Budget Implementation Act, 2005  That means, for example, that today as we speak, as we take up time talking about splitting budget bills, and if members opposite are going to waste the time of the House, I am going to have my say as well, there is in excess of $3 billion a year that taxpayers in Canada are saving each and every year because of the $56 billion that we have paid down against the debt. It is in excess of $3 billion annually. By the way, that is a permanent annuity. That is $3 billion each and every year into the future. As we pay down more debt that $3 billion will grow.

International Trade committee  Estimates of the benefits of more open trade for Canada and for the world are as high as U.S. $56 billion annually. CAFTA's long-term objective is global free trade in agricultural and agrifood products. This will allow Canada's competitive quality food and agricultural producers to capture opportunities worldwide and return the benefits to Canadian producers, processors, and to the economy of Canada.

Agriculture committee  Estimates of the benefits of more open trade for Canada and for the world are as high as $56 billion U.S. annually. The Doha development round of the WTO, launched in 2001, is a chance in a generation for countries to address unfair subsidies and access barriers, to create a better trading environment for trade-dependent countries like Canada, and to provide a development tool to lift millions of people in the world’s poorest countries out of poverty.

Natural Resources committee  For perspective, we produce about one million barrels of crude oil today. That additional $56 billion would get us to two million barrels per day, and projections or the vision for Alberta looks to be on tap for three million and five million respectively in 2020 and 2030 potentially.

Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007  Speaker, that is a very good question. In fact, from 2001 to 2007 corporate tax cuts have lost Canadians a total of $56 billion in government revenue. What if we were to take 10% of that $56 billion and invest in housing, in our young people, in child care, in supporting the manufacturing industry, and in supporting green jobs such as retrofitting homes so that people can burn less and pay less?

Human Resources committee  Godin went on about it today, and I'm not sure why because I think we're changing things so that the surplus no longer continues to build. There is no surplus sitting out there. Am I correct? There is no $56 billion sitting there. It's notional.

Human Resources committee  Just as clarification, we can't build policy around something that's in a dream or around some notional fund. I just want that clarified, so we can quit talking about or referring to this $56 billion. This is why all these changes have to be made.

Human Resources committee  So the $2 billion reserve of the board is depleted and the EI account has to borrow $1 billion from the government, even though we already have this $54 billion to $56 billion in the current notional EI account. So the EI account is forced to borrow $1 billion, and unemployment levels are rising and may rise even further. What happens then? We borrowed $1 billion so we have to repay $1 billion.

Finance committee  The EI account is forced to borrow another $1 billion from the government, even though, by the way, the EI account shows a surplus at this date of $56 billion. Unemployment levels might rise further. The government fiscal balance falls into deficit. When the premium rate is set for the following year, several things will need to happen.

Budget Implementation Act, 2008  Does the hon. member think it is fair that the money the workers put aside is now being taken away, the entire $56 billion, and instead they are forced to borrow money in future and have to pay the interest. Is that fair?

Budget Implementation Act, 2008  That number represents about one in six of all the manufacturing jobs that existed in Canada prior to November 2002. What is this theft of $56 billion going to do? What is the message that those of us here are sending to these unemployed workers?

Budget Implementation Act, 2008  We asked the Library of Parliament to do an analysis. The analysis showed that there was roughly $56 billion in federal corporate tax cuts from 2001 to 2007. Based on that amount, we could build every pending school project 177 times. When we tried to get a list of what schools were pending for construction or renovation we were able to get the names of 39.

BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009  Should the Liberals be next in office, could the money from the old age guaranteed income supplement—money taken from seniors, the $55 billion or $56 billion taken from the unemployed over the years they were in office—be returned to these people, since they seem to be very sensitive to persons in need?

Employment Insurance Act  I find it quite rich that the Conservatives, along with the Liberals in the nineties and ever since, have had no problem accessing money from the EI fund to pay off all sorts of things, including giving corporate tax cuts at the expense of workers when they are laid off. What happened to that $56 billion surplus in the EI fund, which was put there through the hard work of Canadians? Where did that money go? When we talk about the costing of this particular measure, we need to recognize that this would be part of the EI fund.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act  That is just like the employment insurance premiums that RCMP officers have to pay, which they cannot collect by the way. That money, over $56 billion, accumulated by Liberals and Conservatives went toward the deficit. In many cases it also allowed the government to use that phoney surplus to give corporate tax cuts and other tax cuts to other concerns.