Jim Maloway

[THE BUDGET, March 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her speech this afternoon. In fact, she and I represent neighbouring ridings in Winnipeg.

I note that in the budget the government is committing $126 million for nuclear research which when we think about the waste associated with nuclear power, the cost of that, the impossibility of getting approvals, and the fact that nobody in Canada, nobody I know, wants to live anywhere near a nuclear plant would suggest that perhaps the government should be looking at an east-west power grid.

We in Manitoba have some substantial hydro power resources. Only half of our resources are developed. The half that we have developed is all being sent to the United States. Perhaps we could have the federal government involved in developing an east-west power grid.

Her fellow member, the minister of democratic reform, has taken an active interest in the issue. In fact, he has offered to meet with me on the subject in the next couple of days. Perhaps she could get the rest of her caucus colleagues involved.

There are nine Conservative MPs in Manitoba sitting on that side of the House. The question is, why can they not have some influence and attempt to get the government to look at this east-west power grid?

It was a Conservative Party that built the railroad back in John A. Macdonald's days uniting the country. It seems to me that a power grid across Canada so that Manitoba could send clean hydroelectric power to Saskatchewan, Alberta and east to Ontario would, in fact, have a unifying effect on the country.

I would like to know what the member's thoughts would be on this initiative and what she would like to contribute to it.

[The Budget, March 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I notice that the last questioner for the government was trying to deflect the government's lack of action on the whole pension issue. It has known that Nortel workers need help. Last year it could have done something but sat on its hands.

The question is this. Does the member actually believe that the government will in fact do anything meaningful in the pension area in the near future?

[The Budget, March 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I especially want to pay attention to the member's comments on the whole issue of pensions.

While the government promised to lead the charge to improve the pension system in this country, we have seen absolutely no movement in that regard so far. For example, we have known for some time that Nortel workers are suffering as a result of their pension deficiencies. At any time the government could have made changes to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. It could have taken the initiative and set up an insurance fund for pensions, because there has been a lot of discussion on that point. We recognize it is one of the answers to the problem.

We have to allow for alternative or supplementary pensions for workers. I believe the Province of Saskatchewan has had a program like that for a couple of years. Moreover, pensions themselves should perhaps be increased, and maybe even doubled.

This is the kind of vision that we need in the pension area and, clearly, it is not happening with the government. It seems the government has to be dragged kicking and screaming into any kind of progressive moves on the legislative front before it actually does things.

I would like to ask the member whether he agrees with that sentiment.

[The Budget, March 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, 800,000 workers are on employment insurance and are about to run out of benefits. There are no jobs for these people to go to. The government says the economy is going to grow by 2.6% in 2010, but it has to do at least that. The working age population is growing at over 1% per year.

The budget's unemployment projection shows jobless rates increasing this year to 8.5% and falling very slowly after that, which is an admission that the job creation efforts have failed.

What were these corporate tax cuts that the members are talking about then, when in fact they are not going to show the results that the member is suggesting?

[The Budget, March 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I would like to direct the hon. member's attention to the $126 million that the Conservatives have put in the budget for nuclear research, and their signal that they are going to promote and develop nuclear plants in Ontario and Saskatchewan.

Nine of the fourteen members from Manitoba are in the Conservative caucus. One of the Conservative members, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, has been on record now for two or three years as supporting an east-west power grid so that Manitoba hydro power can be developed. Manitoba has only developed half of its power. Rather than sending all the power that it currently does to the United States, in the future Manitoba could send power to Saskatchewan and Ontario to help with Canada's energy problems.

I would like to ask the member, why does he think the Manitoba Conservative caucus has not had much of an effect in convincing the government to develop that east-west power grid?

[The Budget, March 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I want to note that just yesterday one of his colleagues spoke about the whole area of nuclear power development. I note in the budget that $126 million is being put aside for nuclear research.

We in Manitoba have a vast supply, as Quebec does, of hydroelectric power, and only half of it has been developed at this point. Even the minister of democratic reform has been on record trying to encourage his own government to develop an east-west power grid. So rather than selling all of our electrical power in Manitoba to the American market, we would be able to share that power with Saskatchewan, Alberta, and B.C., and we would be able to send the power east into Ontario so that it may not have to develop the nuclear power plants that it is suggesting will be developed in Ontario.

We know that nuclear waste is certainly going to be a big problem. We know that it is going to be almost impossible to get approvals because at the end of the day no citizen in this country will want to have a nuclear plant anywhere near where they live.

Why does the government think it is somehow going to solve the problem by developing nuclear plants when it already knows in advance that the road is going to be a rough one to get approvals and to deal with the waste issue? All it has to do is start building an east-west power grid, something that its own minister of democratic reform has been supporting and cannot convince the government to do.

[The Budget, March 9th, 2010]

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

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

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

[The Budget, March 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the link between tax cuts and performance is a myth. In 1999, one year before Paul Martin's corporate tax cuts began, Canada was fifth on the World Economic Forum's competitive list. Today we are in ninth place.

In addition, since the corporate tax cuts have been phased in, business spending on machinery and equipment has declined, so says Statistics Canada. IT use by Canadian businesses is half of what it is in the United States. As well, productivity growth is actually worse. Clearly the approach of the government is not having the desired effects.

[The Budget, March 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, once again we have a government and a Prime Minister here who are basically like ostriches with their heads in the sand, doing things that do not work as opposed to doing things that do work.

For example, the home renovation tax credit, which the Conservatives made much hay out of last year, was a very successful program. What did they do? They cancelled the program. I would like to ask the member whether she agrees that the government's approach is totally wrong in that sense.

In addition, the government promised to look at pension reform. There is nothing in the budget on pension reform. The Nortel workers are still standing out there in the cold. We want to know why the government is not acting.

[The Budget, March 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government is bent on reducing corporate taxes. In fact, it has reduced corporate taxes from around 40% and is projected to go down to 15%. The members may applaud that and if they were getting results as a result of the corporate tax reductions then that would be well placed, but the fact is that business investment, rather than going up as a result of corporate taxes, has actually gone down. No better sources than Statistics Canada and Finance Canada which indicate that business spending on machinery and equipment has declined as a share of GDP and total business investment spending has declined as a percentage of corporate cashflow.

Why does the government keep doing things that do not work?