Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, the CNSC has assured the minister that the health and safety of Canadians is being protected in the production of the isotopes at the Chalk River facility. Obviously the health and safety of Canadians has been our number one priority since the beginning. That is why the minister has asked the officials in the department as well as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to get to the bottom of this issue and to make a report to her.

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Winnipeg Centre, in one of his questions, used inappropriate sexist language, I would ask that he apologize to this House and anybody else watching this on television.

The Speaker

I see the member is not responding to the point of order at this point in time. I will review the matter and come back to the House if necessary.

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would seek unanimous consent of the House of Commons for the following motion: That in the opinion of this House, the government should extend an invitation to the President of the United States to make a joint address to both Houses of Parliament on February 19, 2009.

The Speaker

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

Agreed.

No.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by my constituents from Three Hills, Carbon, Trochu and Linden.

The petitioners are concerned about the availability of natural health products in Canadians stores. They are also concerned about the research and development of these products, the inspection regime required to oversee the quality assurance of these products and the penalties for infractions related to the mishandling of these products.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition signed by 40 of my constituents from Drumheller, Carbon, Brooks, Delia, Hanna and Okotoks in Alberta.

The petitioners are calling on Parliament to allow the disclosure and publication of the name and/or picture of any serious violent offender, regardless of the age of that offender. They want tougher laws for serious violent offenders and tougher consequences and jail time with no mandatory release at age 18.

They are petitioning Parliament in reaction to an incident one year ago where a six-year-old boy was held at knifepoint by an eighteen-year-old male who they say was out on bail for violent sexual assaults and awaiting sentencing.

My constituents have had enough of our criminal justice system mollycoddling violent offenders.

Mr. Mike Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to table a petition containing thousands of signatures from people all across Canada, from the young to the young at heart, who are concerned about the serious issue of bullying; a serious problem that we face as Canadians and an act that has brought fear into the lives of many, including our young people.

Many organizations and individuals across the country are working to put an end to this type of behaviour. The petitioners are asking the government to recognize the work of these anti-bullying organizations.

They are therefore calling on Parliament to declare December 17 Blue Day, an official day to recognize the work of anti-bullying organizations in Canada.

Mr. Colin Mayes (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition signed by my constituents of Okanagan—Shuswap who are concerned about the atrocities in Darfur affecting well over 4.5 million people in the past years.

The petitioners call upon our government to use all diplomatic channels and appeal to the international community to pressure the Sudanese government to end the destruction in Darfur.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by thousands of Canadians who would bring to Parliament's attention the fact that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer that the world has ever known and yet Canada remains one of the largest producers and exporters of asbestos in the world.

These signators point out that asbestos now kills more people than all other industrial causes combined in this country and yet Canada continues to allow asbestos to be used and promotes it, dumping it into third world countries.

These petitioners call upon Parliament to ban asbestos in all its forms and to introduce a just transition program for asbestos workers and the communities in which they live. They also call upon the government to end all subsidies to the asbestos industry, both in Canada and abroad, and to stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam Convention.

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Is that agreed?

Agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must ask my colleague from South Shore—St. Margaret's a question in light of what is happening in Nova Scotia. We have seen the devastating impact of this budget on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the untenable position in which it puts the people of that province. However, in Nova Scotia we have the spectacle of a premier saying that Nova Scotia will be okay. Even though the budget implication is that the money will be taken away, the premier says “don't worry, don't worry, it's okay, we made a little side deal over here”. There is nothing on paper, nothing to back it up except not to worry with a wink and nudge.

Knowing that my colleague's wonderful wife is a minister in the provincial Government of Nova Scotia, could he bring home a little piece of paper that she might scratch out and send it over to us so that we know for sure that Nova Scotia will be taken care of?

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would know that the Premier of Nova Scotia's word is good and the Prime Minister's word is good. The Province of Nova Scotia will certainly get the full amount of its transitional fund delivered. It is an agreement between the Prime Minister and the premier.

I spoke to the premier last night and he thought this was a great budget. A lot will be delivered to the province of Nova Scotia.

The budget has a few hidden gems. I would ask the hon. member to take a look one of the little gems in the budget that has gone primarily unnoticed, and that is the proposal to spend $5 million in two years on an independent task force to come up with recommendations to the Minister of Finance on a cohesive national strategy on financial literacy. These are the types of programs that can go a long way to help all men, women and young families, people who are trying to make a living and trying to get ahead in society, to plan their financial future.

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, I have two quick points. First, a professor emailed me this morning and he is very upset about the cut to the granting councils and the cut in money for science researchers.

Second, would the member commit to trying to lobby the Treasury Board minister to keep his word, to keep the commitment and to keep the honour of the government on the deal it had with the RCMP to increase its wages? A number of Yukon RCMP are very upset at this.

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Speaker, this is a very prudent and practical budget for these very trying economic times. The Minister of Finance, the President of the Treasury Board, the Prime Minister and everyone involved in the budgetary process knew what the economy was doing and where the economy is going. We put together a budget that would provide a stimulus for the Canadian economy at a time when the economy needs a stimulus. The stimulus of $35 billion this year and $30 billion next year is unprecedented in Canadian history and is exactly what is needed in these very difficult and trying economic times.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to split my time, as I split my seat every day, with my colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

The budget we are discussing is not perfect. It is quite imperfect, but it is at least a step forward from the economic update of this past November when the government carried on its tradition of putting politics before people.

After years of budget surpluses and sound fiscal management by previous Liberal governments, we now find ourselves in deficits and with a growing debt. The responsibility rests solely in the unsteady hands of the Conservative government.

This is a turbulent time for Canadians. Real people are suffering and many are worried about their future.

It is not easy for some politicians and political parties to set aside their personal wishes and personal ambitions to do what is best for the country. We should and the Liberal Party will. It is our view and my view that the budget needs to have an opportunity to work but there has to be strong oversight.

The government will be judged on its progress or lack thereof and it knows that it will face the Canadian public if it fails this test. In my review of the budget, I have placed the measures into three categories: first, measures that could be positive for Canadians but which will have to be watched very carefully; second, measures that do not go nearly far enough; and finally, measures that are totally absent.

In terms of measures that might be positive but need safeguards is the working income tax benefit. I think that WITB, a refundable tax credit that supplements earnings for eligible working low income families, is a positive program and it does help some families climb over the so-called welfare wall. The government is adding $580 million, effectively doubling it, and, in fairness to the government, if this goes through it is a positive measure.

On housing, there are some measures outlined in the budget that go to support affordable social housing for seniors, aboriginals, persons with disabilities as well as incentives to retrofit existing social housing to make them more energy efficient. That should be good as well.

On skills training, I believe the investments in what the government is calling the Canada skills and transition strategy will allow unemployed workers more time to find a good job and get the training to compete for tomorrow's jobs.

Those supports are welcomed by us as they will be welcomed by Canadians but they need to be tracked very carefully.

On deferred maintenance at universities and colleges, up to $2 billion is dedicated to colleges and universities to address deferred maintenance; that is to say, repair the facilities that students and researchers use. That can be very positive but, again, the details are very blurry. I have significant concern about the provision that universities, community colleges, polytechnics, provinces and municipalities will be expected to kick in matching funds to get the money. In particular for smaller colleges and universities, and especially in my province of Nova Scotia, freeing up money to match federal money is not an option. As a professor said to me this morning, “This may be a gift we cannot afford”. I think that is well said.

On research, we saw today the spectacle of the minister saying that we need not worry about the cuts. In Canada, eight or nine years ago we invested in research and innovation in a huge way at a time when the American administration of George Bush was cutting research funding. It was a perfect storm for us.

We now face the exact opposite. Under President Obama, the United States in investing in science at a time when we are not. Researchers across the country are concerned about that and they should be. One of the best ways to increase productivity is to invest in research. We will have to keep a very close eye on that.

There are provisions in the budget that are weak and not well thought out. Surely equalization is a prime example. We have seen what a devastating impact it will have on the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. In my own province we have this spectacle of a premier saying that it is okay, that he has made a deal with the Prime Minister. However, there is nothing on paper to say the deal is any good. That is so far from the Atlantic accord negotiated by Prime Minister Paul Martin and Premier John Hamm. It is a disgrace and it will need to be watched very carefully.

We were told there would be all kinds of changes to EI. There were great signals from the minister. We have added five weeks, which is good, and some training money. The government might though have used some creativity. If it had wanted to create stimulus, why would it not have eliminated the two week waiting period? That money would go into the economy right now, instead of adding five weeks at the end that some may use or some may not. It could have got rid of the two week waiting period and added three weeks at the other end so at least people could take advantage of the money now when they need it.

It is troubling to hear about wait times for the processing. The minister seems not particularly concerned and yesterday we had a headline saying that the government would not pay the unemployed to stay home. The minister in charge of employment insurance is saying that it may be too lucrative, that Canadians will flee from their jobs and jump on to employment insurance to make $340 a week. That is a disgrace and an insult to working people in Canada. I would encourage the minister and the government to get serious about employment insurance reform as we go forward.

Our leader has indicated a Liberal government will take the necessary steps to bring about changes to EI, in concert with stakeholder group, changes that are fair and treat workers equally.

In support for families, we could have done something significant for the poorest families in the country. There was some tinkering with the national child benefit, but it does not even help those who are most affected. That is a disgrace.

In terms of categories that are not even covered in this budget, what about early learning and child care? We continue to have a government that holds firm on its ideological opposition to any national leadership role in child care. Child care is a tremendously important issue for Canadians and this budget contains nothing to help working families with the difficulty and the cost of accessing child care services in Canada.

What we have now, sadly, is a small taxable benefit that does little or nothing to enhance access to child care and does not create a space. Families who want to go out into the workforce or go back to school in order to better live their lives are stuck again.

It was a Liberal government, led by the member for York Centre, that brought in a national child care program, a program advocated for for years by child care advocates across this country, people like Pat Hogan and Sue Wolstenholme in Nova Scotia, like Martha Friendly in Toronto, Monica Lysack from Saskatchewan, and many others who fought hard, only to see their success turn into despair when the government tore up those agreements. Again, politics trumps people. It is unacceptable.

One of the overarching concerns that touches upon a number of the issues that I mentioned is poverty. Poverty should concern everybody in this country. It is one of the issues on which, along with other colleagues from the human resources committee of the House, we worked in the previous Parliament, and I hope that the HUMA committee will again take up that work when the committees resume.

I hope that we will have in Canada a national strategy to combat poverty, something we do not have now and something for which I hold out very little hope under this government.

I was proud that our party brought forth the thirty-fifty plan in the past election. It placed poverty, and particularly child poverty, at the centre of our platform. It continues to be a national disgrace that we have so many children going to school with little or no food, whose basic needs are not met, and it should be a shame to us all.

I believe that a Liberal government will one day, perhaps sooner than some think, end the dark ages of the Conservative government and replace ideology with hope.

We will say to all Canadians that we support: literacy, equality, the mandate of Status of Women Canada, the court challenges program, child care, proper funding and access to universities and colleges, and that we support the right of all people to live in a country that is generous and fair. Those are the beliefs of most Canadians and they are our beliefs as well. We will form a government that will once again place people first and politics last.

This budget will pass, but we will hold the government to account and the day will soon come when Canadians will have their say again.