimulate the economy. By increasing the personal deduction to $10,320 and by raising the upper limits of the two lowest tax brackets, we would allow hard-working Canadians to keep but, hopefully, spend more of their hard-earned money.

Third, it will mean homes. This budget aims to help Canadians secure affordable and reliable forms of housing. By providing tax incentives for home renovations, shoring up social housing and easing the burden for first-time homebuyers, Canadians will have access to decent housing when they need stability the most.

Fourth, it will mean commerce. This budget makes specific and pointed investments in several ailing sectors of our economy and reduces operating costs for all small businesses. These investments should jolt sectors like forestry and agriculture back into action when Canadians need healthy markets the most.

Finally, it will mean credit. One of the biggest drivers of the recession has been a lack of available credit to help families adapt and businesses expand. Increased small business borrowing limits and more flexible crown financing institutions will mean more available money when Canadians need cashflow the most.

If that is what running a deficit means, especially at this extraordinary time in our nation's history, then I cannot possibly be against it. If we must go down the road of deficit financing, we should do it now when the price of borrowing is low. If we want to add infrastructure, we should do it now when the price of steel and skilled labour is significantly reduced.

It must be noted that there is nothing in this budget that even hints at the possibility of deficits once again becoming the norm in this country. Canada has been down that path before and it bogged us down in terms of productivity and economic growth.

This government has absolutely no intention of lulling Canadians back into accepting annual or structural deficits. The way this budget is structured, we will be back into surplus within five years, by which time, I should add, Canada will have by far the lowest debt to GDP ratio of any G7 country. If there is such a thing as a fiscally responsible deficit, I would suggest that this is it.

Earlier in my speech I said that this budget was unlike any this country has ever seen. Given the extraordinary measures contained in it, I am sure most members would agree. However, every Canadian budget, all 143 of them since Confederation, have one thing in common: they were all crafted with the utmost consideration for the people of this great nation.

Similarly, the stimulus measures contained in budget 2009 may appear surprising, evening shocking, to a nation that has become accustomed to annual surpluses but they appear that way for a reason. These are extraordinary times and so too must be our response.

In that sense, it is not about comparing the strength of Canada's balance sheet to that of other nations or to the balance sheets of the past. It is not about bailing out one sector of the economy and not another. It is not about spending hikes or tax cuts. It is not even about the deficit. Quite simply, it is about doing what is best for the Canadian economy at this extraordinary time.

Today I would urge members on both sides of this House to consider what the course of action would look like. In my view, Canada's economic action plan is the right response to this unprecedented economic downturn, and I congratulate the Minister of Finance for presenting it one week ago. It recognizes the need for sector specific inducements but at the same time acknowledges that the Canadian economy will only be as successful as her citizens. The economic action plan provisions, especially in housing, will create new demands and, with improved access to credit, the market will be much better equipped to meet them.

Of course I support Canada's economic action plan. This budget is responsible. It is a measured response to an international and extraordinary circumstance. It is my sincere hope that all members of this assembly will carefully consider these measures and draw the same conclusions as I have.

With thousands of Canadians losing their jobs, Canadians expect their government to take decisive action. The economic stimulus package contained in the economic action plan will put displaced Canadians back to work while building much needed public works and infrastructure.

Compromise is a part of the Canadian tradition. Canada's economic action plan is both a product of its unprecedented consultative process--

[Address in Reply, January 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to compliment the hon. member for Miramichi for her fine Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Clearly, the uncertain economic situation around the world has provided challenges for Canada. However, by working together, I am confident that we will face these challenges head on. I wonder if the hon. member would elaborate to this House some of the issues that are important to her constituents to strengthen the local economy in her riding at this important time.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the current Prime Minister has a caucus of 143 members which is almost double the size of the caucus to which the hon. member belongs. We have a first past the post system where a plurality elects members. Under the current system clearly this government won the last election with an increased mandate over that of the 39th Parliament. The Conservative Party ought to be able to govern.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the members of the coalition and I cannot speak for the separatist leader of the Bloc Québécois who is a party to it.

All I know is that the residents of Edmonton—St. Albert are universally opposed to it. They are outraged. My office has been absolutely swamped by phone calls and emails. People are calling it a crisis in Canada. They are saying that the proposed coalition government would be illegitimate.

We are in difficult times. Our country is at a crossroads. I ask all Canadians to look deep inside themselves and ask themselves if this is really what they want. Do they want to be governed by a party that was rejected overwhelmingly in the last federal election in coalition with the New Democrats and propped up by those who want to tear Canada apart?

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely no analogy or no parallel can be drawn between 2004 and 2008. That was a letter asking the governor general to consider all her options and for consultation.

Let me be clear about this. Yesterday on Parliament Hill three leaders appeared in this precinct and signed a contract telling the Governor General that they were prepared to become government.

What the hon. member for the New Democratic Party indicated was a letter to the the former governor general asking for consultation and encouraging her to consider all her options.

That is much different than a signed pact among the rejected Leader of the Opposition, the socialist leader and the separatist leader, telling the Governor General that her only option was to allow them to form government.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member was in the 39th Parliament, he would know that the support of the Bloc Québécois for the current government was on a case by case basis, vote by vote. It was not carte blanche. It was not in a signed contract.

The hon. member suggested that the Conservatives were only interested in maintaining power. I suggest that never in the history of Canada has there been such a blatant power grab than what we saw yesterday, with the pact among the three leaders.

If opposition members are so concerned about holding on to power, why do they not put this pact to the Canadian electorate and let them decide?

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member has been here a lot longer than I, so he knows there is no parallel to what has occurred on Parliament Hill this week to what happened in 2004.

The media has reported that the 2004 letter asked the governor general simply for consultations. It was not a signed pact to form a government among the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the socialist party and the leader of a party, whose motivation is to break our country apart. It was simply to ask for consultations.

I am sure the hon. member and all hon. members in the House will appreciate the difference.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 2nd, 2008]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that caveat. The National Post wrote:

The biggest Liberal loser in the party's electoral history, a self-admitted campaign failure who advocated carbon taxes as sound economy policy and lacks significant Western Canada representation, seems set to become prime minister next week....This means an electorate that cast a third of its votes for the Conservatives will have their representation replaced by a hodge-podge of lowest-common-denominator policies produced almost overnight by parties leaning left and toward leaving....While the discipline of power may keep the coalition together, more or less flying in loose formation for perhaps a year or even longer, this is not a system of sustainable government as much as it is a power grab minus a compelling reason to exist.

I pray for the sake of democracy and for the sake of Canada that this unholy alliance not be allowed to proceed. Governing is a privilege, not an entitlement. A leader that the electorate overwhelmingly rejected, surrounded by two former NDP premiers and six other socialists and the unthinkable, being propped up by a party whose raison d'être is to put Canada asunder, is clearly Canada’s worst nightmare. It is undemocratic, un-Canadian and unconscionable. I pray for the sake of Canada it not be allowed to proceed.

Today, I pray for the future of Canada.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 2nd, 2008]

--from the riding of the hon. member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin is to be honoured by this government by having his name put to a new icebreaker. He was a hero of mine when I was a small boy growing up in prairie Saskatchewan. I would love to go on about the constituency of Edmonton--St. Albert, but these are times of great peril, both in the House and in the nation.

This fall Canadians gave the Conservative government a clear mandate to continue taking action on the economy. During a global downturn, the last thing our country needs is for opposition politicians to claim entitlements for tax dollars and ultimately to take power without a mandate from the people.

The benchmark TSX index took a near-record dive Monday, dropping 864 points, or 9.3%. It sustained further losses today. That is a clear indication of the economic incentives we can expect from this proposed coalition government. The investors of Canada got a chance to vote early on this proposal, and they voted it down.

Under the current Prime Minister's leadership, our government was ahead of the curve in anticipating the global economic slowdown. We are and have been injecting billions of dollars in stimulus through tax cuts, investments in roads and bridges, and protection of the banking system.

Our focus is the economy, but the opposition parties have their own priorities. While all Canadians are tightening their belts, they feel entitled to make taxpayers pay for political party staff, for polls and for advertising. They want to replace the elected government just to preserve $17 million worth of entitlements. This is clearly unacceptable for a modern democracy.

This time of difficulty is indeed a great opportunity for us to invest in initiatives that will pay benefits in the long term, especially with regard to correcting the infrastructure backlog that exists across this country. However, we cannot afford to be hasty about it. Canadians chose us because they trust us to be prudent and not desperate.

In addition to the infrastructure investment, there is also a chance in this troubled period to make investments in key Canadian industries. I firmly believe, however, and I think Canadians agree with me, that it would be irresponsible to simply dump money into the coffers of any companies that have run into trouble, just as it would be irresponsible to start building roads and bridges everywhere for the sake of propping up temporary jobs.

Prudent economic management means measuring twice and cutting once. This is why I congratulate the efforts of the hon. industry minister, who has been working diligently on the industry file and requesting that the auto industry come up with detailed restructuring plans. Detailed restructuring plans mean Canadians can be reassured that any of their money directed to the auto industry is an investment in something that is sustainable and that makes Canada stronger in the long term, as opposed to using our money to prop up companies for a short time period, only to face the same scenario a few years and a few billion dollars later.

There has to be more consideration than that. Canadians elected this government because they trust us to act with deliberation and with the long-term well-being of this country in mind when we make these important decisions. They do not expect this government to throw billions of their dollars into anything if it is not going to reap dividends.

The opposition accuses us of failing to act as quickly as other industrial nations. To this I counter that there are two very good reasons for Canada to act with more deliberation and prudence than others.

First, we are in better shape than the other industrialized countries in terms of our economy and our solid banking system. They rushed to inject money into various sectors because those other countries' crises were well under way. We have been growing so robustly over the last three years that with few exceptions, we are not feeling this downturn, except perhaps in the stock market. I would argue that we could easily wait until the end of January before committing to huge investments, so that when we act, we can act with a well-considered plan and not a hasty one.

The second difference between Canada and any other country with which we are compared is that much of our economy is deeply intertwined with our neighbours to the south. This means we cannot act alone if we want to act effectively. The Americans, like us, have just come out of a national election and are in the process of deciding what they are going to do with their stimulus package. It would be irresponsible to risk moving at cross-purposes to American actions.

Among their big decisions is how to help the big three carmakers. Does it make any sense for Canada to decide by itself what to do in this regard? No.

Obviously the U.S. is a central player in our marketplace. Just as obvious, we should work in concert with what happens on the other side of the border and with the incoming American administration.

This is only one example of many interconnected aspects of our economy, which illustrates the point that until the U.S. makes its trillion dollar decisions, we cannot know that we will make effective choices with our billion dollar decisions.

I am here to speak about the fiscal update and I will return to the subject of the economy, because our crisis is about to get much worse.

The latest moves by the opposition are obviously making our good stewardship of the nation's economy, a side issue being replaced by their naked ambition.

Both my Ottawa office and my St. Albert office have been absolutely deluged by Canadians who are outraged by the coalition of the Leader of the Opposition, who has been lured into by a party that wants to make Canada a socialist state and by a party that wants to pull Canada apart. I share the outrage that so many Canadians feel.

It is one thing to say that a coalition government is better for Canada when no party clearly has a mandate from Canadians. However, that is not the case. Just six weeks ago, the people of Canada spoke very clearly. They said quite unambiguously that they did not want the Leader of the Opposition to be prime minister, not now and certainly not in the times of economic instability like the one we are about to face.

We learned soon after this coalition started that the leader of the smallest party in the House, a man who knows he will never be elected by Canadians into government because his NDP views are so out of touch with reality, had been plotting for some time to take over, with the separatists as his co-conspirators.

In the fiscal update the Minister of Finance announced our intention to lead by example in this period, where all Canadians must be prepared to tighten their belts, and proposed that all parties should give up their $1.95 per vote, which was brought in five years ago. When this happened, the opposition parties, especially the Liberal Party, panicked. Why? Because they cannot raise enough money from people donating to them voluntarily. As with most things in society, the members of those parties think the government should spend taxpayer money on their behalf because, ostensibly, the government knows better.

The panic on the part of the Liberals was just the desperation for which the NDP members were waiting. They immediately took the anger and the insecurity of the opposition parties and before the weekend was over, had committed the Leader of the Opposition to this undemocratic plot.

A lot of Canadians and a lot more sober-minded caucus members from the opposition are wondering why exactly he was lured into this unholy pact with the socialists and the separatists. We should not be too surprised since the Leader of the Opposition has two former NDP premiers on his front benches.

Let us consider his motivations for a moment. His unpopularity drove the Liberal Party to its lowest showing ever. Since Confederation, no Liberal leader has been rejected more strongly across the nation than the man who ran the Liberal Party down to 77 seats on October 14. He was humiliated and most of his caucus members held their noses when he announced he would stay on as interim leader until they found someone to lead them in May. Clearly, at this point, he has nothing to lose and he is desperate to do anything that might salvage his reputation.

Canadians see right through this and we cannot allow it go forward. They said in October that they did not want him as their prime minister and when they said it, they meant it. He is desperate to salvage his reputation, but he is selling his soul and also the soul of his party and, sadly, the soul of the Government of Canada to the people who will run our economy into an abyss that will take us decades to recover from and people who will set the cause of national unity back decades. People can call them devils if they want to. I call them socialists and separatists.

Unlike our government, this coalition never told Canadians what it would do if it took office, so we are left to speculate. Let us do that.

The leader of this gang has wild plans about how he can save the world with radical environmental schemes. Today we heard his friend, the leader of the Green Party, in a press conference, crowing that a seat in the Senate, or maybe even something better would await her, if this left-wing coalition ever flies. His green shift is not something he has ever disowned, even though so many of the Liberal candidates disowned it in the recent election campaign.

The NDP and the Bloc also have some extreme views on how we should take whatever steps we can to save the world, no matter what the costs to our economy or to our taxpayers. This is not what Canadians chose, especially in a time of economic crisis.

Not only is this not the direction Canada chose, it is not the direction western Canadians want. There is plenty of outrage in all parts of the country over this, but especially in the west. By getting into bed with people who want to pull Quebec out of Canada, the proposed coalition has given new life to those who have entertained the idea of pulling all parts of Canada apart.

We know perfectly well that the members of the NDP think that the oil sands, which are fuelling not only the energy independence for North America but also the Canadian economy, need to be shut down. We know perfectly well that they think Greenpeace is a more reliable source of information than any provincial government or independent study.

We knew all along that the Liberals green shift, in their uniformed zeal, would hurt the economy of the nation and especially the economies of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Canadians did not vote for that, and they would not vote for it if they were given a chance tomorrow.

Normally, I would be happy about anything that would drag the Liberal name into great depths of unpopularity. However, the stakes are too high for the country I love to let the Liberals go ahead with this dangerous, undemocratic, unprincipled and un-Canadian plot.

Here is what Jeffrey Simpson from The Globe and Mail had to say about the prospect of these three unsuccessful leaders:

If this coalition takes power, therefore, Canada would be led by a temporary prime minister who almost every Liberal MP wishes were not the leader. Not having been successful in leading his own party, it would be fascinating to watch him run a coalition government....It will certainly be a shock to the 74 per cent of Canadians who did not vote Liberal, and the large majority who ranked Mr. Dion by far the least popular leader, to discover that he has somehow managed to become prime minister.

Don Martin of the National Post wrote today that the biggest Liberal loser in—

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as I rise to give my maiden speech in the House as the member of Parliament for Edmonton—St. Albert, I beg the indulgence of hon. members as I make some acknowledgments.

First I want to express how humbled and honoured I am that the great citizens of St. Albert and northwest Edmonton entrusted me with the duty of representing them in the House.

With all due respect to the other members, I have the distinct honour of representing the best big city and the best small city in Canada at the same time. I commit myself to working on their behalf to the best of my ability.

For decades Edmonton has been among the most culturally vibrant cities in Canada, besides being the capital of Alberta. The University of Alberta is one of the elite universities in the country. Our river valley is a true gem. It is the longest urban park in the world.

Edmonton really is the city of champions. I have been an Edmonton Eskimos season ticket holder for many years. The Edmonton Eskimos have won 13 Grey Cups since 1954, more than any other team. The Edmonton Oilers are also champions and have won five Stanley Cups, which tops any other franchise outside of the original six. We are also proud to be the outdoor arena of choice for soccer in Canada. Commonwealth Stadium regularly brings in as many fans for international matches as anywhere else in North America.

Mr. Speaker, you probably know a lot less about St. Albert, a wonderful city of almost 60,000 people located just outside the northwest boundary of Edmonton. In a province barely 100 years old, St. Albert has a charming, well-established feel in its own lovely valley on the banks of the Sturgeon River. It also has a vibrant arts community and a great deal of cultural richness. St. Albert is the oldest non-fortified settlement in Alberta. In fact, in 2011 St. Albert will celebrate its 150th anniversary.

St. Albert is home to many small businesses and, like Edmonton, its industrial area is being shaped by the energy boom taking place in northern Alberta, the energy boom that has been the main driver of Canada's economic buoyancy in the last years when so many nations have suffered major economic losses.

As their representative, I will defend the interests of small and medium-sized businesses. I will also ensure that our energy sector remains robust, because government programs will never help sustain our economy in the way that the success of industry and private enterprise can.

The Edmonton Garrison is on the border of my constituency, and the former Griesbach base is in the southeast part of the riding. I doubt that many ridings in the country have the honour of being home to as many men and women who are serving and retired members of the military as Edmonton—St. Albert does. This is very important to me.

I take seriously our duty in the House to ensure that the people who have devoted their lives to keeping our country safe and respected are well taken care of. I will add that unlike most members of the opposition, I am extremely proud not only of our soldiers, but also of the Afghan mission itself.

It will not be easy to satisfy the expectations of the citizens of Edmonton—St. Albert, because my predecessor was such a distinguished and respected parliamentarian. John Williams served in the House for 15 years, arriving with the first group of Reform Party members in the heady days of 1993. Among other achievements, he chaired the public accounts committee for an unusually long period of time, and he did so because of the respect he earned as a watchdog on government waste.

The highlight of his tenure occurred when he put the spotlight on the sponsorship scandal and made sure that Canadians found out about the corruption and kickbacks the Liberals were engaged in with their hard-earned tax dollars. He will be remembered for his periodic publication “The Waste Report”, which served as a watchdog of mismanagement of public funds.

I am reminded every time I speak with voters that John Williams was correct. Our biggest job as parliamentarians is to ensure that government does not misuse the money we take from our taxpayers. Whether we are in opposition or whether we are in government, we have to stand up not only for the Canadians who are asking for the help of the government, but also for the ones who pay our bills. We have to think not only of the needs of the citizens, but also of the realities of the people who are employers and taxpayers. This is what I heard on the doorsteps of every neighbourhood in which I knocked on doors this fall.

Replacing a man like John Williams will be a tall order, but as one of the tallest members of the House, I hope that with some indulgence members will come to embrace me as they did him.

I proudly hail from Elbow, a prairie town in eastern Saskatchewan, which is also your home province, Mr. Speaker. Like a great Conservative prime minister who presided in this chamber, I am a lawyer by training and a proud graduate of the law school of the University of Saskatchewan.

The Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker--