Petitions  Committing 1,000 soldiers to a training mission still presents danger to the troops and an unnecessary expense when our country is faced with a $56 billion deficit. The military mission has cost Canadians more than $18 billion so far, money that could have been used to improve health care and seniors' pensions in Canada. Polls show that a clear majority of Canadians do not want Canada's military presence to continue after the scheduled removal date of July 2011.

Petitions  Committing 1,000 soldiers to a training mission still presents a danger to our troops and is an unnecessary expense when our country is faced with a $56 billion deficit. The military mission has cost Canadians more than $18 billion so far, money that could have been used to improve health care and seniors' pensions right here in Canada. Polls show that a clear majority of people in Canada do not want Canada's military presence continued after the scheduled removal date of July 2011.

Petitions  Committing 1,000 soldiers to a training mission still presents danger to our troops and an unnecessary expense when our country is faced with a $56 billion deficit. The military mission has cost Canadians more than $18 billion so far, money that could have been used to improve health care and seniors' pensions right here in Canada. The polls show that a clear majority do not want Canada's military presence to continue after the scheduled removal date of July 2011.

Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2010  They combined these massive spending increases with reckless tax policy to actually give Canada a structural deficit even before the downturn began. Now the Conservative legacy is a $56 billion deficit, the biggest deficit in Canadian history. While Canadians are watching the Conservatives plunge Canada deeper into debt, they are asking themselves what they are getting in return.

House debate  We are going to have to look at the cost to the treasury and what impact that would have on the budget, where the government is not in very good shape right now with a $56 billion deficit and no clear idea of where we are going to be another 12 or 24 months out. By the time this study is concluded, we could be well beyond the next election. It could take a couple of years and the government may end up saying that it is going to cost too much money, that it cannot afford to give up the revenue and that it is going to phase it in over a period of time.

House debate  I would also like to know what the revenue shortfall or revenue loss would be. We are dealing with a $56 billion deficit. Surely he has some idea of how much revenue the government would lose as a result of making these changes.

Business of Supply  We are asking about what kind of plane, what do we need it for, what would we use it for and do we need it immediately or not? We are talking about a time when we are sitting with a $56 billion deficit and high unemployment. We are asking the government to make priorities. I gather and read that at the committee, Canadian companies and other companies, companies like Boeing and Dessault, said that they could provide the same equipment that was needed by the government for less money at a fixed time and at a fixed price.

Business of Supply  The process did not involve any government effort to negotiate a better price for Canadian taxpayers. Currently we have a $56 billion deficit in this country, and the government is going to borrow up to $16 billion-plus for this new fighter aircraft. Who is going to pay for these? Obviously it is the taxpayers, and clearly it is at a time when we do not have those dollars.

Government Spending  When will the Conservatives stop wasting taxpayers' money and start doing something about the $56 billion deficit?

National Defence  The issue is about getting value for money, getting our priorities straight, digging us out of a $56 billion deficit, attaching our priorities to what matters to Canadians. We can have a competitive bid, save the money and use it to help families take care of their loved ones. Why not?

G8 and G20 Summits  With this excessive spending, is it any wonder the minister of opulence over there has run up a record $56 billion deficit?

Economic Recovery Act (stimulus)  I am going to put this in simple terms: a $13 billion surplus the Conservatives inherited just under three years ago, plus the $56 billion we are talking about now which already may be much higher but we are talking $56 billion because that is the amount the finance minister is referring to, makes a total overspending tab of $69 billion, that is $69 billion of Conservative mismanagement.

House debate  This spending has really hit a nerve among Canadians. They think at this point in time when the Conservatives have a deficit of $56 billion, to add another $1 billion is totally wasteful, inefficient, egregious and unnecessary, especially when we look at the cost of previous summits. I want to bring people's minds back to 1995 when former prime minister Jean Chrétien and the regional minister, David Dingwall, announced that the G7 would take place in my home community of Halifax Dartmouth.

Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act  How can the Conservatives possibly pat themselves on the back if they take a $13 billion surplus, inherited from Messrs. Martin and Chrétien, and turn it into a $56 billion deficit in three short years? How do they take an unemployment rate of something south of 6%, turn it into an unemployment rate of something north of 8% and call themselves a good fiscal manager?

Government Priorities  Speaker, those jobs have definitely not been in the forestry sector. With the government about to make budget cuts to eliminate the record $56 billion deficit, now would be a good time for it to sort out its priorities. In addition to sparing the Prime Minister's Office, the government continues to protect the wealthy and big oil companies by maintaining their tax breaks and undue subsidies.