Bill C-43 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2005

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005

Part 1 amends the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Application Rules to
(a) increase the amount that Canadians can earn tax free;
(b) increase the annual limits on contributions to tax-deferred retirement savings plans;
(c) eliminate the foreign property limitations on tax-deferred retirement savings plans;
(d) increase the Child Disability Benefit supplement to the Canada Child Tax Benefit;
(e) allow for a longer period for the existence of and contributions to a Registered Education Savings Plan in certain circumstances where the plan beneficiary is eligible for the disability tax credit;
(f) increase the maximum refundable medical expense supplement;
(g) exclude emergency medical services vehicles from the standby charge;
(h) extend to January 11, 2005 the date for charitable giving in respect of the 2004 taxation year for the tsunami relief effort;
(i) eliminate the corporate surtax; and
(j) extend the SR&ED tax incentives to SR&ED performed in Canada’s exclusive economic zone.
Part 2 amends the Air Travellers Security Charge Act to reduce the air travellers security charge for domestic air travel to $5 for one-way travel and to $10 for round-trip travel, for transborder air travel to $8.50 and for other international air travel to $17, applicable to air travel purchased on or after March 1, 2005.
Part 3 amends Part IX of the Excise Tax Act to extend the application of the 83 per cent rebate of the goods and services tax (GST) and the federal component of the harmonized sales tax (HST) to eligible charities and non-profit organizations in respect of the tax they pay on their purchases to provide exempt health care supplies similar to those traditionally provided in hospitals. It also amends that Act to provide that a director of a corporation may, under certain conditions, be held liable not only for unremitted net GST/HST amounts, but also for GST/HST net tax refund amounts to which the corporation is not entitled. Finally, it amends that Act to allow, under strict conditions, the creation of a Web-based GST/HST registry to facilitate the verification of a supplier’s registration by a registrant for the purposes of claiming input tax credits.
Part 4 amends Schedule I to the Excise Tax Act to phase out the excise tax on jewellery through a series of rate reductions over the next four years.
Part 5 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to pay funds to a trust established to provide the provinces with funding for the purpose of early learning and child care.
Part 6 authorizes the Minister of Finance to pay funds to a trust established to provide the Territories with funding for the purpose of assisting them to achieve the goals of the Northern Strategy.
Part 7 amends the Auditor General Act to permit the Auditor General to conduct inquiries into and report on the affairs of certain corporations that have received at least $100,000,000 in funding from Her Majesty in right of Canada. This Part also amends the Financial Administration Act to extend the application of financial management and control provisions in that Act to wholly-owned subsidiaries of parent Crown corporations and certain parent Crown corporations.
Part 8 authorizes the payment of funds to various foundations, including the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for the purpose of providing funding to the Green Municipal Fund.
Part 9 amends the Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada Act to focus the mandate of the Foundation, to modify its governance structure, to establish qualifications for the appointment of the directors and the President, to impose a duty of care on the directors and the President and to require that the Foundation offer its services in both official languages. It also amends the Act to specify the type of funds the Foundation may receive and the appropriate use of those funds and to require that those funds be invested in accordance with policies, standards and procedures established by the board. In addition, the provisions of the Act respecting auditing, annual reports and winding-up have been expanded.
Part 10 amends Part 1 of the Budget Implementation Act, 1998 to broaden the category of persons to whom the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation may grant scholarships and bursaries to include not only persons who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act but also persons who are protected persons within the meaning of subsection 95(2) of that Act, for example, Convention refugees.
Part 11 authorizes the Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities), pursuant to the initiative commonly known as “A New Deal for Cities and Communities”, to make payments for the purpose of providing funding, in the fiscal year 2005-2006, to cities and communities for environmentally sustainable infrastructure initiatives, in accordance with agreements to be negotiated with provinces, territories and first nations.
Part 12 enacts the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador Additional Fiscal Equalization Offset Payments Act. The legislation will implement the arrangements of February 14, 2005 reached with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia on offshore revenues. To do this, the legislation will
(a) authorize the payment of equalization offset payments to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia for 2004-05 to 2011-12, set out the conditions under which payments will be extended to any of fiscal years 2012-13 to 2019-20, and authorize payments for that period should those conditions be met;
(b) set out the manner in which the offset payments are to be calculated;
(c) authorize the making of a cash pre-payment in the amount of $2 billion in respect of the agreement with Newfoundland and Labrador and a cash pre-payment in the amount of $830 million in respect of the agreement with Nova Scotia; and
(d) implement all other aspects of the agreements.
Consequential amendments to the Budget Implementation Act, 2004 respecting offset payments to Nova Scotia will also be required to ensure that 100 per cent offset is being provided for in fiscal years 2004-05 and 2005-06.
Part 13 establishes an Agency, to be called the Canada Emission Reduction Incentives Agency, to acquire greenhouse emission reduction and removal credits on behalf of the Government of Canada.
Part 14 enacts the Greenhouse Gas Technology Investment Fund Act. That Act establishes an account in the accounts of Canada called the Greenhouse Gas Technology Investment Fund to which are to be charged amounts paid by the Minister of Natural Resources for the purpose of
(a) research into, or the development or demonstration of, technologies or processes intended to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from industrial sources or to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere in the course of an industrial operation; or
(b) creating elements of the infrastructure that are necessary to support research into, or the development or demonstration of, those technologies or processes.
The Act also provides for the creation of technology investment units in respect of amounts that are contributed to Her Majesty for those purposes.
Part 15 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to
(a) increase the deposit insurance coverage limit for insurable deposits from $60,000 to $100,000;
(b) repeal the authority of the Corporation to make by-laws respecting standards of sound business and financial practices for member institutions; and
(c) provide that the deposits of a federal institution shall automatically be insured.
Part 16 amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to provide for the termination of the obligations of certain borrowers in respect of student loans in the event of their death or if, as a result of their permanent disability, they are unable to repay their loan without exceptional hardship, taking into account their family income.
Part 17 amends the Currency Act with respect to the Exchange Fund Account and the management of Canada’s foreign exchange reserves. These amendments include authorizing the Minister of Finance to establish a policy concerning the investment of assets held in that Account and to advance funds to that Account on terms and conditions that the Minister considers appropriate.
Part 18 amends the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to provide the Minister of Public Works and Government Services with responsibility for the procurement of goods and services for the federal government, and to authorize the Minister to negotiate and enter into contracts on behalf of the Government of Canada and to make commitments to a minimum volume of purchases on its behalf.
Part 19 amends the Employment Insurance Act and the Department of Human Resources Development Act to allow the Canada Employment Insurance Commission to set the premium rate under a new rate-setting mechanism. In setting the rate, the Commission will take into account the principle that the premium rate should generate just enough premium revenue to cover payments to be made for that year, as well as the report from the employment insurance chief actuary and any public input. On an as-needed basis, the Commission may also contract for the services of persons with specialized knowledge in rate-setting matters. If it is in the public interest to do so, the Governor in Council may substitute a different premium rate. In any given year, the rate cannot change by more than 0.15% ($0.15 per $100) from the previous year’s rate, and for the years 2006 and 2007 must not exceed 1.95% ($1.95 per $100).
Part 20 amends the Employment Insurance Act, for the purpose of the implementation of a premium reduction agreement between the Government of Canada and a province, to allow for a regulatory scheme to make the necessary adjustments and modifications to that Act as required to harmonize it with a provincial law that has the effect of reducing or eliminating the special benefits payable under that Act. A consequential change is also made to the parental benefits provisions.
Part 21 amends the Financial Administration Act to provide the authority for the President of the Treasury Board to create a shared-governance corporate entity for the purpose of administering group insurance or other benefit programs. In addition, the amendments provide the authority for the Treasury Board to establish or modify those programs not just for employees of the public service but for other persons or classes of persons as well.
Part 22 amends the Old Age Security Act to increase the guaranteed income supplement by $18 a month for single pensioners and by $14.50 a month for each pensioner in a couple, effective January 2006. Also, the amendments increase the allowance by $14.50 a month and the allowance for the survivor by $18 a month, effective January 2006. In addition, the amendments provide for identical increases to the guaranteed income supplement, the allowance and the allowance for the survivor in January 2007.
Part 23 authorizes the Minister of Finance to pay funds directly to the provinces of Quebec, British Columbia and Saskatchewan and to each of the three Territories.

Committees of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

It has not even been passed. It has not even become law. That was interrupted by an election, and some would say that it was an election that was not necessary.

The Prime Minister now says we cannot have an election for some 10 months. When it comes to the views of Canadians on the acceptability of having this government in power much longer, I am not quite sure why Canadians would want to have this corrupt and unprincipled government in power for 10 more days, let alone 10 more months. It is totally unbelievable.

While I am on this subject, I want to perhaps enlighten the New Democratic Party and its leader from Toronto about something that he may not have understood or considered. It seems to me that what we have here is a contradiction of promises by the Prime Minister. I know the Liberals will want to listen to this and pay close attention.

On the one hand, the Prime Minister said that he looked under his desk and found another $4.6 billion that could be spent on New Democratic priorities, but when pushed on that, he also said that he is not going to allow the country to be driven into deficit over that promise to the socialists. He said that. He said, “We will wait until the end of the fiscal year”.

I need to enlighten the New Democratic Party: the end of the fiscal year is in March of 2006. He said, “We will wait until then, we will see if we have the money, and then I will keep this commitment to the New Democratic Party”.

What about the promise? What about that other promise he made during his now infamous national televised address to the nation when he said--and I am sure he said this--first of all, that Parliament is dysfunctional. We are in agreement with him on that. Second, he said that if he is given the time, 10 more months, he will call an election 30 days after the final report from Gomery. That is what he said.

I am not sure whether the New Democratic Party goes by the same calendar that I do, but I suggest that the promise given by the Prime Minister is not worth the napkin that it is printed on, because the promise is contingent upon the country having enough of a surplus at the end of the fiscal year. However, January comes before March, and in January the Prime Minister has committed to Canadians that he will call an election if one is not held before.

I do not understand how the New Democratic Party can feel it has this commitment from the Prime Minister when there is going to be an election before the commitment ever kicks in. It is not worth the napkin it is written on. That is the reality. I am very surprised that the New Democratic Party has not actually woken up to that fact.

The NDP leader is already admitting that the Prime Minister is good at making promises. I point out that a promise made is a promise broken. It did not take him very long to make a promise to the New Democratic Party and then turn around and break it on his commitment to slash out the corporate tax cuts, which we are in favour of because the reality is that they help build a strong economy and create high-paying jobs in Canada.

The New Democratic Party has a problem with employment. It wanted to make sure that the tax relief, which by the way was well into the future at any rate, was taken out of the budget, but no sooner was the promise made when the Prime Minister said the reality is that the government is going to ensure that tax relief is put back in. If it is taken out of Bill C-43 with one hand, the government is going to put forward some legislation on the other hand and try to put it back in.

Those are the types of promises the Prime Minister continually makes. I would think the new partners of the Liberal Party, this corrupt government, should be concerned about that. They sit in this place and listen to the same broken promises and rhetoric that we have all heard. They use to be concerned about these issues prior to the break week. I do not know what happened during the break week. They were concerned about a corrupt government and all the evidence that was coming out of the Gomery inquiry but now all of a sudden they are not concerned because they got a promise that the Liberal government might spend $4.6 billion at the end of the fiscal year, if there is a sufficient surplus in the country, if they have overtaxed Canadians sufficiently to have that around to spend at the end of the year.

We know there will be an election before that. We know the Conservative Party of Canada will be elected as the government and then it will be our priorities, the Canadian people's priorities, that get addressed, not the priorities of the corrupt Liberal government that is continually trying to find ways to funnel money to itself.

I do not want to go on at any length about this but perhaps during the questions and comments I will be able to address some of these issues at greater length and further enlighten the House.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Off in the far corner there, the New Democratic Party seems to have woken up.

The other point I want to make is that the government said it has to get the budget passed right away. It says it has to get it through, yet its own motion today, which we are debating at the moment, further delays the chance of the government bringing forward Bill C-43 or amendments to that bill. We are not even sure exactly what the House leader for the government is up to, working with his new partners, the New Democratic partners, the New Democratic Party. We have this new NDP-Liberal coalition going on here.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I do not want any member of the House to think that this particular issue of the access to this House of Commons, to the Parliament Hill precinct, by members of Parliament from any party is not an important issue to me.

Despite the irrelevant question of relevance from the hon. Liberal member opposite, I had the advantage, unlike the member, of being present at the procedure and House affairs committee when we debated this very issue, which was brought forward by the hon. whip of the Bloc Québécois out of concern not only for his own access to the House and to the precinct during President Bush's visit, but for access by all members of Parliament from all parties.

I am not trying to make light of that issue at all by raising these other issues connected with what exactly is going on here today. It is only fair that the viewing public watching the proceedings today understand what is behind this. It is absolutely disgusting that the member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell would use this concurrence motion, the very procedure that he himself ranted against only a couple of weeks ago, saying, “This is awful. It is terrible that the official opposition would use this to delay the important business of the House”.

The House leader of the government has stated that he wants to bring forward Bill C-43, the budget bill. He wants to ensure that we have a vote on Bill C-38. Lo and behold, today is one of the days. This morning we started out by debating Bill C-38, the marriage legislation, the very legislation that the government, the Liberal Party, says it wants to get passed, yet it is on this very day we are debating Bill C-38 that the member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell actually moves his concurrence motion on this totally separate issue.

I think that what we are seeing today is nothing other than the Liberals' last desperate attempt to cling to power. Every procedure that we as the opposition have to attempt to hold the Liberal government accountable in this chamber is being thwarted by the Liberals and their government because they do not want to be held accountable.

What would my motion have been had we been debating it today? What about my concurrence in the procedure and House affairs committee report? The irony here as well is that the hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell is the very chairman of the procedure and House affairs committee who actually came in on the Friday before the break week and introduced the 35th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for which I wanted to move concurrence today.

What does that deal with? It deals with the fact that the government has taken away from all three opposition parties the wherewithal to have opposition days at this time. Normally we would have had one a couple of weeks ago. Normally the New Democratic Party would be having one on Wednesday, May 5; it was slated to have that day. None of them are happening now. The New Democratic Party was quite upset about it before, but now that it has cut this backroom deal, the secret deal that apparently is written on a napkin somewhere, somehow now those members do not mind supporting a corrupt Liberal government.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, this has been a remarkable week that began with an unprecedented decision by the government to cancel opposition days, one of the fundamental rights in this House. During the rest of the week, we hardly saw the Prime Minister, here or in public. Last night, the Prime Minister delivered a public address, as if in a national crisis, but it was solely for partisan reasons. It was a partisan speech broadcast on television to the entire country.

It is remarkable when the Prime Minister does not appear here in the House or in public and communicates with the public only via a tape recording. It is incredible.

It has been a remarkable week. Even more remarkable were some of the things in the Prime Minister's speech last night. The Prime Minister effectively went on the air to give a partisan speech and to launch an election campaign. It is a campaign which he says he wants to set for some 10 months out, if I calculate correctly, that is if the Gomery report is ever tabled, since half of the Liberal Party is going to be before the federal courts trying to quash the Gomery report within the next month.

We have a Prime Minister who has already decided we should have an election at a time of extremely unusual choosing, a Prime Minister who has acknowledged corruption in his own party. The question that we face as the official opposition, the question that all Canadians face, is can a corrupt party remain in power while all this is going on? Can it remain in power month after month? The question we have to face as the official opposition is, can we prop up that party in power? Can we prop up a corrupt party at this time, particularly when, as my colleague the House leader has pointed out, that the two other opposition parties have already voted non-confidence in the government?

I do not use the term “corruption” lightly. What we are hearing at the Gomery inquiry is sworn testimony, in many cases sworn unrefuted testimony that certainly points to widespread corruption, but we have incidents outside of the Gomery inquiry that are not even subject to the Gomery inquiry. We have illegal lobbying done by the Prime Minister's Quebec lieutenant. We heard once again evasive answers today. There was improper contracting done by the Prime Minister's campaign manager at Earnscliffe. The campaign manager and the chief of staff just happen to be common law partners. We have investigations going on into that. We have the accusations, allegations of the partisan use of judicial appointments.

I would point out that a Liberal member said to me that people do not believe it. Virtually all of these allegations are coming from senior members of the Liberal Party. I repeat what I said earlier this week. If each group of Liberals says that the other group of Liberals is a group of crooks and liars, what does it really matter which group we choose to believe?

We have a principle in our parliamentary system. That principle is that the government must maintain the confidence of the House of Commons to remain in office.

We all know what the supply day manoeuvre was about earlier this week. Late last week the government removed Bill C-43, the budget bill, from the notice paper. I smelled right away an attempt to avoid a confidence motion at all costs, so I moved that our supply motion would make sure supply days would exist. That is what the government cancelled. Clearly the government has in mind, and it will do more manoeuvres, to avoid any kind of confidence motion in the next month.

This is not an option. This is a violation of the principle of our democratic system. If the government cannot maintain the confidence of the House, it must seek the confidence of Canadians. It cannot circumvent this fundamental principle through procedural manoeuvres. We will do whatever we can to ensure that when we return and have heard from the population of Canada that all options are available to us.

With that in mind, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following:

The 3rd report of the Standing Committee on Finance, presented on December 20, 2004, be not now concurred in,

But that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Finance with instruction that it amend the same so as to recommend that the government resign over refusing to accept some of the committee's key recommendations and to implement the budgetary changes that Canadians need.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this brief opportunity this morning to address Bill C-43, the budget implementation bill. I want to acknowledge the member for Central Nova for giving me the opportunity to be next to speak. I am sure my constituents appreciate that.

I have to say that, as I heard the last exchange between the parliamentary secretary on the government side and the deputy leader on the official opposition bench, I ended up shaking my head and thinking no wonder Canadians cannot make sense out of what on earth is going on in this Parliament today.

I am not going to follow the rabbit tracks and use up my time to try to reconstruct the absurdity of that member, who sat first in the Reform and then in the Alliance caucus, pushing and pushing the Liberal government to cut and cut until there was nothing left of some of our most basic services, such as infrastructure, as the member himself acknowledged, post-secondary education, health care and the broken child care promise. All those things that the government promised in 1993 that it would do if elected to office, his party across the way, the ultra cons, kept pushing the government to cut further.

Now he stands up and says that they on that side will repair the damage. However he does not quite say that he had a major role in pushing for the government to make these massive cuts in the first place.

This brings me to four brief points I want to make in the few minutes available to me. On the issue of the Atlantic accord, the government members and the official opposition members keep leading Atlantic Canadians to believe that they support the speedy delivery of the resources to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia that are contained in that accord.

However it is clear that instead of making this Parliament work, instead of taking the fact that if not every member, at least the vast majority of members are committed to doing that, the government, for its own cynical reasons, has tied up the Atlantic accord in the implementation bill in such a way that it is costing the people of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia dollars that they cannot afford out of the most basic services that they desperately need rebuilt as a result of the hacking and slashing by the Liberal government, egged on by the Conservatives.

If the government were serious about making this Parliament work, it would immediately do what it has been urged to do by the New Democratic Party. In this instance, one of those rare instances where we actually agree with the Conservatives, the government must take it out of the budget implementation bill, get the commitment of dollars flowing and remove the uncertainty and the threat that the Atlantic accord may go down the tubes because of the government's cynical and ham-fisted handling of it.

I want to pick up on the government member's bleeding heart comments about how important the government's commitments are to infrastructure. In my riding a few nights ago, hundreds of people came together in the fire hall in Ketch Harbour to say that they were desperate to get the new water and sewer facilities that have been withheld from them for 40 years.

The following statement was accurately reported by the provincial daily paper, the Halifax Herald , which reads:

While the municipality is kicking in $5 million, the provincial and federal governments are giving a little over $2 million combined.

In other words, the combined contribution from the federal and the provincial governments is less than one-third.

For many years we were able to put together infrastructure projects that were about clean water and sanitation with a formula of one-third contribution from the federal government, the provincial government and the municipal government.

The reality is that what is such a disgrace about the inadequate contribution of infrastructure funding to this project in my riding in Halifax is being repeated again and again all over this country because the government has systematically decided to give billions and billions of dollars in tax breaks to big corporations and the wealthiest of Canadians over the years, still including in the budget $4.3 billion in tax cuts to corporations while people go without the basics of clean water and adequate sanitation services. Those are the priorities that are still reflected in the provisions of the budget implementation bill that we have before us.

I want to say that hope springs eternal. Last night we heard the Prime Minister basically say that we had to get on with the job and do what needs to be done. I think every Canadian wants to see the government cooperating with the opposition parties to do what needs to be done but that starts today, this hour, this moment with indications from the government that it is prepared to do what needs to be done to make changes in the budget implementation bill that is before us.

I hope the government will not literally drop the promise made by the Prime Minister last night across the airwaves and the very next morning turn its back on the commitment made. Let us see if the Liberals mean what they say, and that means changing the legislation that is within their control and the budget that is before us and begin to get the job done, which requires the government changing some of its ways.

The next thing I want to speak to is post-secondary education. During the election, the Prime Minister, in a desperate bid for votes in an all Canadian job interview targeting youth, the post-secondary education students, said he would return $8 billion to post-secondary education funding. I do not think anyone expected that he would return $8 billion of post-secondary education funding all in one budget.

We are dealing here with a Prime Minister who loves to talk about targets and timetables and who says that if we mean the commitments we make, we develop an implementation plan, develop timetables and targets and say how we will keep this promise of recommitting $8 billion to core funding and education, and at least begin to ease the burden that has been heaped on our students.

Has the government done this, even in the budget implementation bill now before us? Absolutely not. Not one red cent was recommitted to rebuild core funding for post-secondary education in the budget, and we know the disastrous results. The results are that tuition hikes continue. Students at Dalhousie University in the heart of my riding have seen almost a 10% tuition hike as a result of the $8 billion broken promise that was made by the Prime Minister on the eve of the election.

Finally, I tried to speak to what is happening locally and to what is happening nationally and internationally. It has to be one of the biggest disgraces of this budget that the Prime Minister and the government yet again have turned their backs on the long established commitment made by a previous prime minister, Lester Pearson, that Canada would lead the way in committing 0.7% of our GNP to overseas development assistance.

Again and again people before the foreign affairs committee have pleaded the case for us to honour our commitment to the millennium development goals, honour our commitment to actually be a good global citizen and commit to that 0.7%.

Not only was there no indication that they were prepared to do it in general, there was absolutely no implementation plan, no targets and timetables, to the utter disgrace and humiliation of Canada in the international community.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this morning to Bill C-43, the budget implementation bill. I am especially pleased to be able to speak the day after the Prime Minister's address to the nation.

This budget is consistent with the Prime Minister's address to the nation. In other words, this budget ignores the public interest, and it is based on the purely political interest of saving his own party. In fact, this budget is strategically designed as a campaign tool.

First, this budget totally ignores the priorities of Quebec. Implementing this budget would clearly contradict our own purpose, which is, first and foremost, to defend the interests of Quebeckers, who have given us the mandate to come here as a strong majority, in terms of members from Quebec.

Bill C-43 should have been an opportunity to make significant improvements to the budget. However, it includes initiatives we find unacceptable. It supports the agreements with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia and, with regard to Kyoto, it sets out measures based on the polluter-paid principle, instead of the polluter-pay principle.

The minority Liberal government should have seized the opportunity presented by Bill C-43 to make real compromises and reflect on the political situation and the message it is getting from all across Canada about the changes that need to be made to government policies.

This morning, my remarks are intended, naturally, for the Liberal members. In particular, I want to warn them that they will take the fall, and even if the majority of the country does not want an election, one will be necessary given the position in which the government is putting the Canadian public.

I was saying earlier that Bill C-43, to implement the budget, is consistent with the Prime Minister's speech yesterday. Last night, the Prime Minister appealed to the nation. It was quite pathetic, because usually a national appeal is in the interests of the entire nation. This means that the head of state, in his official capacity, must speak from on high in the best interests of all Canadians and particularly, in this case, Quebeckers, given the serious damage inflicted on them by the Liberal Party as a result of the sponsorship scandal.

Yesterday, we would have expected the Prime Minister, rather than addressing the nation to ask it to save his party, to apologize for not doing something about the current situation in Canada. We would have also expected him to acknowledge that he was responsible in large part for that situation because, when the Prime Minister was the Minister of Finance and, thus, the custodian of public funds, cheating occurred on the other side of this House for many years. He should have acknowledged that he made a mistake not only by failing to watch more closely over those who were dipping into the fund, but also by withdrawing support from municipal infrastructure.

I am also referring to the Guaranteed Income Supplement and how the government simply decided to deny seniors information about their rights. Today, as a result, seniors are still owed $3.3 billion and the government is preventing that money from getting to them. Yet, these people are among those who need it the most. He should have apologized and said that the situation would be corrected.

In terms of infrastructure, he should have arranged to have measures in place to prevent municipalities from fighting over who wins the jackpot. He should have also acknowledged what we owe to seniors and give them back the money they are entitled to and put money back into the fund for social housing.

The government made these promises in the mid-1990s, and did not start financing these sectors again until 2001. He should have told the public last night that he was sorry, that he made a mistake and that he mismanaged things. He should have added that, effective immediately, since the money is available, he will make amends.

Families are owed a major apology, all of the families of Quebec and Canada, because of the Unemployment Insurance cheat, the $46 billion taken from it. The Prime Minister pulled off a David Copperfield style magic trick to make $46 billion disappear, and now he says this was virtual money and no longer exists. Yet that $46 billion had been accumulated by reducing benefits to the unemployed, even though they and their former employers had contributed to it.

Today, a mere 38% of them can hope to receive EI benefits if they end up unemployed. There ought to have been an apology and a commitment to put that money to its proper use. Instead we are being told today that the money does not exist and that it is all virtual.

Are these employee contributions to the EI fund, and the contributions by employers, who pay $1.40 for every $1 the employees contribute, virtual? Do they exist or do they not? That deduction on people's pay stubs, are we to understand that the government did not keep it? That it was returned? If that was the case, then it has gone somewhere. Into the party's fund? I hope not. So it must be somewhere.

This talk of virtual and non-existent money is tantamount to deceiving the public. The Prime Minister ought to have told us that last night, ought to have admitted that he had deceived us. Only then would he have gained any credibility. He ought to have made a commitment to put the money back into the fund. Then he would have been credible.

So where is that money? It is being used as a hidden tax in order to decrease the debt, although that burden must be assumed by the entire community and not just one part of it. It is even worse when the money diverted has a specific purpose at a time when people are losing jobs and in difficult situations. If they are impoverishing families in this way, is it surprising that there are so many poor people, so many children living in poverty in this country?

If there are children living in poverty, it is because there are parents living in poverty. If there are parents living in poverty, it is because certain people are passing measures to prevent them from receiving benefits after losing their jobs, despite having contributed their entire lives. It is an outrage and the Prime Minister should be ashamed. Why did he not mention this yesterday evening? He would have had credibility, had he done so. He would have been speaking in the interest of the country and of Quebeckers, too, who have taken the fall for him for the underhanded dealings and fishy business connected to the sponsorship scandal.

Tying the election to the Gomery commission means making Justice Gomery shoulder a burden that is not his to carry. It is the same as saying that, when he renders his decision and tables his report on all the testimony he has heard, he will be telling the public which way to vote. That is not the judge's responsibility.

The judiciary has nothing to do with politics. The issues raised by the sponsorship scandal are directly related to public interest. This is political. The Canadian public, and not Justice Gomery, has to make that decision as soon as possible, to stop these people from getting their sticky fingers on the cash.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my riding is in the centre of Canada and my party is concerned about our whole nation. When things happen on the west coast, on the east coast, in Quebec or anyplace in Canada, we as a party are very concerned about the well-being of the people of Canada.

In response to that question, let me say that the Atlantic accord is extremely important. As I said in my speech earlier, that accord could be passed in one day. The reason it is so important is that it increases the quality of life for people on the east coast. It is what they deserve.

There is unanimous agreement within the House that the Atlantic accord should be passed. Everyone is anxious to have that happen. Unfortunately, through typical Liberal manoeuvring it was hooked into Bill C-43. It became a part of that bill. In order to have everything passed we have to make sure that every element of Bill C-43 is best for Canadians. Kyoto was linked in as well. It is well known that people in the House have strong feelings that there are definite problems with some of the Kyoto aspects of the bill.

What we are saying today is that the Atlantic accord should be lifted out of this legislation and made into stand-alone legislation. Let us get this passed in one day, because we are concerned about the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador and those all along the east coast. They are Canadians who have contributed to our country in a major way. At this time they have an opportunity to be the recipients of resources that have been owed to them for a long time. This is our concern.

The Conservative Party of Canada is appealing to the government to take a closer look at Bill C-43 and make sure that the stand-alone elements are lifted out so that we can make sure the people of Atlantic Canada are taken care of.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important this morning to put some comments on the record regarding this very important bill. This is a bill that has some very big difficulties.

It is an important bill that should have been passed in the House of Commons this session. Unfortunately, there are things within the context of the bill itself that are very worrisome and which impact in a very negative way on Canadians, particularly Canadians on the east coast with the Atlantic accord and the Kyoto accord.

In a manoeuvre that appears to disclose a hidden Liberal agenda, Bill C-43 arrogantly disregards the best interests of Canadians. What should have been a straightforward implementation of the budget is in fact an attempt to pass legislation that deserves open discussion in Parliament and specific individual attention, namely Kyoto and the Atlantic accord.

The Liberals knew that the majority of the House would not approve their Kyoto measures if they were presented in stand-alone legislation, so they attached it to Bill C-43. This move has, at the very least, delayed legitimate budget measures from implementation and may even put their implementation at risk. Canadians deserve better than this.

Why is it that some of the measures in this bill are not reflective of how they were presented in the budget document? For example, the Department of Finance website assures Canadians that the Liberal government will “deliver on commitments made in the 2005 budget”. The budget stated that the amount of the share of the gas tax would rise to $2 billion annually or 5¢ per litre by 2009-10. While part 11 of Bill C-43 allows the transfer of 1.5¢ per litre of the gas tax to the provinces, territories and first nations for sustainable infrastructure projects, the Liberals have reneged on the remainder of their commitment.

In a recent survey conducted by the Manitoba chapter of the Canadian Automobile Association, respondents nearly unanimously agreed that Canada's roads and highways are a part of health and safety. They are a health and safety issue. The same group unanimously agreed that the federal government must reinvest more of the gasoline excise taxes collected in roadway development.

The days of neglect must be reversed. Further delay is not an option. Prior to the last election there were grandiose announcements about how this issue would be addressed, yet this issue has not been addressed.

In light of the glaring need for immediate action, how is it that the Liberal government only authorized gas tax transfers until 2005-06? Instead of fulfilling its 2004 election campaign promise and providing critical infrastructure assistance, the gas tax transfer has simply become another example of an election promise gone unfulfilled again.

Doing what we say we will do means planning how to fulfill a promise. That is again planning how to fulfill a promise, not planning on how to make excuses. Canadians deserve better. The Liberal government once again violated the trust and confidence of the Canadian people.

Senior adults in nursing homes deserve our respect and care. In my riding of Kildonan--St. Paul, as in the rest of Canada, low income seniors do not have time to wait for years to see increases to the guaranteed income supplement. Senior adults have invested in our communities for most of their lives, making them better places in which to live. They deserve to have their basic needs met with dignity and compassion.

As Bill C-43 stands, our senior adults in subsidized nursing homes may never see the guaranteed income supplement at all. Ironically, the nursing home operator or the province could become the recipient. Why are safeguards not put in place, ensuring provincial programs will not claw back part of the GIS increases?

Low income seniors in my riding frequently tell me they are struggling to put enough food on their tables. The GIS increases do not go far enough or occur fast enough to provide a substantial benefit to the low income senior adults of Canada. Senior Canadians deserve better.

The Conservative Party will continue to hold the Liberals to account for wasteful spending. Over a decade of Liberal waste, mismanagement and scandal has clearly revealed that billions of dollars sent to Ottawa would have been better managed if they had been left in the pockets of Canadians.

Our low income seniors could have had the means to live their sunset years with dignity and respect. With more gas tax revenue, our towns and cities could have had the resources to maintain roads and highways. The way Bill C-43 was put together was a very crafty way of doing it, so Kyoto would be passed.

I must speak to the Atlantic accord briefly because it is a very important aspect that needs to be pushed through to help the people on the east coast. The Liberals are holding the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia hostage by linking the Atlantic accord provisions, which most members in the House of Commons support, with Kyoto measures, with which many in the House of Commons have voiced concerns. The Atlantic accord provisions in Bill C-43 could be passed in one day if the Liberals would table stand-alone legislation.

It is critical that this game playing with the futures of Canadians be stopped. The fact that the Kyoto measures have been put in are a great concern. The Liberals knew the majority of the House would not approve their Kyoto measures if they were presented in stand-alone legislation. That is why they attached them to Bill C-43. This move has, at the very least, delayed legitimate budget measures from implementation and may have even put their implementation at risk.

There are things in traditional budget bill measures that are very important and there are things that need to be put through, but when other aspects of a bill are linked together that cause grave concern, then obviously a responsible government would ensure that these are taken out and put in a stand-alone position.

The Conservative Party does not play games with the well-being of Canadians. It is high time the Liberals stopped playing politics and followed the lead of the Conservative Party by acting in the best interests of Canadians. All Canadians deserve better.

Having seen the events that have happened in the House since the beginning of the session, it is high time that serious consideration be given to taking a closer look at legislation that would be better for Canadians and not manoeuvring legislation, so that pet projects get to be put through, regardless of what Canadians think.

Presence in Gallery

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon with second reading of Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill. This will be followed by consideration of Senate amendments of Bill C-29, the patent bill, and Bill C-12, the quarantine bill.

We will then return to second reading of Bill C-43, the budget bill, and eventually the third readings of: Bill C-23, the HRDC bill; Bill C-22, the social development bill; Bill C-26, the border services bill; and Bill C-9, the Quebec development bill.

Tomorrow we will begin with Bill C-43. If this is completed, we will then return to the list just given.

Next week is a break week. Since it happens to coincide this year with Passover, I would like to take this opportunity to extend to Canadians of the Jewish faith best wishes on this holiday.

After today there are 35 sitting days for the House before its scheduled adjournment on June 23. The government hopes that the House will be able to complete all stages of Bill C-38 and Bill C-43 by that date, which means that the bills will have to go to and be reported from committees in time for report stage and third reading in that limited time. That is why we have given priority to these bills in order to arrive at the supply votes.

The government is obliged to designate by that date 6 of those 35 days as allotted days or opposition days. Since we do not face the logistical and timing difficulties that I have just described vis-à-vis these two major bills, it seems logical and sensible to ask the House to deal with those second readings before proceeding with business such as opposition days, which are not followed by subsequent legislative stages.

If the members opposite would not be so sneaky in trying to change the Standing Orders, in fact, we could perhaps have the kind of dialogue that the hon. member is suggesting we have.

Natural Resources

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals would love to see the 24 clauses passed without scrutiny or due diligence because that is the way they operate.

First of all, the Prime Minister had to be pressured into promising the deal. Then it took months of more pressure from us and the provinces to get an agreement. The government refused to bring forth stand-alone legislation. Then the Liberals eliminated our opposition day when we could have debated this. Now they are playing around with Bill C-43. Why does the government not want to give the provinces their money?

Canada Grain Act

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to talk about equalization, which is a government program, the basis of which is the measurement of fiscal capacity, that is, how much money a province can raise each year to fund programs and services.

In the case of Saskatchewan, it is about 16% of Saskatchewan's revenues that will be equalized and impact heavily on its level of entitlements. Saskatchewan is the happy beneficiary of non-renewable resources and has benefited in particular from the strong rise in energy prices resulting in lower equalization. As energy prices rise, more money is generated, and therefore the province's equalization entitlements decline. The happy result was that in the year 2003-04 Saskatchewan became a have province joining Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario.

One of the features of the equalization program is the floor provision which protects provinces from large annual declines in equalization. It provided over $100 million in benefits to Saskatchewan in the year 2002-03. The floor provision protects the finance department in Saskatchewan from ups and downs that would otherwise impact negatively on its budgeting process.

Non-renewable resource revenue is forecast to be $1.4 billion in 2004-05, twice the amount of the $700 million figure projected in the 2004 budget. As I said, the idea here is to protect against volatility, so that treasurers going forward can analyze what revenues they can reasonably expect. In the negotiations with the premiers and Prime Minister, that was effectively taken care of with a guaranteed floor by the Government of Canada which essentially bought the risk of the entitlement.

In the case of Saskatchewan, the Government of Canada has taken action to improve the operation of the crown leases tax base and in March 2004 Saskatchewan was compensated with a one time payment of $120 million. In budget 2005, Bill C-43 will provide a further $6.5 million adjustment to Saskatchewan in 2005-06 for the same purpose.

Saskatchewan's situation is relatively prosperous. In addition to receiving the $590 million in additional entitlements this year out of the equalization program, Saskatchewan will happily be running an economy at 3.4%, a debt to GDP of 19.3%, which is substantially better than pretty well anyone else in the country. The national average is about 25.1%. This will be its 11th consecutive surplus budget this year and the unemployment rate is at 5.5%. As we can see, its situation is substantially improved over that of pretty well any other province in the country, let alone the situation where the folks in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia find themselves.

This is a program that is working tremendously to the benefit of Saskatchewan in particular. The Minister of Finance has done an extraordinary job in addressing those particular items that affect Saskatchewan in unique ways.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, questions certainly come to mind after listening to what the member for York South—Weston said this morning in the House of Commons.

Bill C-43 is a bill that has some flaws in it. As we all know the Atlantic accord provisions could be passed in a day in the House if they were stand alone legislation.

I heard the member across the way say that he believed in people and in investing in people. The people in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia have some big concerns at this point in time and the Atlantic accord could be free standing legislation.

Could the member tell me why all this was linked together? Why was the Atlantic accord linked to the bill at the present time, when the people from the east coast have such grave concerns about having the legislation passed, in view of the fact that the Kyoto measures are also linked to it and most members in the House do not agree with that part of the bill?

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43 and the budget provide a series of measures that are absolutely not in tune with Quebeckers' priorities. Let me just quickly remind the House that the government's management of the EI plan has been a disaster. Bill C-43 does not in any way respond to the concerns of Quebeckers.

With the Kyoto protocol, once again the polluter-paid principle is being applied instead of the polluter-pay principle, at the expense of all Quebeckers and indeed all Canadians.

Budgetary forecasting by this government has been abysmal. A Conservative member mentioned that within a few weeks time, they went from a $1.9 to a $9.1 billion surplus forecast. It is outrageous.

The Liberal government very often accuses the Conservatives of having a hidden agenda. How can they have a hidden agenda when the Prime Minister talks about it every day in the House?

Bill C-43 does not in any way meet the needs of Canadians and Quebeckers. Could the Conservative member tell us more about the impact of this bill on his constituents?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on February 1 I rose in the House to speak to hon. members about the policies and priorities that I believe should have been reflected in this budget. My comments today may reflect the disappointment that I feel in the lack of acknowledgement of what I felt were very obvious and valid suggestions. Much like the first few months of the government, there has been so little action on the real issues that affect Canadians.

The Liberal minority government across the floor is sinking deeper into crisis with nothing to fall back on. There is no defence review. There is no international policy statement. There are no solutions to something that is very important in my riding, and that is the issue of BSE. We are nearing the 24 month stage of this crisis. We have seen no results.

Canadians have rightly lost faith in their elected representatives. At a time when real leadership should shine like a beacon in the fog, so many ministers are making announcements with no real plans, giving speeches with no real substance, and spending money with no real strategic vision.

In February I directly addressed the issues in the international cooperation portfolio. In February the world was just coming out from underneath the shock of the tsunami aftermath in southeast Asia. In the cool light of hindsight, there were so many lessons to be learned from Canada's response to this disaster. The government did not have a coordinated plan to react. It did not have a grasp on the seriousness of the devastation.

On the eve of unveiling the international policy review, there is an opportunity to decide who we are and what we do in the world. I believe we have been on the eve of this policy review for several months now.

What is clear is that we will not be able to meet the expectations of the world or of Canadians under this budget. Do not be fooled by the well-intentioned words of the Minister of International Cooperation. The department is not growing under the minister or under the Prime Minister. In fact, Canada's official development assistance spending has systematically been gutted under the Liberal government.

There are some damning facts from the OECD. It monitors the world's commitments to development assistance. A peer review of Canada looked back on a decade of Liberal rule, and the OECD pointed out that the ratio of its official development assistance, ODA, to gross national income has been halved. Rather than going up, it has been halved, down to .22% of gross national income in 2001 from .45% in the early 1990s. I might mention that it was the former Conservative government that got it up to the .45% level.

Canada ranks 19th out of 22 development assistance committee members in terms of ODA. Those are not stellar records. This is all based in terms of official development assistance as recorded against gross national income.

Put very simply, the government has reduced our foreign aid budgets by half since it has come to power. This is not good enough. In fact, it is unacceptable. The 8% annual increases that it has suggested are just not good enough. This will not even return Canada to our former levels of generosity in the next decade.

Finally, I want to bring to the attention of the House to the shocking news released by CIDA itself only a few weeks ago. Despite the damning rebuke of falling aid levels by the OECD and commitments to raise spending levels by the Liberal government, CIDA's most recent statistical report stated that Canada's ODA spending for 2003-04 amounted to some $2.7 billion, which represented only .23% of gross national income.

We have not moved anywhere in three years. We have fallen behind in the 11 years of Liberal government and we have fallen off the radar screen in the world.

Clearly international aid suffers under Liberals, but it has flourished under Conservatives, so rather than try to help the government find its way out of this mess, I want to address the budget bill as it stands before us.

As my colleagues have said, the Liberals should have brought at least three separate bills forward instead of trying to bully members of Parliament into passing a mish-mash of legislation all in one bill. By dividing the bill into three parts, the House would have had the opportunity to consider Kyoto measures on their own merit, the provisions to implement the Atlantic accord, and traditional budget bill measures with appropriate seriousness.

This bill just shows how arrogant the Liberal Party has become after a decade in government. It is time the Prime Minister stopped governing like he has a majority and starts governing in the best interests of Canadians.

The Liberals knew that the majority of the House would not approve their Kyoto measures if they were presented in stand-alone legislation, which is why they attached them to Bill C-43. This move has, at the very least, delayed legitimate budget measures from implementation and may have even put their implementation at risk.

The Liberals have also shown their true national unity colours in the bill. The Liberals have become toxic on this topic. They are extending their ability to alienate Canadians on our eastern shores by linking the Atlantic accord provision, that most members in the House of Commons support, with the bill to pass Kyoto. Essentially, they are holding the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia hostage with their devious ways. The Atlantic accord provisions in Bill C-43 could have been passed in one day if the Liberals had placed it in stand-alone legislation.

The Conservative Party does not play games with the well-being of Canadians. It is high time the Liberals stopped playing politics and followed the lead of the Conservative Party by acting in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

In the last election, the Conservative Party committed to $58 billion in new spending and tax reductions over five years. Instead of following the leadership shown by the Conservatives, the Liberals have lined the pockets of their friends with taxpayers' money, hidden massive surpluses, and failed to address the real problems facing Canadians.

Many of the steps taken by the Liberals in the budget, as reflected in the budget, do not go far enough or occur fast enough to have a substantial impact on the well-being of Canadians. The personal tax relief measures in the bill are insufficient and are back end loaded. They amount to a reduction of no more than $16 next year. We will not have trouble spending that tax reduction. It is all of $192 when fully implemented by 2009.

The inadequate productivity enhancing measures in budget 2005 illustrate that the government is not taking warning signs that Canada's high priority programs could be put in jeopardy if comprehensive steps are not taken to grow the economy before the demographic crunch.

Some of the measures in this bill are not reflective of how they were presented in the budget document. The Liberals have once again been caught behind their false numbers. The budget document was not telling Canadians the truth about how much surplus money is available in funds for priorities.

Last week, Parliament's four experts on budgetary estimates reported to the finance committee that on average their surplus projections, parliamentary numbers, showed a surplus of $6.1 billion. That is already double what the Liberals claimed in budget 2005. This is the same pattern we saw last year with the 2004 budget, where it started out at $1.9 billion and in fact, the reciprocal was $9.1 billion when all of the smoke cleared.

The Conservative Party will work in committee to strengthen the bill, so that it is more reflective of what hardworking Canadians want and deserve.

The Conservative Party will continue to hold the Liberals to account when spending is unfocused and wasteful. Over a decade of Liberal waste, mismanagement and scandal has shown that billions of dollars sent to Ottawa would have been much better managed if they were left in Canadians' pockets.

Budget Implementation Act

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal budget tabled on February 23 is unacceptable, because it ignores the priorities of Quebeckers. For the past 12 years, this Liberal government, no matter who was at the helm, has not taken any concrete measures to fix the problems with EI, adequate funding for health and higher education, financial aid for students, agriculture, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, culture, foreign aid, to mention just a few.

Once again, there is nothing in the February budget to fix these problems. So it comes as no surprise that, having voted against the budget, I will also be voting against Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled inParliament on February 23, 2005, which is now before the House.

The Bloc Québécois has always acted responsibly. We worked to make changes to the throne speech and, immediately after the budget was tabled, we presented the government with a series of amendments. This Liberal government has rejected these improvements, particularly for EI and correcting the fiscal imbalance.

With regard to EI, I have met with women's groups in my riding and they have confirmed the discrimination they are facing because the Liberal government has imposed overly restrictive rules denying them access to EI benefits. We cannot say it enough: the EI fund belongs to the employers and workers, not the government.

In light of this minority government, the Bloc Québécois has taken an important step in its fight to improve EI by putting it back in the hands of its real owners: the workers and employers who contribute to it. I want to thank my colleague from Chambly, who has done an excellent job as the EI critic. After much diligence and hard work, the adoption at second reading of Bill C-280, introduced by the Bloc, has put us one step closer to our goal of preventing the federal government from raiding the EI fund at will in order to satisfy its obsession with paying down the debt.

I also meet youth for whom access to the workplace is not always easy. They are often faced with precarious jobs with irregular hours. Even though they work hard, they are often among the first to be laid off and, as they have not accumulated enough hours, they are not entitled to employment insurance benefits. Why is this government so stubborn that it refuses to lower EI eligibility requirements to 360 hours?

Young people are not the only ones suffering from the decisions of this federal government. Workers who are close to retirement are losing their jobs. In the riding of Drummond, the situation in recent years is quite revealing. I will just mention the sometimes brutal closing of textile plants. Many people who have spent almost their entire working lives in these jobs find themselves with nothing when plants are closed because of an administrative decision.

Let us not forget that this is the government that put an end to the program for older worker adjustment, the POWA. The current human resources minister, the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, will certainly respond that pilot projects are underway. I will simply remind her that, while pilot projects are going on and on, many men and women are going through tough times because of the Liberals' decision. Recently, an organization from our region, Les 45 ans pour l'emploi, wrote to me to ask for the reinstatement of the POWA. The same request has been made to me every time a business has had to lay off workers.

My reply has always been the same, that the request was on the table but the Liberal government continued to turn a deaf ear to their needs, in its arrogance toward the needs of older unemployed workers.

As for agriculture, a large part of my riding is agricultural, with field crops and beef and dairy operations, for example.

Agriculture is in crisis, and has been for a long time. The past 24 months may have been marked by the mad cow crisis, but field crop producers have also been suffering.

I believe the government has a duty to assist agricultural producers who are having to cope with the mad cow crisis, particularly with compensation to achieve a floor price. But instead, its actions are timid and inadequate, so much so that the farmers have recently decided on a $7 billion class action.

As for the field crop producers, I have met with them in my riding office. Despite the representations they made last years, they have received nothing tangible to counteract the trade injury they are experiencing. They continue to suffer from the federal government's withdrawal from their sector.

At their meeting with me, the farmers of my region again told me of the very difficult, even unbearable, situation being experienced by Quebec and Canadian grain producers. Why? Because prices remain terribly low and do not even cover their production costs, which just keep on increasing. Then there are the concrete interventions by the American and European governments, which have been subsidizing their agricultural sectors for a number of years.

What is Canada's reaction? Over the past 10 years of Liberal reign, while the present Prime Minister was the Minister of Finance, Canada chose the path of withdrawal from the agricultural sector, including the grain producers. Would anyone be surprised to learn that support to the agri-food sector went from 3.9% of the federal budget in 1991-92 to 1.6% in 2001-02, at the same time as Quebec grain producers were recording negative net incomes? When they came to Ottawa they hit a dead end with a Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food who did not want to listen.

I also hear regularly from the young people of Drummond about their environmental concerns. I will take this opportunity to thank and congratulate my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for the excellent work he does on the environment.

The quality of our environment concerns each and everyone of us. Indeed, we must strive to improve things and every action is important. The recent announcement by the environment minister concerning the voluntary approach accepted by the automobile industry will not result in the attainment of objectives in the area of greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Who, in the final analysis, will foot the bill? It will be the taxpayers who will have to pay instead of the large polluters, because this government has opted for the polluter-paid rather than the polluter-pay principle. As to the implementation plan for the Kyoto protocol presented on Wednesday, it is overly timid.

In terms of social housing, the federal government has totally ignored the repeated requests of the Bloc. Why not use the surpluses of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which total $3 billion, in order to build new units of social and community housing?

Needs are great: such is the opinion of the representatives of the aid network Le tremplin, of the Fédération des coopératives d'habitation and the Office municipal d'habitation de Drummondville. On December 31, 2004, in Drummondville, the eligibility list consisted of some 172 applicants, the great majority of whom were receiving employment insurance or old age security benefits.

It is hard to find adequate housing with an annual income ranging from $9,000 to $13,000. The government must make a commitment to devote 1% of program spending to the development of housing.

Much more needs to be said, but I will conclude by saying a few words on the treatment given to our seniors. Any improvement of their financial situation is a good thing. However, part 23 of the bill does not in any way correct the injustice done by the Liberals to the most vulnerable members of our society when they unfairly deprived them of their guaranteed income supplement. The government is still refusing to give seniors full retroactivity, setting the limit at 11 months.

The members of the Bloc Quebecois are committed to continuing to pressure the government until seniors in Quebec and Canada get all the benefits to which they are entitled.