Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP)

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech on the budget. He is certainly a person that we in this House recognize as one who holds the progressive notions of government.

We have not seen those of course in the Conservative government, yet today we have once again the spectacle of the government achieving support from the Liberals for a budget that has very little vision of where we are going, very little concern about those most affected by the downturn in the economy, and really no sense of where we are going to go once we come out of the current economic downturn, other than business as usual.

My question for the member is this. How does he see that his actions today in supporting the budget, and not working with us in coming up with a new answer, are really going to cast the direction for this country?

This budget is spending billions of dollars and putting us in a direction that will not help us once the recession is over. How does he see his actions here today serving Canadians three or five years from now?

Mr. Michael Savage

Mr. Speaker, we are not saying that this budget is perfect. If this budget were a school child, the report card at mid-term might say it is a D, but the student has to apply himself or herself a little more over the coming months and learn to play nice with others. That is in essence what we are saying about this budget.

The editorial in The Chronicle-Herald yesterday, headed “Grits make right call”, said:

Indeed, the opposition's job is to evaluate a budget's merits on balance, not to rewrite it to its liking or to force the government to make spending commitments it does not want to be responsible for...With his budget, Mr. Harper has already met the Liberals halfway.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin)

Before I go to questions and comments, I remind the member not to refer to other members by name.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Yukon.

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, I wonder how the member for Western Arctic, who just spoke, is going to explain his actions to his constituents. The NWT Chamber of Commerce supports the budget. There is money for infrastructure, northern housing and arctic research, all for his constituency.

I am glad the member mentioned the cut in research funds. I received an email from a professor from Yukon College this morning that said:

I just want to say that I am concerned about the proposed reduction in research granting councils tucked away in the new federal budget. Our neighbour is doubling research and we are cutting it...Reducing money for on-the-ground research does not make any sense to me whatsoever

Would the hon. member support me in asking for the government to maintain its honour with the deal it had with the RCMP negotiated settlement? The RCMP are integral to the north and have a very dangerous profession. We should honour our commitments to them.

Mr. Michael Savage

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with my hon. colleague on his latter point. In terms of research, I too received an email from somebody very involved in research in my province and a national leadership role across the country. It said, “--I have had the chance to digest a bit more information about the impact of the proposal on research. In brief--it's not good!!!” One, two, three exclamation points. Three exclamation points.

We came so far eight years ago when we invested in CFI, more when the granting councils created CIHR and Genome Canada, and the Canada research chairs, all of the things we did. That was at a time when the United States was reducing its commitment to science.

As signalled in Mr. Obama's speech, the United States is now putting a real focus on science at a time when the Canadian government is levelling down its research commitment. It spite of what it says, it is levelling it down. The tri-councils, NSERC, SSHRC and CIHR are losing money. This is critical for Canada. This government needs to accept that fact and stop telling people it is not the case. It is the case. We are losing our function, purpose, and ability to attract and retain researchers in Canada. It is going to cost us big time.

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that it is an honour for me to follow my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, who gave an excellent speech on the budget.

One of the first things this budget brought to my mind was an interview I read a number of years ago with the then labour secretary in the Clinton administration, Robert Reich, who is, of course, a political and philosophical liberal.

In the interview he was talking, in frustration, about the neo-conservative winds that were still sweeping the United States at that point, that had begun with the Reagan administration. He was railing in a sense against these neo-conservative winds because those winds were denigrating longstanding, respected social safety net programs in the United States that had been in place for many years.

At the time, the economy was good, everyone was happy, people were prospering and forgetting in a sense that some day they might need those programs such as employment insurance and different forms of medical insurance. Previouis governments had been using this change in political culture that had been engendered by the good times to further denigrate these programs and make them seem dated and less valuable.

Reich said that one day middle-class Americans, who were earning good wages and salaries, would need those programs. He felt it was the role of the government, the Clinton administration, not only in its discourse but in its concrete actions, measures and policies to restore support for these programs. Now, of course, with the onset of the economic crisis, the point has been driven home more clearly than ever that Americans need these programs, like Canadians do.

I was watching 60 Minutes last weekend and there was a very heart-wrenching story about a one-industry town in Ohio called Wilmington. I am sure other members saw it. It is a town that houses one of the hubs of the DHL express courier company. The town had been thriving but with the recession the courier company's network is shrinking and it is conducting waves of massive layoffs, one week after another. Sometimes both spouses had been employed there and now find themselves with nothing, barely enough money to purchase groceries and sometimes not able to do that. They face mounting health care bills. They were in tears while being interviewed by 60 Minutes.

In one case a woman said what broke her heart more than not being able to put food on the table regularly was that she and her husband had to pull their son out of college before he graduated. It was a very sad tale. When I saw it, I felt terrible for them and I also felt grateful that I live in Canada where we have programs like employment insurance, publicly-funded post-secondary education, and a national health care system that is not perfect but is a safety net.

What I found disappointing in the budget was that the government had an opportunity to take a leadership role in this new era of hope and Obama-style vision. It had the opportunity to reinforce these programs through concrete spending measures at a time when Canadians need to have these reinforced, but it let the opportunity go by to some extent.

For example, we have to improve the employment insurance program at this time when unemployment is rising but we can also use it as a counter-cyclical economic instrument to help us get out of the recession. What better way to pump up the economy. What quicker, more efficient way to pump up the economy than to put money in the hands of the unemployed, who will spend it right away. Unemployed individuals do not have to wait until they file their tax returns; it would show up on a cheque right away.

The Globe and Mail called for this kind of reform to employment insurance. Forget the fact that we have to make the program better for compassionate reasons, but in terms of hard economic reasons that program could have been reformed and made into a counter-cyclical economic program. The government did not bite. It did not take the opportunity to do that.

The government also did not take the opportunity to further support the health care system. We know that in times of recession people suffer. They suffer stress and stress leads to disease and more hospitalization. We have done the research. The science shows it. The government may not believe in science, but what we have learned through science over the years is that these are facts, facts that are not debatable any more. Recessions lead to family problems, to stress, to disease and to hospitalization.

We had the foresight in our Liberal election platform to say that if we were elected, we would put $1 billion aside to hire more doctors and nurses. Why did the government not take inspiration from that? We would have given it credit for doing the right thing. The government left another national program weaker when it could have made it stronger.

The government could have invested more in post-secondary education and research, but it did not. It seems to be cutting research.

What is really galling about the Conservative government is its systematic lack of foresight.

There will always be ups and downs in the capitalist economy, and we know this now. There will always be speculative bubbles. If it is not the dot-com bubble, it is a real estate bubble or it is a credit crunch like we are living through today.

I was reading an interesting article the other day that explained why we never seemed to learn that we would have some kind of speculative run and that it would come to an end. One of the reasons we do not learn is because the people involved in the markets at a particular time do not remember the last crash. When we say it has crashed before, they tell us it is different this time because governments have surpluses or inflation is low. They are blind to the possibility that it will happen again.

I am so proud to say that we had a finance minister who built in a $3 billion cushion because he was wise enough to know that bad times would return.

Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP)

Mr. Speaker, my colleague touched on one issue that I thought was remarkable, and that was the $3 billion fund that the previous government had allocated.

We are dealing with a deficit from the status quo in excess of $10 billion. We are dealing with a stimulus package that will be taking the deficit to $64 billion in two years. The situation comes back to cutting taxes, the fiscal policy of the previous government.

My colleague and his party will support the continuation of the same fiscal policy we have had over the past three years, which has led us to this point today. We had the opportunity within the laws and the directions of the Parliament we all sit in as members to change that. His party chose not to do that.

Could the member explain to me why now he says that the policy of tax cutting, of reckless abandonment with the good revenues of our country, is something that his party should support?

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Mr. Speaker, it is true that a $3 billion cushion seems relatively small in respect to the kinds of deficits we are looking at this year, next year and going into the future. There is a reason that the deficit will be so large and that reason does not relate to the previous Liberal government.

As the member knows, the GST cuts brought in by the Conservative government will deprive the economy of $12 billion a year. That is $12 billion that could go into water infrastructure. That is $12 billion that could go into science and technology. That is $12 billion that could go into the arts, one of the country's biggest industries. It is a lot of money. I think that was an unwise decision by the government, but we are not voting on unwise decisions from previous budgets.

Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the floor indicated something to the effect that the government did not believe in science.

One of the obligations we have as members of Parliament is to reflect accurately what is in the budget proposal. It seems to me, from the comments that were made, that perhaps the member has not read the budget.

I would like to read a few excerpts from the budget, on page 138 and 139:

Dedicating up to $2 billion to repair, retrofit and expand facilities at post-secondary institutions.

Providing $750 million for leading-edge research infrastructure through the Canada Foundation for Innovation.

Providing $50 million to the Institute for Quantum Computing in Waterloo...

Allocating $87 million over the next two years to maintain or upgrade key Arctic research facilities.

Providing $250 million over two years to address deferred maintenance at federal laboratories.

It seems very clear to me that the government is very committed to research and innovation. Could the member explain how he could make a statement like he did in his earlier remarks.

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the figures that the hon. member has read out. We are pleased with some of the funding increases. There is no doubt about that. We are supporting the budget.

However, we know that in a competitive world, it is not always about the absolute numbers; it is about how we are doing relative to our competitors.

We know that in the United States the Obama administration will pour billions and billions of dollars into science research. What do we see in the headlines today? We see headlines like Genome Canada has been forgotten.

It is good that the government has invested, but it would not have invested had it not been faced with the threat of a coalition government, so we have to take credit for some of those additional investments.

There was another article in the paper today saying that the Prime Minister is a Conservative in name only at this point, that he seems to have abdicated on all of his principles. If he has abdicated in the direction of spending to stimulate the economy, then good for him and good for us.

Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to the budget. I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

Leading up to the budget speech, I talked to many people in my riding. Sadly, the issues that many people raised are simply not addressed in that speech. One of the things we had heard, and I am paraphrasing, is that people were looking for a budget that would protect the vulnerable. They were looking for a budget that would safeguard today's jobs. They were looking for a budget that would create jobs of tomorrow. On all counts, the budget has failed to do that.

I want to talk about some of the specifics I heard from people in my riding. Sadly, we will be going back to tell them that their expectations will not be met.

Money for housing is talked about in the budget, but the kicker with it, as always, is it requires matching funds. We were looking for innovative strategies that talk about some of the problems we see in some of our rural communities.

We were hoping the needs of rural communities would be addressed in terms of the diversity of housing and the kind of transportation infrastructure required for those communities. In the urban communities we were looking for money for retrofitting existing stocks of housing and some creative solutions towards homelessness. Because this money will be funnelled through the provinces and will oftentimes require matching funds, those houses simply will not be built in many of our communities.

There was certainly some mention of agriculture in the budget, but again it fell short. British Columbia has a different kind of agricultural economy than the prairies, for example.

We were looking for money that would support training for small and middle-income farmers, training on business and management development and basic production information. We were looking for support for community organizations, which are working towards increasing self-sufficiency for backyard and urban gardeners. We were looking for buy local initiatives, initiatives that talked about government procurement of local agriculture, initiatives that supported community-supported agriculture and initiatives that supported local processing facilities. Sadly, those were not in the budget either.

A community adjustment fund was announced in the budget, which would look at assisting communities like mine, where forestry is in transition. In the past the community development trust fund failed to meet the needs of forestry workers. Many of the forestry workers in my riding are in their late 40s or early 50s, so the transition fund did not work for them because they were not 55. For some of the transition projects that were funded, there was no requirement that forestry workers needed to be employed.

The community adjustment fund has no criteria outline saying that it will directly benefit forestry workers or manufacturing workers, and that is a critical piece. It is fine to stimulate the economy and provide some service to some of these projects, but it is the workers who are hardest hit who really do need the attention.

Much has been made about infrastructure. My community would welcome infrastructure spending. The problem with it is that municipalities have a really difficult time coming up with their share of the money. Some of our municipalities are heavily reliant on single industries. Those forestry sector companies are struggling with profitability.

What is happening is municipalities are looking at a potential reduction in their tax base. They simply will not have the funds to contribute towards infrastructure projects, despite the fact that we have a critical infrastructure project in most of our communities.

We talked about the RCMP today. We had hoped to see in the budget a firm commitment to honouring the contract that was signed with the RCMP, honouring those wages that were part of that signed agreement. Sadly, what we heard is no. The government will not honour the agreements with the RCMP officers.

We do have solutions. One person in my riding put together a number of initiatives and she talked about community investment funds. She talked in particular about a community investment fund that would build national capacity. This could be a community fund that would be an incubation fund, that would build practical know-how, share best practices and models and expertise, facilitate communication, outreach support and do pilot projects that benefited the local economy directly. That was absent in the budget.

The last element that was absent from the budget, and probably the most egregious, is employment insurance. We have heard the Conservatives say in the House that they have invested in employment insurance by adding five weeks onto the claims. That is great for the workers who qualify and I applaud that initiative. However, in my riding the sad fact is that many people have run out of employment insurance. They are forestry workers and they have not been able to work enough hours to qualify for a new claim. Adding five weeks simply will not help them out.

For every $60 the government provided in corporate tax cuts, it provided $1 for the unemployed worker. That ratio of 60:1 is simply not acceptable.

Yesterday the Minister of Human Resources said, “We do not want to make it lucrative for them to stay home and get paid for it, not when we still have significant skills shortages in many parts of the country”. Tell me how lucrative it is for workers when the average employment insurance cheque is in the mid $300 range. I would challenge the minister to live on $300 a week in today's economy.

I have limited time so I will not be able to quote extensively from a couple letters, but let us put a face to what it means to be unemployed right now in Nanaimo—Cowichan and many other parts of the country. I have a letter signed by the United Steelworkers, the Truck Loggers' Association, Coast Forest Products Association, Forest Industrial Relations, and others. They wrote:

--28% of the current Forest Industry Unionized employees have worked less than 420 hours in the past year. And 39.6% have worked less than 700 hours.

These workers simply will not have enough hours to qualify for employment insurance.

Doug Morgan, whose story is typical of many, wrote:

I live on Vancouver Island in BC and work for Western Forest Products.... I have worked there for 28 years and I am 51 years old. I am writing this letter in hope that I can let people in government have a clear understanding of the crisis that the employees of this industry are in or are about to be in.... I have five weeks of Employment Insurance (EI) remaining on my claim and have not worked enough to have enough hours to start a new claim. The mill that I work for, as are most of the mills, is working only when they have to fill orders that they can get in these poor economic times. When my Employment Insurance claim runs out I will have no money coming in at all. With a mortgage to pay and a child about to go to college I have to find work some way to get by.... With the average age on the coast in this industry being 50 to 60 years old many employees of this industry are in or are going to be in the same situation.

He went on in the letter to talk about what should have happened in this budget. There should have been a reduction in the number of hours needed to qualify. There should have been a waiving of the two-week waiting period. There should have been a reconsideration of the benefit rate.

Tell Mr. Morgan that it is more lucrative for him to stay at home. I would challenge members of the House to talk to their constituents who are in that situation where they will not qualify, or where their claims are running out, or where there are no other jobs in those communities because they are heavily reliant on forestry, for example. Tell them how they are going to benefit from this budget when they cannot even qualify to begin with.

I am going to touch briefly on first nations. Earlier today during oral questions I talked about the fact that the estimates tabled by the minister this week clawed back money out of infrastructure and put it into seriously underfunded education. The big issue is that there is money announced for infrastructure and for other programs, but the big issue is whether or not that money will actually reach communities. Will it get on the ground for community members? Whether it is housing, education, or water, the budget simply does not make firm commitments of getting the money to where it is most needed.

Aboriginal women and the National Association of Friendship Centres have been left out in the cold. Aboriginal women are not mentioned in this budget, nor is the National Association of Friendship Centres, yet it provides a very valuable service to a significant number of urban aboriginal people in this country. That is a grave oversight.

Mr. Brian Storseth (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way mentioned some of her disappointments with respect to agriculture in this budget. I think it is important that we recognize what this government, the agriculture minister and the Prime Minister have done. She talked about farmers in her riding wanting more information. Farmers in my riding have lots of information. What they need is access to markets so that they can get the right price for their product.

That is what this government has been focusing on. Bilateral trade agreements that had not been signed for a dozen years have finally started to roll out under this government. Just this January we had an agreement in principle with Hong Kong that will double our market share to $26 million in the beef sector. There is $145 million for the advancement of the Canadian bio-based economy. There is $134 million for commercialization of new bio-based products. There is $22 million for AAFC research and development projects. That is the history of this government. There is $500 million for new agriculture and agriculture flexibility.

Can the member explain how she is actually going to vote against that?

Ms. Jean Crowder

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question, but it also shows how out of touch the government is with the realities of farmers across this country.

The farmers in British Columbia are not like the farmers on the Prairies. We talk about western alienation. I can see that it is alive and well when we see agricultural policies when it comes to British Columbia. For many of our farmers, although trade has increased, real farm income has decreased. We also see that many farmers in this country have to work off farm. They need off-farm income in order to survive. The member talked about increased markets, but these farmers are barely making a living.

I want to see some real investment in some of the small farmers in this country. I want to see some real investment in government procurement policies that say that we will buy local. I want to see some real investment in local processing facilities. The current and previous governments' failure to recognize, for example, chicken processing and some of the meat regulations has meant that the farmers on Vancouver Island have had to get out of the business. They have to ship their livestock over to Vancouver. That increases stress on the livestock and increases the farmers' costs. We want to see some meaningful small farm policy.

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, as a former president of our local aboriginal friendship centre, I am delighted the member raised the lack of mention of those centres in the budget.

I want to ask her about an issue related to self-governing first nations. There is $50 million in the budget for the north, for housing, but it is for everybody. Some of that is intended for aboriginal housing, but it does not say how much or how they would get it. In the south, it is specifically targeted at $400 million for on reserve, but in the north, it is not specified.

This happened the last time around. Our first nations were incensed that the government had not treated them as governments and did not give them the money directly. It flowed through other governments. I got a furious phone call from a vice-chief yesterday saying that once again there is $50 million for the public at large, but there is no sense that it is going to be delivered directly to self-governing first nations. There is no sense of how much is for them.

They are once again incensed that although they are now governments as approved by this Parliament they are not being treated as governments and they are not getting the money to directly flow to them. It is good that the much needed money for housing is there, but it is the process which they are very upset with.

Ms. Jean Crowder

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the reason the New Democrats will not be supporting this budget.

Regarding the friendship centres, I just want to point out to this House that Canada's 118 aboriginal friendship centres have not had an increase in their budgets since 1998. Once again, there is another budget where there is no mention of them.

When it comes to self-governing first nations and housing, there are a number of problems with aboriginal housing as it is mentioned in this budget. First of all, it carefully does not talk about the fact that in the past the money that has come out has been strictly for market housing. We do not know if this money is going to be targeted for market housing. It does not talk about the process on how, in particular, self-governing first nations will access that money. They should rightly control that money.

Given past experiences on how this money is or is not rolled out, we do not have confidence that this money will actually build houses in aboriginal communities from coast to coast to coast.

Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP)

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the budget. Similar to other members who have expressed such in the House, I also reached out to my constituents. I have also been receiving a lot of phone calls and emails from other people across the country who are concerned about what is not in the budget and what has been cut from the budget. It is well known in the House that I have a great interest and long-standing work in the area of the environment. Despite the fact that I heard a lot of concerns from my own constituents about there being no more funding for health care, no more funding for advanced education, much to my surprise, by and large the largest number of concerns expressed to me were that the highest priority they set for the budget is that they want more money to address climate change and protection of the environment. What I intend to address in the budget debate today is the shortfalls in that area.

The hon. Minister of the Environment has described the budget as setting a new high watermark for eco-funding. In assessing whether the budget actually merits this accolade, let us recall the responses made to the economic and climate crises--and I remind the House we are not just in an economic crisis; we are facing also a serious climate crisis--by other jurisdictions and authorities.

President Obama, in his first month in office, provided clear leadership by announcing measures to forge a new greener economy for his nation, a stimulus package that doubles the generating capacity of the United States renewable energy over three years to power six million homes; the financing of retrofitting of two million homes to save low income earners the average of $350 a year; the retrofitting, not the sell-off, of 75% of federal buildings to save the government $2 billion a year; loan guarantees to leverage $100 billion in private investment in clean energy projects. He cleared the way for new rules to require production of more fuel efficient and cleaner cars, unlike Canada's government which missed the deadline. He also dedicated $600 million for new federal fleet cars.

Germany has enacted a law that requires power distributors to purchase electricity from renewable sources for a fixed time at fixed rates above market prices. In other words, it is giving a leg up to the new green economy, as much as a seven times higher price for solar power. Germany now generates the most renewable energy worldwide and the largest production of solar panels and wind turbines in the world.

We are letting these businesses pass by. They employ one-quarter million people and a $400 billion revenue stream for this sector, four times the figures since 2000.

The International Energy Agency has called on all governments to include green measures in their stimulus plans. “If governments are spending money for a stimulus package”, it says, “why not spend it on renewables?” Its executive director said, “It stimulates the economy in the short term and in the long term it is sustainable. It kills two birds with one stone”. Although perhaps not the metaphor an environmentalist might prefer, we get the message.

This week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, business people and economists alike voiced support for reduced reliance on dirty fossil fuels and support for green industries capable of creating jobs as the preferred path to ease the difficulties faced by businesses and workers alike.

The United Nations Environment Program has launched a $4 million green economy initiative to get the global markets back to work. This initiative, funded by the European Commission, Germany and Norway, will deliver within two years a package for use by all governments to help make this transition. I hope that the government pays attention to this package.

According to the UNEP executive director, “The financial fuel and food crises are part of a much wider market failure which triggers deeper environmental impacts coupled with an over-reliance on finite fossil fuels”. That renowned international organization recognizes that we face both an economic crisis and a climate crisis. Its intent is to mobilize and refocus the global economy toward investments in clean technologies and natural infrastructure. It has called for new creative, forward looking and transformational thinking. Instead of pouring more investments into the same old extractive short-term economy of yesterday, UNEP is advising nations, including ours, to move investments toward a new green economy.

Such an economy would be based on three pillars: valuing and mainstreaming nature, employment generation through green jobs and green policies, and the use of instruments and market signals to accelerate the transition to a green economy.

How do these brave, bold initiatives to start the economy and save the planet compare to the measures in the budget tabled before us in Parliament? The Minister of the Environment has advised we must read the budget in the context of the fall 2008 throne speech. That speech, coupled with policy and law reforms slowly being revealed to us, suggests a dramatically different path than that taken by President Obama, other nations or international institutions of the world.

Our federal government is granted extensive powers to forge bold new directions for reviving the economy and sustaining our living environment, powers that if exercised in a timely and effective manner could drive change for the better, trigger major shifts in investment and provide hope to Canadians for a sound and sustainable future. Counted among those important powers are the spending power, the taxation power and the regulatory power. Let us not forget the regulatory power.

The question we must ask ourselves in assessing whether we will vote for this budget is whether the government has actually used its taxation and spending powers in the budget to show leadership to establish a new high-water mark for the environment. Has the government followed the path of its G20 partners and delivered on its commitments to unleash a new greener energy future for Canada?

True, there is some evidence of new language and a tinkering at the edges of the old-style economy. Some of Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars are to be made available to them to renovate their homes or cottages or to build a deck. Some additional dollars would be set aside for the home energy retrofit program. Those with cash to spare to do both may potentially be rewarded with both a grant and tax relief.

Perhaps less of the pie has been allocated to those at the bottom end of the prosperity gap. Regrettably, no moneys are allocated for retrofitting the large rental housing stock.

What else is missing from the budget? Let me share just a few examples brought to my attention by my constituents, by renewable energy experts and investors, by energy efficiency entrepreneurs, by transit authorities and by respected scientists, simply to name a few I have consulted or who have contacted me.

With regard to transit, a stated priority of the government is to get workers to their jobs in a cleaner, less smog-producing way. Despite the valuable contribution public transit makes toward this goal, not a single dollar is specifically committed to transit, and this despite a cost analysis by the Canadian Federation of Municipalities that for every billion dollars invested in infrastructure for transit, over 11,000 full-time jobs are created. Perhaps a few of the 167 priority transit projects identified by the Canadian Urban Transit Association as ready to go may eventually win the lottery and be funded under building Canada.

What about the clean and renewable energy economy? The budget purports to be transforming Canada into a green energy economy. Close to $1 billion to develop and test so-called clean energy technologies singles out carbon-capturing sequestration, which has already received $1 billion and even more from the provinces, yet zero new dollars are budgeted to incent the development, and most important the deployment, of renewable energy, save possibly support for one windmill on Prince Edward Island.

What about climate change? It is among the most pressing challenges of our time. How many references are made in the budget to this issue? There is just one, occurring when the government touts nuclear power as the singular solution to Canada's energy security and climate change goals.

Regrettably, what the government has done through streamlining is cut the very institutions that can develop the innovative transition and move it forward.

It has done nothing on water, despite calls by the first nations of northern Alberta and by leading scientists of Canada.

I call on the government and I call on the members of the House not to support the budget. We need to be forging a new green economy.

Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, in the House today we have listened to speaker after speaker from the NDP tell us what was not in the budget. Notwithstanding the fact that they were invited to participate in the preparation of the budget and were invited to give their input, they chose not to participate much at all. In fact, a couple of weeks before the budget had even been presented, they were telling the Canadian people that they were not going to support the budget That in itself is curious.

Now I am listening to all the things they say are not in the budget. Making a shopping list is easy once they have the budget.

All these things are now a matter of Hansard, and when this debate is over, I would ask members of that party to present a priced list of all of the things they brought up and tell the Canadian people how much money the things they say are not in the budget would actually cost. I would ask that they be honest and just do it.

Ms. Linda Duncan

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is necessary for me to price the costs of addressing climate change. That has been done very thoroughly by the experts in the federal environment department.

I have the big tomes that have been held back and finally released to the public. They document the major costs we are going to face and the liabilities, as yet unassessed, for the failure to address air pollution, the failure to address our depleting water resources, and the failure to address climate change.

Where in this budget is there any action to generally reduce the liabilities we are unloading on future generations?

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the member for Edmonton—Strathcona. I believe there are about 67 women sitting in this House, and I am very surprised that the Liberals, among others, are choosing to support the budget, as it contains a measure that, as a women and a parliamentarian, I feel is completely unacceptable. In the budget, the economic statement and the throne speech, the Conservative government has repeatedly stated that it will not reverse its position and will continue to insist that the right to pay equity be a negotiated right.

Since when is a right negotiable? A right is a right. People have to demand it and secure it using the means available to them. I would like the member for Edmonton—Strathcona to tell me, as a woman and a parliamentarian, how she interprets the Liberals' support and the Conservatives' stubborn refusal to address this issue that affects women.

Ms. Linda Duncan

Mr. Speaker, I too am deeply disturbed at the lack of respect shown for women in this House. I too have received a lot of calls from constituents who are deeply concerned about this matter. We thought that we had made progress in Canada, that we were an advanced nation and that we were actually going to show equality for both sexes, men and women, in Canada. I am deeply disturbed not only that it was raised in the fiscal update but that the spectre is also raised again in this budget, and I am deeply disappointed that the Liberal Party has chosen to ignore that.