Bill C-13 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2006

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006

Part 1 amends the Excise Tax Act to implement, effective July 1, 2006, the reduction in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the federal component of the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) from 7 to 6 per cent. It also amends the Act to provide transitional rules for determining the GST/HST rate applicable to transactions that straddle the July 1, 2006, implementation date, including transitional rebates in respect of the sale of residential complexes where transfer of ownership and possession both take place on or after July 1, 2006, pursuant to a written agreement entered into on or before May 2, 2006. The Excise Act, 2001 and the Excise Act are amended to increase the excise duties on tobacco and alcohol products to offset the impact of the GST/HST rate reduction. The Air Travellers Security Charge Act is amended to ensure that rates for domestic and transborder air travel reflect the impact of the GST/HST rate reduction. Those amendments generally apply as of July 1, 2006.
Part 2 implements income tax measures proposed or referenced in Budget 2006 to
(a) reduce personal income taxes;
(b) increase the child disability benefit;
(c) increase the refundable medical expense tax credit;
(d) eliminate capital gains tax on charitable donations of publicly-listed securities and ecologically-sensitive land;
(e) reintroduce the mineral exploration tax credit for new flow-through share agreements entered into before April 2007;
(f) expand the eligibility criteria for the disability tax credit;
(g) expand the list of expenses eligible for the disability supports deduction;
(h) expand the list of expenses eligible for the medical expenses tax credit;
(i) clarify the eligibility of home renovation and construction expenses for the medical expenses tax credit;
(j) double the amount of disability-related and medical expenses that can be claimed by a caregiver;
(k) introduce a tax credit in respect of adoption expenses;
(l) introduce a tax deferral for shareholders of agricultural co-ops;
(m) reduce corporate income taxes;
(n) eliminate the federal capital tax; and
(o) extend the carry-over period for non-capital losses and investment tax credits.
Part 3 amends Schedule I to the Excise Tax Act to repeal the excise tax on clocks, items made from semi-precious stones and items commonly known as jewellery, effective May 2, 2006.
Part 4 amends the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act to facilitate the establishment of taxation arrangements between the government of specified provinces and interested Indian Bands situated in those specified provinces. It also amends the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act to provide transitional income tax measures consistent with negotiated agreements.
Part 5 amends the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act, 2001, the Air Travellers Security Charge Act and the Income Tax Act to harmonize various accounting, interest, penalty and related administrative and enforcement provisions. These amendments will apply based on an implementation date that is the later of April 1, 2007, and Royal Assent. It also amends the Excise Tax Act to confirm that debt collection services that are generally provided by collection agents to financial institutions are not financial services for GST/HST purposes and are therefore taxable for GST/HST purposes.
Part 6 enacts the Universal Child Care Benefit Act to assist families by supporting their child care choices through direct financial support to a maximum of $1,200 per year in respect of each of their children who has not attained the age of six years. It also makes consequential and related amendments to the Income Tax Act, the Employment Insurance Act, the Children’s Special Allowances Act and the Old Age Security Act.
Part 7 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to determine the amount of the fiscal equalization payments to the provinces and the territorial formula financing payments to each of the territories for the fiscal years beginning after March 31, 2006 and to authorize the Minister of Finance to make an additional fiscal equalization payment to British Columbia and Newfoundland and Labrador, and to make an additional territorial formula financing payment to Yukon and Nunavut, for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2006.
Part 8 provides for a total payment of $650,000,000 to the provinces and territories for the fiscal year 2006-2007 in respect of early learning and child care. It provides for payments to the territories for the fiscal year 2006-2007.
Part 9 authorizes the Minister of Finance to enter into an agreement to provide protection to mortgagees in respect of mortgage insurance policies that are provided by a mortgage insurer that is approved by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to sell mortgage insurance in Canada. It also fixes the maximum amount of such protection and determines how that amount can be changed.
Part 10 extends the sunset provisions of financial institutions statutes by six months from October 24, 2006 to April 24, 2007.
Part 11 amends the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, Public Service Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act to change the existing formula by which adjustments are made to a contributor’s annuity.
Part 12 enacts the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Act, the purpose of which is to create the Corporation for the Mitigation of Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts. The corporation will provide contributions to regional organizations that will fund projects that mitigate the existing or anticipated socio-economic impacts on communities in the Northwest Territories arising from the Mackenzie gas project. The Part also provides that a payment of $500,000,000 may be made to the corporation and adds the name of the corporation to the schedule of certain federal Acts.
Part 13 amends the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Agreement Act to permit the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to carry out its purpose in Mongolia and to allow the Governor in Council to amend, by order, the schedule to that Act. It amends the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act to increase the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation’s legislative borrowing limit from thirty million dollars to fifty million dollars. It also amends the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act to create share capital for the Public Sector Pension Investment Board

Budget Implementation Act, 2006

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am one of the last people who would agree with the NDP, but unfortunately, I have to agree with the member here. There was no plan and I do not see a plan in the budget. Giving somebody a tax credit for public transit is not an environmental plan.

Like I said in my speech, a credit on a monthly pass comes out to about $150 a year. That money is probably going to be clawed back by the transit companies. The normal transit user is probably going to end up paying more money for a transit pass at the end of the year because transit companies are probably going to increase fares by the gross amount and not the net amount. There will be no tax benefit to the normal transit user.

I was not in Bonn, so I am not sure what really happened there. I have to take the member's word as to what happened. We did at least have an environmental plan and a long term vision where we were investing in renewable energy sources.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased to speak today to Bill C-13, the budget implementation bill.

As probably the only member of Parliament who represents a 905-416 riding in the great region of the GTA, I am pleased to inform this House that the past two elections, under the circumstances, have both been rewarding and I hope to continue in this Parliament to be able to best represent my constituents.

The budget speech that we heard from the government was not a clear indication of what it had campaigned on. The Prime Minister had talked about some $22 billion in terms of cuts.

I hear some baying from a member of Parliament down there in the corner but I am not exactly sure what he is referring to. Perhaps the hon. member is concerned about the fact that there is in this budget a raising of income tax, in particular for low income Canadians, and no real tax relief for Canadians.

It is clear that the GST cut, which has been panned by the most credible economists, is a cut that only benefits a certain segment of society, those who are much better off than the average Canadian.

With respect to how the budget implementation will take place, it is interesting to note that it is not clear yet whether small business will be able to implement this. As my colleague from Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel has just pointed out, businesses do not know whether it will be possible or feasible for them to make the adjustment, notwithstanding the eight weeks they have been given.

Something I heard in my constituency, which I am sure a lot of members heard right across the country, was the question of reduction of wait times. Our government had at the time proposed a very credible plan which now appears to be very much imperiled. This budget did nothing to address the promise of action on the reduction of waiting times. This is of great concern to Canadians, not just with respect to the fact that there seems to be increasing pressure on it, but that we see nothing from the government in terms of its ability to contain pharmaceutical costs which are leading the cost pressure as far as the overall budgets are concerned, not just of the federal government but also of the provinces, of various drug plans and of the various private plans that exist.

On that, I hope in the coming weeks and months we have an opportunity as a Parliament to debate this very significant and very important issue.

I cannot think of an area that distinguishes this party more from the Conservative Party, which is currently, as we know, in a very tenuous 125 seat minority, than its proposal to abandon a project that not only had merit from an environmental standpoint but was there to help seniors, at a time when energy prices are rising, to make adjustments to their homes by using a very credible process, a process that involved the review of proposals under the EnerGuide program to ensure people could meet the higher costs of living while at the same time doing something for the environment.

It is not lost on the members of Parliament on this side of the House, with this Liberal Party, that those who are most affected by this happen to be seniors, the kind of people who have tried over the years to build this great nation, and who have done a very good job at it, not necessarily always able to make the kind of savings, but who deserve literally a break. However, the government, through its callous actions, decided to scrap the program and even those who qualified for it were then told to forget it.

Now we see a contradiction between the minister, who twice told this House that the program would be honoured for those who were there and, of course, that the amount of money the EnerGuide program had in place would not necessarily be funded at this point. As we see from its website, it continues to suggest that, with respect to this program, it is subject to funding.

That is a cruel joke for constituents in my riding and, in particular, my constituent, Margaret Robertson, who qualified on April 7 but has been told by the government that no decision has been made, notwithstanding the comments by the Minister of Natural Resources.

Trying to bribe Canadians with their own money and having no vision for the future prosperity of this country is, in my view, not the way to conduct good public policy. It is not a good way to ensure that Canadians will continue to have confidence in the work we are doing here. We see no support for job creation, education or innovation to keep Canadians and Canada competitive at a time when energy prices are reaching historical levels, which obviously has an impact on the bottom line for Canadians and a deleterious impact on manufacturing in many places across Canada.

This is true particularly in Ontario and Quebec.

The government has not taken a position. To date, the Minister of Industry has not indicated any improvement nor addressed the situation.

This business could be lucrative but, at the same time, this government has not given us a plan. It is not currently prepared to address the real problems facing our fellow citizens. As for job losses in our sectors, I find it somewhat curious that this government and the minister have nothing to say.

This budget overall does not necessarily benefit Canadians. It benefits a particular constituency of Canadians, namely, the wealthy. I am not sure what outmoded ideology underpins the Conservative policies on the economy.

[An hon. member]

Reform.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

My hon. colleague talks about Reform, perhaps Alliance.

It is impossible for us to be pragmatic and at the same time try to involve some kind of ideology which benefits the poor by somehow seeing the rich being provided better opportunities to make greater gains. We cannot afford to create what appears to be class differences based on a budget that only benefits a handful of individuals. The budget fails a good number of Canadians in my riding and in ridings across the country.

The budget has absolutely no real national child care strategy. The provinces, the regional governments, the municipal governments and many Canadians in my riding and in ridings across the country are extremely concerned in the deliberation by the government to not proceed with honouring the commitments that were made. It has broken a commitment with Kelowna and now the child care strategy.

Another broken promise, which Canadian motorists desperately needed with gas at 85¢ a litre, which this government promised, on which it never reneged and never rescinded, that it would drop the GST after the price of gasoline dropped below 85¢ a litre. Although much of that might have been predicated some years ago based on the work of members of Parliament here, this Parliament recognizes that above all the government has failed Canadians where Canadians need it and where they need it the most.

I will be voting against the budget implementation bill. I not only look forward to the questions but I hope the questions focus on the fact that Canadians need a real change in terms of the way this budget has been implemented so it benefits all Canadians.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we often hear partisan talk in this place, which is not out of line, but having listened to the member speak this morning on this legislation, his comments go beyond partisan comments. Those types of comments become so partisan that members lose credibility.

The member made a comment that the budget benefits only a handful of Canadians when it comes to tax relief but that handful is every Canadian. For every 1% cut in the GST that means $5 billion every year will be left in the pockets of Canadians.

When we look at the list of tax cuts that we have laid out, we see that $20 billion in tax relief will be delivered to Canadians over two years. This is money Canadians have earned and money that can stay in their pockets. The member diminishes the importance of this. The fact is that the budget delivers for all Canadians. The fact is that $20 billion over two years is very significant. It is not something that should be pooh-poohed or called insignificant.

Why would the member make such a blanket statement about the budget, a budget that delivers tax relief not only to low income Canadians but to all Canadians, by indicating that nothing has happened and that the budget does not really help? Would the member justify his statements?

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has no idea what ordinary Canadians are going through. If he believes that Canadians earning $30,000 to $40,000 a year will somehow benefit by having a disposable income of maybe $10,000 and that they will benefit from having the GST dropped by 1%, which will save them $70, big deal. They would have had a lot more with respect to the income tax cut that we promised and which the Conservatives have gutted.

The Conservatives know full well that money in the hand of any Canadian is a lot better than having to spend it in order to get some kind of a pittance, but that hon. member is defending it.

Canadians are not well served by what that hon. member just said. He has absolutely no understanding of what Canadians are going through. He knows that many of those tax cuts have nothing to do with ordinary Canadians. He has mixed into all of that some of the corporate taxes that are out there. I know the hon. member is there to justify and to defend his party, which is fine, but this Liberal Party is here to defend the interests of Canadians and to ensure that all Canadians benefit from the wealth of this nation, not just a handful of people who happen to support that party.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand this morning to express my disappointment in this budget. With massive federal surpluses, the new government could have invested in communities across Canada, such as those in my riding of Parkdale—High Park.

The government could have made health, safety and the vitality of cities like Toronto a priority. It could have invested real new money in transit for infrastructure to better serve people and the environment. It could have invested in our children by making early learning and child care a priority. It could have indicated a desire to reform employment insurance to ensure that all those who are temporarily unemployed would be covered.

In short, politics is all about priorities and it is about values. The Conservative budget showed where its values lie and where its priorities lie. Tax cuts for the oil and gas industry take priority over real investment in our communities, and prisons take priority over prevention. Pollution and its health impacts will go up while environmental initiatives will go down. Student debt will go up while the taxes for the wealthy will go down. Child care wait lists will go up while quality transit will go down.

My priorities are different. After 13 long years of neglect and failure to invest by the former government in our families, the Harper government has undercut the development of a comprehensive, fledgling national child care program in its 2006 budget.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park should know that we cannot refer to members by their personal names. If she wants to talk about the Prime Minister she needs to use his title and not his name.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a serious blow to the thousands of families in Parkdale—High Park and right across Toronto who need a child care program to ensure their children are properly taken care of while they are at work. Money to parents with young children is fine but it is not a child care program.

Most experts in the transit field know the best way to increase ridership is to improve service with investments to capital upgrades and infrastructure. The Toronto Board of Trade, in its report “Strong City, Strong Nation”, highlighted the city's infrastructure deficit and warned that it could jeopardize Toronto's economic competitiveness. The Toronto Board of Trade recognizes that investment in transit should be a number one priority. Unfortunately, it does not make the Conservatives' top five.

The population and economy of the Toronto region is growing but transit infrastructure is not. Toronto is an economic engine for the country and provides billions of dollars in equalization payments. A tax break for commuters will not build more subway lines nor will it dramatically increase ridership which are keys to growing our economy while improving environmental sustainability.

Roughly $1.4 billion of taxpayer money goes to the oil and gas industry each year. Surely this year, with rising fuel costs for consumers, some of that money could have been invested in transit for our large cities. Just this week the Toronto City Summit Alliance released its report, “Time for a Fair Deal”. I was delighted to be at the press conference that launched the report but shocked at some of its findings.

Employment insurance, the first level of our social safety net, is in tatters and yet this budget is silent. It contains no provisions to address the crisis that only 19% of women now qualify for employment insurance in Toronto and it fails to make EI easier for workers. In fact, only 22% of unemployed workers in the greater Toronto area are receiving benefits. The government talks about a fiscal imbalance between provinces and the federal government but we know there is an imbalance between those who have and those who have not. This is perhaps most obvious in the city of Toronto.

Politics is about values and it is about priorities that get reflected in budgets. This budget shows many of its priorities have failed Parkdale—High Park in the city of Toronto. It fails to put our city on the path--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but we have reached an order of the day.

We will now go to statements by members. The hon. member for Peterborough.

The House resumed from May 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Budget Implementation Act

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the budget implementation act. I will begin by quoting the member for Markham—Unionville who, as finance critic for the official opposition, raised three key points on the budget and the budget implementation act in his remarks. I absolutely think they are right on target.

He said that the budget was dishonest, it was visionless and it was mean-spirited. There is no jurisdiction, no industry and no segment of Canadian society where those points ring more true than for farmers and for rural Canada, and I will explain why.

Dishonest the budget was in that the Minister of Finance portrayed the budget as having more money for farmers, implying that there was more money than what previous governments had put in place. Actually, when we compare all commitments last year and this year, we find that the budget falls short even with its additional money of $1.5 billion, which we welcome by the way, but let us not say that it is more than it is. It is short by $255 million than the commitments of the previous government.

It is further dishonest in that the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and even the Prime Minister have left the impression that the $755 million for the grains and oilseeds announced last November was money for this spring, but that is not the case at all.

The previous finance minister booked that $755 million for the grains and oilseeds industry as an ad hoc program and it was booked for the grains and oilseeds industry for the losses it incurred in 2005.

The new government through its budget has not put one dime of its own money toward the farm community as yet, although it is trying to leave the impression with the general public that it is doing something.

During the election and since that time, when there were 10,000 farmers on the Hill demanding immediate cash, when 21 farm organizations and farm leaders came together and made the point that they needed immediate cash for spring planting, members on the back bench over there indicated there would be immediate cash. The member for Essex even said so during the election but that is not what happened.

There is no immediate cash for spring planting coming from the government opposite, not a dime. Members laugh over on the other side. This is not a laughing matter.

I know that some of the farmers who were on the Hill started to plant wheat but had their credit cut off. They could not put fertilizer on it. They decided because they had the seed to continue to plant the grain believing what the members opposite said and what the Government of Canada said, that there would be cash there and that in the spring they would be able to top dress that crop with fertilizer.

They know now, although the government is trying to portray it as otherwise, that there will be no cash because the government is not coming through with cash. It is difficult to believe that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food missed what farmers were saying.

However, we must assume they heard what the member for Yorkton—Melville was saying when the headline in a news release on March 29, 2006, read, “Breitkreuz conveys farmers' distress to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food”. The news release quotes the member for Yorkton--Melville as telling the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food that, “We need to get money into the hands of our farmers right now”.

Clearly, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food knew what the farming community was calling for and stated in the House on April 6 that they understood. However what a difference a year makes.

Last year, the then minister of agriculture announced $1 billion in March, taking money out of the surplus to put into farmers' hands so they could get a crop in the ground. Then we announced the $755 million in November.

Let us go back to a year ago when the then leader of the opposition, now the Prime Minister, told the House:

We are looking at severe problems...as we approach this year's planting and seeding. This problem has to be addressed now.

That is from Hansard of February 3, 2005.

That is what the Prime Minister said then. That is what he demanded of the previous government: that it put money into the farmers' pockets “now”, in the spring. Now this very same Prime Minister has the Conservatives' propaganda machine operating, there is no question about it. They have that machine working and well oiled up, because the Conservatives are leaving the impression they are doing something when there is not a single dime of cash for farmers this spring.

Worse yet, the situation according to Agriculture Canada's own numbers is that farm incomes have been reduced by a 16% further decline, so the need is even greater. In fact, we have called for a $1.6 billion immediate payment for spring to assist farmers to get a crop in the ground. That matches what the Saskatchewan agriculture minister is saying. It is a little less than what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is calling for, but that is really what is needed this spring.

Worse yet, and it is hard to believe that it can get worse, the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister would not answer questions in the House in a direct fashion and admit up front that there is indeed no money this spring. Farmers needed to be assured of support in a predictable and a bankable way and they did not get it from the government.

Still tied in with the budget, the Minister of Agriculture trumpeted his budgeted commitments in a press conference yesterday. The farm community understands what he said and did not say, but the general public does not. The general public is on side with the farm community. It wants something to be done for farmers, and because of the words missing from the government opposite, the public actually thinks something is being done when in fact it is not.

The Minister of Agriculture announced yesterday the $950 million that was part of the $1.5 billion in the budget, and we welcome that, but it does nothing for spring. It is moneys that are going into the CAIS program. If we recall correctly, those members opposite, even the Prime Minister himself, said the CAIS program was unacceptable. The Conservatives were going to can that program. They were going to cancel it. They were going to do away with it, saying that it was administratively difficult and did not get the money to farmers in a proper fashion. And this is the program that the government is going to put the $950 million out through?

Yes, there have to be changes to CAIS, but when will that $950 million get to farmers? They need the cash now. Farmers will be lucky to get the cash in September or November. Will that money deal with the problem of cash expenses this spring? Will that deal with the problem of assets and liability? No, it certainly will not.

As well, yesterday the minister announced the $100,000 interest-free cash advance. I welcome that program, but what he is doing is leaving the impression with the general public that there is $100,000 for farmers. I ask members if they have received those little envelopes in the mail from the credit card companies where they offer you $50,000 at a low interest rate, say, 6.6%. This is the same thing.

This is not $100,000 coming from the Government of Canada. This is farmers borrowing their own money with a little bit of an interest break. One cannot borrow oneself out of debt. It cannot be done. The interest break is welcome, but that is not $100,000 for farmers from the Government of Canada. It is a little break on the interest. It is money that has to be paid back. It adds to the farmers' debt. What they needed was compensation for the losses of selling product into the market at low prices as a result of the international subsidies that are going on all around the world.

Clearly the member for Markham—Unionville was right when he said as one of his key points that the budget was really dishonest. In agriculture, the government has clearly misrepresented what it is actually doing, because it is doing virtually nothing at all in the immediate term when farmers need the money the most.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is passing strange to be listening this morning to the member for Malpeque go through a litany of reasons why he thinks this government has not done anything. Why was this member not concerned when the Liberals were slashing agriculture programs under the former prime minister and when this same member voted against supporting Canadian farmers with emergency aid in 2001? Why did this member vote against standing up to U.S. protectionist policies on May 28, 2002? Why did this member vote against sending a delegation to the U.S. to try to get the border opened for ranchers? Why did this member vote against helping farmers hard hit by the mad cow crisis?

In less than 200 days our government has stepped forward, and I am very proud to say that our minister has provided for loan enhancements for these farmers to double the loan maximum for spring advances to $100,000 and to keep the loan interest free. All these things are coming forward to replace the CAIS program that is available now and to support farmers in a real way. The previous government had 13 years to do all the things that the member opposite is complaining about now. The member opposite should be supporting all the things that our government has put forward to help farmers. This government has done a lot.

Why is that member, after the record he has, not now supporting the good things for farmers so that farmers can carry on with their spring seeding and their land programs?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentions the spring seeding. That is the point. The government has not put 13¢ into farmers' pockets for assisting with spring seeding. That is the reality.

We are not disagreeing with many of the other programs that have been announced. In fact, those programs are along the lines that our government had proposed.

The fact of the matter is that the government has put less money in its budget than previously committed. The government has not met the demand for immediate cash for spring seeding that many Conservative members said would be met. The government has not met its obligations and promises. It certainly needs to be pointed out that the government has failed dismally in terms of getting immediate cash to farmers this spring.

While I am on my feet I should mention that the Minister of Transport even broke an agreement with the FRCC, which would have given the farmers some control over their destiny. The farmers would have had control over the hopper car fleet. Instead, what did the Minister of Transport do? He broke that agreement and turned the railway cars over to the railways in the same old way, with a little bit of a reduction in transport costs, so the railways can continue to gouge the farm community. That is not performance. That is going against what the party opposite said it would do for the farm community.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during his speech, the member talked about a very important issue: agriculture and the financial crisis facing this sensitive economic sector.

There is also another serious crisis going on, this one among the unemployed, particularly among older workers. They need a new assistance program. Such a program once existed, but the former government cut it.

Can the member tell the House what he thinks of the Conservative government's inaction on this matter?