Debates of Dec. 16th, 1999

Committees Of The House

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of an intervention made earlier today by the official opposition member for Surrey Central.

In discussions with the whips of all the parties I believe that if the House would give its consent it would also agree to the following motion:

That payment of the salaries of staff working under contract with the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations be made by the Committees and Legislative Services Branch of the House of Commons on behalf of the standing joint committee until such time as the standing joint committee is able to make such payments or March 31, 2000, whichever is sooner.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The House has heard the motion as presented by the chief government whip. Does the chief government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Standing Committee On Finance

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to talk about the first report of the Standing Committee on Finance.

First I would like to talk about the process because the content of the report is only as good as the process that preceded it. Coming from Women's College Hospital in Toronto where the motto was non quo sed quomodo, it is not what we do but how, I would like to celebrate the fact that this is a process by which our Liberal government can be extraordinarily proud.

No longer, as with previous governments, does the budget get written in secret after a series of one on one meetings with the finance minister, clearly influenced only by those who were able to secure such a meeting, largely because of their elevated positions in society.

With all the committee hearings and submissions and the town hall meetings held by 62 of our members of parliament, we feel that Canadians have been properly consulted. It is not surprising therefore that the Minister of Finance's budgets are so well received when people can see their own advice in the budgets as they are tabled.

As the member of parliament for St. Paul's I believe that the best antidote to the cynicism and apathy that really threatens our democracy is a commitment to real consultation and the participation of citizens in the policy process. Citizen engagement must be genuine and it is not good enough that governments and parliamentarians consult. Citizens must feel that they are being given the opportunity to actually shape public policy.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Oak Ridges.

Peter Newman said that politics in Canada has always been the art of making the necessary possible. Therefore deciding what is necessary must be a political decision. Deciding what is necessary must be done by politicians in true partnership with the citizens.

The prebudget consultation is an excellent example of a process whereby all Canadians have the opportunity to provide input into the priorities that define our country. The budget making process is where we receive input into the tools we have at our disposal to help ensure that the necessary becomes possible: debt retirement, taxation as well as tax relief, and strategic investments in program spending.

This year I had the opportunity to chair four consultations on the budget; a town hall in St. Paul's, an invitational round table in St. Paul's, a special meeting of the Liberal women's caucus with the finance minister, as well as yesterday's round table of the subcommittee on persons with disabilities on the tax treatment of persons with disabilities and families with children with disabilities.

The first such consultation which was submitted to the finance committee was held in St. Paul's on November 8. The clear consensus in the room was that affordable housing was extraordinarily important to all issues around the true disposable income of Canadians, and that all levels of government must do whatever they can to make shelter possible for all Canadians.

There was also a clear consensus on the need for proper tax relief, that the amount of disposable income families have is for snowsuits and snow boots for kids. Families, in particular low and middle income families, need to have money to spend, and this year as we focus on children it should be for their children.

There is no question that in terms of our economy the need for a vibrant and accountable health care system was agreed upon by everyone in the room, as well as employment strategies and a focus on the environment.

While affordable housing and tax relief topped the list of budgetary suggestions at the meeting, it was clear there were underlying issues to be addressed. The constituents of St. Paul's wanted to know that they were receiving good quality social services for their tax investments. They were asking the federal government to take the initiative in protecting the things they value most as Canadians: access to shelter, a quality health care system, employment, and protection of the environment for future generations.

In this new age of surplus, constituents would like to see measurable outcomes that demonstrate that their taxes are being well spent. They would like to have confidence that we will ensure that basic needs of all Canadians are met. They understand that good social spending is also good economic spending and economic policy and will result in a secure future for all Canadians.

At our prebudget round table, it was interesting that a consensus emerged on the need for the federal government to articulate a clear, long term economic and social vision based on Canadian values. Like the finance committee, they felt that we should be rolling out a vision over more than one year. Their issues of greatest concern were tax relief, debt reduction, poverty, homelessness and the children's agenda.

All in attendance felt that the government must lead the way in long term planning, setting outcomes and filling the gaps within a framework that reflects Canadian values. They wanted to ensure that good social policy was viewed as good economic policy. The consensus was that in order for us to maintain a decent social infrastructure, growing the pie and the economic strength of our country are extraordinarily important in reaching that goal.

At the round table, they felt we must ensure that productivity in the growth of the country occurs. It must be addressed in a long term, systemic way. If the government were to articulate long term plans, people would see their needs as being met. The feeling was that the government must not expect to run every aspect of life, but it must recognize clearly where it has a long term impact and harmonize its actions with other levels and partners to ensure its long term success. They wanted frequent reviews of government programs to see how effective they have been upon implementation to ensure that outcomes are being met.

We felt extremely heartened by the new efforts and initiatives of the treasury board to look at outcomes and the performance indicators of those outcomes in terms of the future of smart spending in the country and in knowing that we will fund programs only if they are shown to be, as we used to call in medicine, evidence based practice.

At their meeting the Liberal women's caucus reflected what they had been hearing in their constituencies. It was a very similar shopping list in terms of the budget. A lot of those things have been reflected in the finance committee report.

What was not in the finance committee report but the women's caucus feels strongly about, is that all aspects of public policy, in particular budget items, require a gender based analysis. We must make sure that there is no discrimination of gender by all policies and it must be done before things come to the point of being a budget allocation. We were heartened by the commitment of the Minister of Finance to meet with the Secretary of State for the Status of Women and the President of the Treasury Board to actually look at how that could be articulated.

Yesterday it was extremely interesting to receive the experts on the issue of tax and families with disabilities. I would like to draw members' attention to some of the things that were articulated at yesterday's meeting. I am thrilled that a lot of these things were in the finance committee report, but I would like to underline the things that we feel most strongly about or that there would seem to be consensus at the round table about.

Defending the child tax deduction for parents of children with disabilities would clearly benefit both low and middle income earners. The experts wanted to see an index or an adjustment to the various credits and deductions claimed by persons with disabilities and their families to deal with the increasing cost to them due to the lack of indexation. They wanted more technical aids and services added to the list of expenses for the medical expense tax credit. Clearly there was a consensus to broaden the definition of eligibility in the disability tax credit.

We are particularly concerned about people with cystic fibrosis. For some reason in the current definition of disability, in activities related to daily living, breathing has been left out. People who have a great deal of difficulty breathing are not included in the disability tax credit. We feel that is a modest expansion that would seriously help the 600 to 900 adults with cystic fibrosis to participate as full citizens.

We are requesting that the Canada study grants received by persons with disabilities be not treated as taxable income.

There was interest in a new savings vehicle modelled on the registered retirement savings plan that would encourage private savings to support individuals with mental and physical disabilities.

We think there should be more generous and consistent tax treatment of the costs of attendant care and that the income tax guide should be clarified so that taxpayers with disabilities and their families can more clearly understand the applicable tax measures and act accordingly.

We were thrilled to see in the finance committee report strong support for the renewal of the opportunities fund, and we are hoping for accessibility standards that would become benchmarks in the national children's agenda.

It is extremely heartening to see so many of the social infrastructure programs clearly identified in the finance committee report.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her intervention.

I read the committee report with interest and I certainly want to commend the members of the committee.

There was an aspect of the report that dealt with increased savings for Canadians. Certainly we are all attempting to encourage Canadians to increase their savings for retirement. There was a recommendation in the report that called for an additional $2,000 increase in the RRSP limits. The RRSP limits are currently scheduled to increase by $1,000 increments, which would give a $2,000 increase to the limits as they stand today.

Could the hon. member confirm for me whether the recommendation of the committee would actually push these limits up to $17,500 over the five year period?

The hon. member often talks about smart spending. I want her to focus on the health file for a second. The Canadian Healthcare Association talks about investing money more strategically in service delivery. I would like the hon. member to take a moment to focus on smart spending and service delivery in the health care file and describe for the House in some detail what she sees as smart spending in the health care file.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to affirm to the hon. member that the increase of $2,000, I believe, having attended a great number of the finance committee meetings, was in addition to the already scheduled increases. I think he will be relieved to hear that.

In terms of smart spending in health care, I was extremely interested in the brief of the Canadian Healthcare Association, which said that putting more money into the health care system, even if were available, would not be the answer.

We are extremely worried that accountability in the health care system is not there. As we know from some of the briefs, 60% of the things that are being done in health care, as we speak, have never been subjected to any sort of evidence based practice. As was recommended in the finance committee report, we have to make sure that there is money for information technology and the ability to practise evidence based medicine as well as research into health care delivery. We need proper data in terms of how we deliver health care.

A lot of us were very impressed by the University of Ottawa and Queen's University study of the sustainability of the health care system. It showed that if we actually moved to best practices, or moved people to the right level of care, there would be $7 billion in savings annually in Canada. Many briefs said that this was not about dollars, it was about mismanagement. We need a real system instead of this patchwork quilt of non-systems.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in the debate on the upcoming year 2000 budget.

Through successive budgets the government has continued to build on a strong fiscal foundation that began in 1993. At that time our economic condition was in a serious state of disrepair. We had a $42 billion deficit, high unemployment and sluggish investor confidence.

Since 1993 the government has rolled up its sleeves and presented to Canadians a clear vision of how to get things straight. Canadians understood that large deficits and an astronomical debt would cripple Canada for generations to come if we did not act, and act we did. Canadians embraced the deficit reduction strategies of the government. Together we have been able to eliminate the deficit, bring in balanced budgets and forecast further balanced budgets.

In 1998-99 Canada balanced the books for the first time since 1951-52. The government has continued to operate deficit free. For the coming millennium we will continue our prudent spending, continue to balance the books and offer Canadians further tax cuts. I can think of no greater gift to offer young people, our future generations, than a deficit free government, lower taxes and a strong economic and fiscal atmosphere that supports growth and development by continued investment in the talents of our youth.

In February 2000 the Minister of Finance will continue on this path by announcing further tax cuts for Canada. I have always been a strong advocate of calling for tax cuts. Many of my constituents want tax cuts as well. I recently conducted a survey in my riding asking constituents what they would like to see in the upcoming budget. Close to 75% of those who responded chose tax cuts and debt reduction as the top two issues that needed to be addressed in the upcoming federal budget. Continued funding for health care in Canada ranked a close third, at 70%.

I would like to share some of the direct comments of my constituents with the House today: “Lower taxes, both personal and corporate, can help to create and retain jobs in Canada. Tax cuts should focus more on lower and middle income people and families”. “I believe lower national debts are a key foundation to a stronger economy and the benefits of long term growth. Get the debt behind us and Canada can become a stronger nation”. “Continued fiscal responsibility, as already demonstrated by Mr. Martin, is required”. “Seeing as children and youth are our priority, the only responsible action in the federal budget is to make debt payment the top and only priority for surplus funds. It is not fair to the next generation to burden them with debt created by this generation”.

It is clear that Canadians know what they want. They want a fiscally responsible government which is willing to take action to end the overspending of the past and to make sure that we have cleared the slate for future generations. By getting our fiscal house in order we can concentrate on other issues. We can create an atmosphere where job creation strives and where Canadian entrepreneurs can make their mark in the global economy.

This past November the finance minister brought down his economic and fiscal update. He noted that Canada's economy has made tremendous strides. The economy is now forecast to grow by 3.6% this year, based on the average of private sector forecasts. That is a significant jump from the 2% growth rate that economists were forecasting just before last February's budget.

For the year 2000 the average growth forecast is 2.9%, again an increase over the 2.5% predicted at the time of the budget. This has brought our November 1999 unemployment rate down by 0.3 percentage points to 6.9%. That is the lowest level since August 1981.

Our future as a country is indeed bright. The government will continue its commitment to Canadians through strong, continued funding for our world renowned universal health care system. We will provide tax cuts.

We also recognize that Canada is a place for business. We have taken great strides to make this so. We recognize the value of innovation, but we know that innovation does not just happen. It requires an investment on our part. It requires infrastructure. We are committed to building a society of security and opportunity by helping Canadians to acquire education, knowledge and skills.

We will provide continued funding to help our youth reach their goals and dreams through the youth employment strategy, the Canadian opportunities strategy and the Canada education savings grant.

Finally, I want to speak briefly about another program. I fully support the joint federal-provincial-municipal infrastructure program. The Speech from the Throne committed the government to developing a five year physical infrastructure plan with the provinces and territories. It is a prime example of how governments can work together for the good of all Canadians.

I look forward with great anticipation to the next federal budget. As the first budget of our new millennium it will set a benchmark for all future budgets. It will clearly demonstrate our commitment to providing Canadians with an efficiently run, fiscally responsible government, and continued investment in the programs and services Canadians have come to expect and deserve.

[The Speaker]

We have a about five minutes left before the time provided for the royal assent. We could go to questions and comments in the meantime.

If there are no questions or comments, we will be resuming debate. The hon. member for Lotbinière.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Is there not a standing order that would allow us to suspend the sitting temporarily? I think it would be a shame for my colleague from Lotbinière to begin his speech—unless he wants to do so—only to be interrupted after one or two minutes.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if there is time for questions and comments, I could pose a question to the member for Oak Ridges.

[The Speaker]

What we will do is take a few minutes for questions and comments, and after that I will go to the hon. member for Lotbinière.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Oak Ridges for his participation in this debate and for his contribution to the thought process for the budget 2000.

I know the hon. member has been very much involved in municipal affairs. I also know that he has taken an active interest in an infrastructure program. In the throne speech, there was mention that the government intends to move on an infrastructure program. There have been representations by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to proceed with an infrastructure program. It talks about social infrastructure as well as physical infrastructure.

I wonder if the hon. member could comment on what he would like to see if the government proceeds with an infrastructure program.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that a national infrastructure program is critical for the economy, for the environment and for the health of Canadians.

In 1983, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities proposed an infrastructure program involving all orders of government in the country. In 1993, the government adopted the national infrastructure program of the FCM.

Traditional infrastructure is roads, sewers, bridges and water. The announcement in the Speech from the Throne clearly indicates all three orders of government participating. Municipally driven is what I would like to see. I would like to see that we are involving all orders of government in a process by which we have at the moment basically a $40 billion deficit in infrastructure in the areas that I have just outlined. There is no question that over 125,000 direct and indirect jobs were created by the last national infrastructure program.

One of the things that varies in the proposals in the Speech from the Throne is that we actually have a blueprint for five years. We think this is critical when we look at our competition, the United States, Europe and elsewhere. I know that every member in the House benefited from the national infrastructure program. The mayors of the communities in these members' ridings, including my good friends across the way in the Reform Party, have benefited very much. There are some former mayors over there.

The program delivered both in terms of job creation and in speeding up needed infrastructure programs. I say to my hon. friend that there is no question that by involving all orders of government, we will be able to improve our economy by being able to move people, certainly through roads being reconstructed—

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

December 16, 1999

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Antonio Lamer, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 16th day of December, 1999 at 5 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.

Yours sincerely,

Message From The Senate

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed certain bills, to which the concurrence of the House is desired.

A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber. And being returned :

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, Her Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-4, an act to implement the Agreement among the Government of Canada, Governments of Member States of the European Space Agency, the Government of Japan, the Government of the Russian Federation, and the Government of the United States of America concerning Cooperation on the Civil International Space Station and to make related amendments to other acts—Chapter 35.

Bill C-21, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2000—Chapter 36.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Standing Committee On Finance

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this most important debate. First of all, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Jonquière.

After reading the report stemming from the prebudget hearings, which was tabled in the House, one can tell that a great deal of ambiguity remains concerning the direction the Minister of Finance intends to take with the budget to be tabled on or about February 22 or February 29, 2000.

Every year, the Bloc Quebecois brings out statistics to support its criticism of what I always refer to as cooking the books, something the Minister of Finance is indulging in with increasing frequency.

For several years now, the Bloc Quebecois has been calling for a number of things, and I think that the Bloc Quebecois is the party that best defends Quebec's interests. We have called for tax cuts, a return to a real EI system, and the return of social transfer payments to Quebec and the provinces; we have called for support for productive projects, moderate debt reduction, and significant efforts to combat poverty.

This is the gist of what the Bloc Quebecois puts forward annually at this time of the year, when the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance presents the committee's report.

In Lotbinière, as everywhere else, we took part in this democratic process, in order to find out what the people of Lotbinière wanted. Like all taxpayers in Quebec and in Canada, the people in my riding want lower taxes, but not along the lines the Minister of Finance is suggesting. We want tax cuts for those who contributed most to helping the federal government eliminate the deficit.

This means a tax cut targeted at the middle class. As for middle class, let me explain what I mean. Statistically, middle class in Canada means those earning between $30,000 and $70,000 a year.

In a riding like my own of Lotbinière, or like Jonquière or any others with the same characteristics, semi-urban, semi-rural, the middle class is not earning between $30,000 and $70,000 a year; often it is earning $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000.

These people often work 40 hours a week, at an hourly rate of $8, $9 or $10, and have a lot of trouble making ends meet. They are also greatly affected these days by the price of gasoline.

When travelling throughout Quebec, people probably notice that the price of gasoline is quite high in urban centres like Quebec City and Montreal. However, if they travel 100 or 150 kilometres to regions like Jonquière, Rimouski and Abitibi, they will see that the price of gasoline in these areas is very high. What does that mean?

Ever since inflation started to skyrocket in the mid-seventies, the price gasoline has had a major impact on the price of consumer products. When the price of gasoline goes up, the trucker who delivers the goods has to increase his rate. Once on the shelves, the goods have to be sold at a higher price, and the consumer who buys them also has to pay more for gasoline.

This is a real problem for the regions. In the budget being prepared for the year 2000, it is anticipated that the government will include no measure to help these people, even though we are now facing this indirect inflation created with the complicity of the oil companies.

I will come back to this issue, because in the year 2000, as the regional development critic for the Bloc Quebecois, along with my hon. colleagues, we will be taking major action, including in the energy sector, which will be discussed at some length.

We would not want to relive the situation we experienced in the mid-1970s when inflation soared. We know what it did to the economy of Quebec and Canada.

I would also like to talk about an issue near and dear to my heart which, once again, goes unmentioned the report tabled by the Standing Committee on Finance, namely employment insurance reform. Over the last few weeks, I have been leading an awareness campaign in the riding of Lotbinière, inviting people to sign a petition condemning this situation.

Right now, within the riding of Lotbinière, there are two different rates. The first one is 6.2%, which means that people have to work 660 hours to be eligible for benefits. At the other end of the riding, the rate is 11.2%. This means that people need only work 490 hours. In the same riding, there is a difference of 5%.

When people come to see us in our riding offices, it is difficult to explain to them the injustice that comes from the fact that the rate is based on the place of residence. This means that, if two persons work for the same company and that company closes down or experiences a slowdown, one person may be eligible for benefits and the other may be penalized.

With the same rates, with the same rights, because of the complexity of the map drawn by the Department of Human Resources Development, some people in my riding are severely penalized.

As recently as this week, someone who thought he would be eligible for benefits with his 635 hours learned that the rate had changed. It came down to 6.2%, and that person left with the sad news that he needed 660 hours to be eligible for benefits. So he did not have a choice, he had to turn to income security.

Sometimes the government is proud of the fact that the number of people receiving employment insurance benefits is going down. This is to be expected, because when unemployed workers no longer have access to employment insurance, that have to turn to income security. In the statistics, these people are no longer considered to be part of the labour force. They have been dropped from the statistics.

Statistics are to be used with caution. Yes, the economy is getting stronger. However, we must not forget the terrible consequences of the employment insurance program. A lot of people have to rely on income security now. It is a problem we have in the riding of Lotbinière and in most Quebec ridings.

I want to thank all those who helped me with this initiative in my riding, including the Caisses populaires that circulated the petition and the municipalities that sent resolutions supporting my initiative. Hundreds of people are still signing the petition condemning this social injustice.

During the holidays, we will take a break, but in the year 2000, we will be back at it and we intend to hand over to the Minister of Human Resources Development a comprehensive report to make her aware of the social injustice affecting the people of Lotbinière.

The regions are also faced with problems at the municipal level. When the new governor general delivered the throne speech, we all expected the federal government to announce immediate measures to help the municipalities. The President of the Treasury Board herself told us that they had a project in mind and she believed negotiations were under way.

Anyway, to sum it up, a project might be announced in November or December 2000. There is a desperate need for action now. This measure should already have been announced. Memorandums of understanding should already be under negotiation. Also, financial support for the municipalities should be included in the February 2000 budget.

We know that the municipalities have to upgrade their infrastructures and that we previously had three party agreements between Quebec, Ottawa and the municipalities that worked just fine. The federal government now has a surplus. I think it is important that the surplus go to areas where the people feel it is most needed: to help the unemployed, to support municipalities and to restore transfers for health care and education.

Our colleagues in the National Assembly, the health and social services minister, Mrs. Marois, and the education minister, François Legault, are having a lot of trouble running their departments because of all the cuts the federal government has made since 1993. Representatives of the federal government say that it has increased transfers. This is a joke, it is utter nonsense.

The government cut less than it was supposed to be. We know that this government is quite good at marketing. These people are trying to show us how good their government is.

I repeat that the government should reduce taxes to help the middle class, come back to a real employment insurance program, fully restore the social transfers to Quebec and the other provinces, support the positive projects of the municipalities and especially put significant effect into the fight against poverty.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a certain sadness that I am rising today to take part in the debate on the report of the Standing Committee on Finance because there is not much good news in this report tabled just before Christmas. It does not contain many measures to alleviate human suffering and to bring some hope that next year will be better.

Once again, this report shows the contempt of the Liberal government for the views expressed by the people and by the witnesses who appeared before the finance committee or took part in the prebudget consultations held by my colleagues, the members of the Bloc Quebecois.

Instead of reporting accurately the views expressed by the people who said they wanted surpluses to be reinvested in social programs, the Liberal majority on the committee preferred to be servile and to tell the minister only what he wanted to hear, namely that he can keep his surpluses and use them as he sees fit for measures that are not essential.

The Standing Committee on Finance and the finance minister deliberately ignore the reality that exists in many regions. They prefer to hide their heads in the sand. The reality is that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider every day.

I will say a few words about my region. Today, in my region, we have to serve meals to children under 12 who, otherwise, would not be able to take their classes or would get sick.

Some parents are no longer able to serve three meals a day to their children, even if they themselves do not eat their fill. That is the reality the Liberals are ignoring because they prefer to talk about growth, about the economy and so on. During that time, in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, six soup kitchens are helping people to survive all year long.

Today, La soupière de l'amitié of Arvida, in my riding, is holding its eight fundraising campaign with the help of more than 200 volunteers, who collect money to help the underprivileged.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank those volunteers working on the campaign, under the auspices of honorary president Monseigneur Jean-Guy Couture, and thank also the people of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean for their generous support of the less fortunate.

This government has abandoned the population. There is a growing number of relief agencies and food banks. This situation should not be tolerated. We should never get used to hardship. However, it seems to be a sad reality: this government has created more hardship.

During the prebudget hearings, I consulted with the people from my constituency and from Chicoutimi. Incidentally, I would like to thank the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for his document containing realistic suggestions that take into account the real concerns of ordinary people. The people told me that their priorities, with respect to how the budget surpluses the finance minister thinks are his own should be used, are different from the federal government's priorities. They do not want the Minister of Finance to loose sight of the fact that these surpluses are the result of the considerable sacrifices he has imposed through drastic cuts to social programs as well as of not indexing the tax tables and taking money out of the pockets of the middle class.

Incidentally, I thank the hon. member for Lotbinière for his help in the consultations I have held in my riding. I appreciated his co-operation. Many of my constituents have suggested priorities, some of which I would like to mention here.

Many of my constituents do not necessarily want tax reductions; they would rather have the money used to ensure that quality services continue to be provided to seniors, the sick and the young. Many senior citizens who participated in my consultations complained that the money they get from the government and the level of taxation do not take into account the expenses people who live alone are faced with, be it for maintenance or home help, which increase substantially every year.

Many told me that the surplus in the EI fund should be used to help communities through assistance and support programs for the elderly, to help existing small businesses or new ones getting started and to set up an EI fund for young people.

A number of people told me that the surplus the minister is bragging about, which came straight out of the pockets of ordinary citizens, should be used in part to set up assistance, integration and adjustment programs for people between 50 and 60 who are out of work.

I know of several 50 or 60 year old workers in my riding of Jonquière who, unfortunately, have lost their jobs following plant closures and who are left with nothing. They cannot get training, because, as you know, after spending 30 years in a plant, these older workers can hardly go back to school.

I think the government should be sensitive to the needs of these people who are hurting badly. It should restore the POWA program, or a new and improved program that better suited to their situation.

Unfortunately, the government is once again turning a deaf ear. It contends that there is nothing wrong, that nobody has to deal with this problem on a daily basis. There are things we have to do for the future. But right now, people are really stuck with this problem, and families are facing considerable hardship.

Most of the people want the government to maintain its social transfers. As you know, the federal government has been cutting transfers to the provinces for social programs since 1993. Many people were furious and spoke against EI, which brings nothing but misery. Ten years ago, EI covered 80% of the workers who lost their jobs. Nowadays, a mere 40% of the workers are eligible, although all of them pay premiums.

I would like to point out that, since 1993, the Liberal government's record with regard to the environment has been dismal. Apart from engaging in jurisdictional wars with the provinces and trying to impose national standards, the federal government has not proposed any concrete measures to reduce pollution.

Regarding the reduction of greenhouse gases, which affect the climate, pollution and health, and involve considerable economic costs, the federal government still has no clear plan and no clear timetable to meet the objectives that it set for itself under the Kyoto agreement.

Several environmental groups have adopted a more practical approach and have proposed concrete measures to the Minister of Finance to reduce pollution, such as investing in public transit systems or encouraging the transportation of goods by train, particularly by special railway cars that can carry trucks.

Finally, it is urgent that this government keep its promise to invest in new depollution technologies. There is an approach that we fully support, because it is a concrete measure that would allow industries, farmers and municipalities to reduce their levels of pollution when renewing their equipment or infrastructure.

I will close by saying that in the Jonquière area, as shown in a recent federal study, air pollution reaches very high levels. We are all waiting anxiously for the federal government to co-operate with industries, municipalities and the provincial government to make the air cleaner, which would better reflect the nature of our region.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member opposite for an excellent speech.

In Ontario, we have to deal with a premier, Mr. Mike Harris, who is using money that should be going to social programs for other purposes. Faced with a province that will not support social programs, I wonder if the solution would not be for the federal government to give more money to charitable and non-profit organizations, which in turn could deliver social programs.

Would the hon. member opposite be comfortable with such a solution?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

As occupant of the chair, this is the first time I hear the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington put a question in French. My congratulations.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before answering the question, I too would like to congratulate the hon. member and I encourage him to speak French more often in the new year to show everyone that Canada is really a bilingual country, as the Liberals like to put it.

I want to point out to the hon. member that community organizations and transfers both come under provincial jurisdiction. What have the Liberals done since 1993? They have infringed upon jurisdictions when they had no reason to do so.

Everything that has to do with health care and the municipalities also come under provincial jurisdiction. I encourage my hon. colleague to tell his government, which has way too much money, to give some back to the provinces. I am sure they will ensure that the money goes to the people.