Mrs. Bonnie Crombie (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, the 2009 budget reveals that if the government had fulfilled its budgetary obligations in 2007-08, it would have barely balanced its books, instead of the $9.6 billion it claimed it had.

Is the real reason the government has been holding back on program spending for infrastructure and other job creation measures is to disguise the fact that the government's bad fiscal management already placed us on the verge of a structural deficit, well in advance of the current economic crisis?

Hon. John Baird (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC)

Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. Bonnie Crombie (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, nearly $8 billion in federal stimulus was lapsed in 2007-08. That means that instead of the $9.6 billion surplus it claimed, the real number was less than $2 billion, if the government had let the funding flow.

What did it do next? It increased spending by the billions and eroded the tax base. Is this why the minister has only spent 5¢ for every dollar budgeted for infrastructure over the last two years? Has he been instructed to pad the books?

Hon. John Baird (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC)

Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. We are working constructively with the provinces, with the municipalities, on projects around this country. I am particularly pleased to tell the member that we are working very cooperatively with my friend and my premier, Dalton McGuinty.

Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, the human resources minister said yesterday that she did not want to make EI too “lucrative”. That is unbelievable. That is an outrageous insult to the hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers who are facing job losses and those already there.

Does the minister believe that Canadians would rather be unemployed, at a fraction of their salaries, than to be working and supporting their families? That is the kind of Reform Party thinking that should have evaporated years ago.

How can the minister responsible for supporting Canadian workers be so meanspirited, so insensitive, and so out of touch?

Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, we are concerned for every job that there is a loss of or a layoff, and we are ensuring this House that we will look after the workers when we need to do that. We have extended the EI benefits by five weeks. We have injected millions of dollars with respect to training and retraining people to ensure they can get new jobs. Whether they are on EI or not, we will look after our workers.

Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, the most recent data from Statistics Canada indicates the average EI benefits are $331 a week. How lucrative is that? Does the minister really think that by enhancing the system, people will find it too lucrative? How could she be so out of touch with the needs of working families, just as she seems unconcerned that the waiting period for EI recipients has increased under her watch?

Employment insurance is not a money-making enterprise. It is a social safety net. Canadians depend on it and believe in that system. Is it too much to expect that the minister might share those beliefs?

Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, we realize that there will be more claims and we have done everything in our power to enhance our resources: hire more people, bring retirees in, and extend the hours of operation to ensure we can process the claims expeditiously. We have invested significantly: $1 billion in addition to $1.5 billion for training and retraining; $500 million for those who do not qualify for EI benefits and are not in the program; and an additional $500 million for long-tenured workers.

We will be looking after our workers during this difficult time.

Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, last night the City of Ottawa and the Amalgamated Transit Union reached an agreement to finally end the strike and submit to arbitration.

Would the Minister of Transport and member for Ottawa West—Nepean please inform the House of the actions taken by parliamentarians to encourage an end to this crisis?

Hon. John Baird (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, we were all tremendously pleased that members of the House were able to work in a co-operative manner to get the buses back on the street, including the work of the Minister of Labour, the member for Ottawa—Vanier and the member for Ottawa Centre, as well as many other members.

To put together legislation that can be supported by all members of the House is good news and that was obviously one of the key reasons the city and the union came to an agreement on a proposal that had been refused just 48 hours before. The federal mediator had been pushing this idea since December 9. We are all pleased that this is over and it shows that we can work together in a spirit of co-operation.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Mr. Speaker, less than two months ago the Prime Minister said, “The government will never engage in a fire sale of assets”. Now the budget says that his government is going to sell $10.1 billion worth of buildings with no business case presented at the worst possible time to sell real estate. Where there is smoke, there is fire. This is exactly the kind of fire sale that the Prime Minister promised we would never see.

Everyone can clap.

Oh, oh!

Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of working together, I see everyone is enjoying a laugh today.

I might remind the hon. member that this has happened in cases before where the potential sale of assets was booked in a previous budget. In fact, that happened with Petro-Canada under the Liberal government.

This government, for the first time in 15 years, has actually undertaken a review of whether or not all of the assets of this government need to be owned by government. It is only common sense. We are dealing with taxpayers' money.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Mr. Speaker, it does not seem to have anything to do with reason or logic or common sense. It is more of a neo-conservative ideology.

When Michael Fortier sold off seven surplus buildings, which were not surplus, we still needed them, to Larco developments, we had to lease them back for 25 years, fully rented for 25 years. It is like some wet dream for real estate developers to get a deal like that.

If there was any merit in selling off publicly-owned buildings, why do the Conservatives not table that business case in the House of Commons? Or is this just another example of neo-conservative ideology trumping reason and logic and economics?

Hon. John Baird (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I have known this member for many years and I am shocked at that kind of language. He wonders why he does not get any claps from his own members when there is that kind of language.

Mr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, in a recent decision, the Immigration and Refugee Board refused a lawyer's request to hold the proceedings in French. This decision goes against his client's interests as he wishes to be represented by his lawyer in French in order to have the best defence possible.

What does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration intend to do to ensure that the IRB respects this person's right to be defended by his lawyer in French?

Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question, and I would like to congratulate him on his appointment as immigration critic.

Obviously Citizenship and Immigration Canada respect Canada's Official Languages Act. All Canadian citizens have the right to receive government services in both languages—and this is the case for all board and court proceedings. I will enquire as to what is happening with this case.

Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, Natalie Morin and her three children have been stuck in Saudi Arabia since March 2005. She wants to leave the country with her children, but she cannot do so without permission from her husband, Saeed Al-Sahrami. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs visited Natalie Morin on December 22, so the minister is aware of the situation.

Since that meeting between his parliamentary secretary and Natalie Morin, has the minister taken any new steps to bring Natalie Morin back to Canada as quickly as possible?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, this is a very complex family dispute with no easy solution.

As the member has stated, I just visited Saudi Arabia in December and I met with the Saudi authorities and visited Ms. Morin and her family.

We are bound, however, by both Saudi law and our own adherence to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, under which children cannot leave without the father's permission.

With the assistance of Saudi officials, we are working to facilitate an agreement between Ms. Morin and her husband for a positive resolution to the case.

Hon. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, in the 2006 election campaign the Prime Minister pledged to uphold the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. We have another broken promise.

CEDAW recently issued observations on Canada's record for women, which many have described as serious, disturbing and scathing. CEDAW stresses the leadership responsibility of the federal government.

When will the government show leadership, take action, and honour its commitment to uphold this UN convention?