House of Commons Hansard #64 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was million.

Topics

The BudgetGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explore further with the member of the Conservative Party his party's support for the Liberal budget, which by all accounts is far from perfect, far from the objectives of Canadians and somewhat far from the concerns and ideas being advanced by the Conservative Party.

If I look again at the finance committee's report and the Conservative minority report in that document, it is very clear that the Conservative paper says that unless bold measures are taken, Canada will continue sleepwalking toward mediocrity.

From what I hear from the Conservatives, the Liberal budget is pretty mediocre. It is far from complete in terms of any substantive measures in areas except perhaps for tax cuts for the corporations where we do see some bold initiatives. Is this what the Conservatives mean by bold measures? Is this what the Conservatives means by ensuring that we raise the nation up beyond mediocrity? How can the member explain that kind of promise?

The BudgetGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague from Winnipeg is very genuine in her commentary and question. While the budget is meagre, half-measures and a slow baby step toward the right direction of giving lower and medium income Canadians more access to their money, measures which I believe will not have an impact for years to come, it would be irresponsible and ignorant of the fact that Canadians do not want another election. If we were to just charge into this process and say that we were going to bring the government down regardless of what it does, it would not be in the interests of anyone, including the hon. member's party or any member of the House.

We are looking at this as a way to be constructive in our criticism, pointing out differences that the Conservative Party would put forward in our belief about what is good for the country, costed common sense measures that we think would improve the quality of lives for Canadians. We may disagree at certain points, but I believe the intent is genuine. I believe all members of the House want to put forward their ideas and have the opportunity to express them on the floor of the House.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Michael John Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the budget presented by the finance minister yesterday. I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Laval—Les Îles.

I am very proud to be a Liberal and a Canadian. This year marks the eighth consecutive year that the Liberal government has brought in a balanced budget, a record unmatched in recent Canadian history. It was not that long ago, some 10 years or so, that the government, along with Canadians, made tough decisions that resulted in the elimination of the deficit, a $48 billion deficit left over from the previous administration. The decisions made then and in subsequent years made yesterday possible.

I want to sincerely congratulate the Minister of Finance. He went to great lengths to listen to members of our caucus, members of opposition parties and hundreds of stakeholders throughout Canada. He consulted and listened. He is a steady hand, and yesterday he delivered.

Today the people in my riding of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour are telling me that this budget is one that reaches out to all Canadians. They are saying that it is progressive and forward thinking. It is a budget that invests in people and one that provides tax relief for individual Canadians and businesses. In fact, by increasing to $10,000 the amount of income Canadians may earn without paying federal income tax, we will remove 860,000 of the lowest income tax taxpayers, including 240,000 seniors, from the tax rolls.

The budget reflects in real ways the values I think most Canadians share, values that speak about fairness and the understanding that we are all in this together. It is a budget that reflects our collective responsibility to level the playing field for those most in need, to provide opportunity for all Canadians to live with dignity knowing that government can and will play a role in helping them meet those objectives. In a country as wealthy as Canada, people should come first, and the budget is an investment in people and their future.

I can say with much pride that the budget also delivers for Atlantic Canada, particularly Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. I will take some time to highlight some of the areas of the budget that touch in a particular way the people in my home community.

First, the budget confirms the funding for the agreement with the province of Nova Scotia to protect it from reductions and equalization payments resulting from increased offshore oil and gas revenues. The federal government will make an immediate payment to Nova Scotia of $830 million. This agreement exceeds the Prime Minister's commitment of last June. Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia will be the beneficiaries of offshore revenues, as was intended some 20 years ago but came into being under this Prime Minister, this Minister of Finance and in our case our strong regional Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Building on a $47 million investment in budget 2003, this is a good budget for the Coast Guard. The budget allocates $275 million over the next five years to meet the needs of the Canadian Coast Guard. The funding will be used to procure, operate and maintain new large vessels, including offshore fishery research vessels and mid-shore patrol vessels to support conservation and protect fisheries. This is an issue that impacts directly on the people of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. It is one that I have advocated for with the Minister of Finance and my caucus colleagues. I thank the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for this much needed investment.

Budget 2005 contains a new $708 million five year initiative to support economic development throughout the four Atlantic provinces, including a $41 million permanent increase in ACOA's annual budget, to a five year total of $205 million. I am particularly delighted that the Atlantic innovation fund will be renewed, with $300 million for university research, commercialization and innovation.

Two weeks ago I had the opportunity to speak at a conference hosted by the Association of Atlantic Universities. At this meeting I indicated my hope and support for renewed funding for the AIF, and the government has come through in a big way. This commitment is good for Atlantic Canada. It is excellent news for the university and the innovation community.

In my first speech in the House, I spoke about the importance of our military. Budget 2005 provides some $12.8 billion in additional expenditures for the Canadian Forces. This is the largest increase in recent history and will have a tremendous impact on the hardworking military men and women across the country. Overall, the budget provides nearly $13 billion in new defence funding, fulfilling our government's commitment, a commitment on which I ran this past June, to increase the size of our armed forced and to provide new equipment.

In the area of children, there is no more important commitment than those that we make to our children. Last summer, our government, under the leadership of our minister, made a commitment to work with the provinces and territories to build the foundations for a high quality, universally inclusive, accessible early learning and child care initiative.

With other important elements, like the Canada child tax benefit, the head start program and the 2003 multilateral framework already in place, the government will invest $5 billion over five years to introduce a national early learning and child care initiative, a truly national child care system that is based on quality and universality that has been talked about for many years. The budget delivers on our campaign commitment.

The next area is seniors. The guaranteed income supplement provides low income seniors a basic level of income through their retirement years. Our government will invest $2.7 billion into seniors, and this commitment will be fully in place in less than two years, not five. I, and many caucus colleagues, am delighted with that change. The maximum GIS will go up by more than $400 per year for a single senior and $700 for a couple.

The next area is caregivers and people with disabilities. Many families across Canada today are struggling to care for elderly parents or for children with disabilities. I know what it is like to provide care for loved ones who are ill. Investing in caregivers recognizes the tremendous burden that caregivers take off our health care system and take on themselves. Support for caregivers recognizes their contribution and the value they provide to everyone.

For caregivers, the demands on caring for a loved one can be overwhelming and difficult and the costs significant. In budget 2004 our government provided those who provide such care to claim up to $5,000 of medical and disability related expenses. With this budget the government will double that amount to $10,000 starting this tax year.

The amount of the child disability benefits starting this year will be raised from $1,700 to $2,000. With this, support for families with children with disabilities will be five times higher than it was at the beginning of this decade.

The finance minister mentioned yesterday that we are a country that looks after each other, but we are also a country that understands the challenges of chronic poverty throughout the world. We have a duty to reach out to help others who suffer unimaginable challenges, not just in the present moment in Asia, but throughout the developing world.

I am proud of the work of our Minister of International Cooperation, a visible example to the world of our country's compassion and commitment to help the developing world.

Canada's commitment to international aid will increase by $3.4 billion over the next five years and will ensure that Canada continues to meet its global responsibilities, including aid to Africa, debt relief initiatives for the world's poorest countries and support for immediate humanitarian responses.

I think all new members come to this place with the same intent, and that is to make their communities better, to make a difference and, in doing so, to make our country stronger. The budget does make things better, better for Canada and better for the people in my riding of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

I, along with my Liberal colleagues, campaigned last year on the need to improve health care; to reinvest in the military; to build a national, high quality, accessible child care system; and to support seniors and family caregivers.

I have spoken to these needs in the House and to my caucus colleagues, including the finance minister. I have spoken to and advanced the cause of our Coast Guard. I have spoken to the need to increase international development and investments in technology and innovation. Those needs have been met. We have been able to meet these commitments because the government put the finances of this country back on a solid footing and our fiscal record is unequalled in the G-8.

I am convinced that the measures and investments taken in the budget will have a tremendous impact for years to come. This is why I wanted to come to this place, why I wanted to serve, why I am here and why I am proud of the budget and proud to be a member of this government.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Mr. Speaker, I should caution Liberal members that what they have come up with as far as getting some more money into seniors' pockets, they should not exactly feel like Santa Claus. In reality, the amount works out to about 33¢ a day, but they will have to wait two years to reach that high plateau. I am sure this 33¢ a day to a senior living on, let us say a very basic income of $10,000 or under, already well below the poverty line, will be thrilled with all the extra groceries they can buy with that kind of very generous gift from the Liberals.

I did not see anything in the budget about restructuring the infrastructure programs to address, particularly in rural communities, small communities that have no tax base in order to come up with the general one-third of the infrastructure programs that are available. Nothing in the budget addressed that despite the government being called on to rework that so smaller communities could take advantage of it. Maybe the parliamentary secretary could tell me if that is in the budget because I could not see it, or if smaller communities can expect a change so that they can participate sooner than later.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

Michael John Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Mr. Speaker, let me address the issue of seniors. The $400 for an individual senior and $700 for a couple is no small amount of money. I have spoken to seniors in my area and they are very grateful that the government recognizes the contribution they have made and that it is taking steps to make their lives more comfortable. However that is not all we have done for seniors in the budget.

We have also introduced a seniors' secretariat that will give seniors a special role and voice at the cabinet table. For New Horizons for Seniors, the funding of $10 million has now been more than doubled to $25 million. On top of that, the $10,000 personal exemption applies to all Canadians. Seniors more than anybody appreciate the investments in health care that the government has put forward: $41 billion over the next 10 years to secure our foundations. Seniors need health care and they appreciate the efforts of the government.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, one thing that this budget failed dramatically to address was the nation's failure to provide treatment to those children who are suffering with autism.

We have a Prime Minister who rails that he will solve the health care problem for a generation. Meanwhile, this budget did absolutely nothing to address the very serious concern that there are children in this country with autism for whom basic ABA treatment is not provided, leaving families to cover this essential medical requirement to the tune of as much as $50,000 or $60,000 per year. This is unacceptable in a democracy that purports to support the universality of health care under a government that claims to be its defender.

Why has the government continued to fail to provide basic treatment to those children who are suffering with autism?

The BudgetGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

Michael John Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the passion of the member opposite. The fact is that the government has done a number of things that should help families with autistic children. I certainly have a number of good friends, including my good friend, the former leader of the Liberal Party in Nova Scotia, who have been very active on this issue.

One of the things that the government has done over the past few years is dramatically increase medical research so that many ailments of children, including juvenile diabetes and others, get the attention they deserve.

The increase in medical deduction expenses is significant. There is no question that we need to do more for children, a lot of which the provincial governments as well have to step up to the plate on. With $41 billion for health care over the next 10 years I think some provincial governments could do something for children with autism.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today in Parliament to respond to the budget delivered so eloquently by our finance minister yesterday. I want to congratulate everyone who worked so hard to present such an action oriented, thoughtful budget that embodies so well the changing requirements of Canada.

This is an eloquent budget for Canadians, whatever their situation, whether they have young children, work in a company, or run a small or medium business, whether they are health care professionals, work in research and development or in technology, or whether they are concerned about the environment. This budget responds to the needs of seniors, in particular, and to our housing infrastructure needs. This budget responds to their needs.

This budget contains three major messages. First, Canadians know that the government keeps its word; second, our government has a vision for the future; and third, our government has a role to play with confidence on the international stage, one that we will play with pride and dignity.

In the time that I have I will deal with four main areas of the budget: seniors; workforce integration of newcomers; regional investments; and, if time allows, global responsibilities.

In my riding of Laval—Les Îles, there are over 27,000 persons between the ages of 65 and 74. More than 15,000 are women, 13,000 others are over age 75, and a little more than 3,000 are over 85. Only 920 of these people are men, unfortunately.

Today, the Province of Quebec as well as Toronto and Vancouver are among the regions with the largest populations of seniors. Not so long ago, in 1991, 92% of persons aged 65 and over lived in their own residence and 28% lived alone, as opposed to 8% of people between ages 15 and 64. These figures have not changed very much. As the finance minister said, women make up a large proportion of the elderly.

The seniors in my riding will be satisfied with this budget. The increase of $2.7 billion over five years in the guaranteed income supplement far exceeds the $1.5 billion promised for the same period. In all, 1.6 million seniors who are now receiving guaranteed income supplement benefits will benefit from this increase, including the 50,000 or so who will soon qualify for it. Our government takes care of the million elderly who are receiving the guaranteed income supplement and who will benefit from the 2005 budget.

The report of the Liberal Task Force on Seniors, tabled in February 2004, called for the creation of a ministry dedicated solely to seniors. Our government has responded. I want to say to that unidentified individual who appeared before the Task Force that the government is taking “a leadership role in developing a comprehensive integrated approach to today's and tomorrow's seniors”. That is a quote from page 9 of the report.

The government is assuming its responsibilities and responding to the task force's request by creating the new National Seniors' Secretariat, which comes with a commitment of $13 billion over five years.

It means that with the establishment of this secretariat within the Department of Social Development Canada, seniors' organizations will no longer have to deal with a maze of different avenues when it comes to dealing with seniors' related policies. This secretariat will be equipped to promote better coordination of government programs and services that matter to seniors. It will also serve as a focal point for collaborative efforts with provincial, territorial and municipal partners.

I would like to add that I am very pleased the interventions I have made with the minister for a very long time have finally paid off.

While seniors are a growing population, the reality is that our workforce needs far outstrip the supply. Statistics Canada continues to tell us that if we do not pay attention we will have a society that cannot meet its labour force demands. If that happens, regardless of what we do as a government, productivity will suffer, services will suffer and our capacity to play any significant role on the world stage to have a robust economy will be diminished. Our birth rate is still below replacement value at approximately 1.2 persons per couple.

That is why our labour force today, and in the foreseeable future, will depend on the skills of immigrants. Newcomers have told the government that they need to be even better equipped to work within Canadian institutions and begin to put their skills to real use in their new home, Canada.

This is what the government did in its 2005 budget. Thanks to a $398 billion investment to improve the settlement and integration programs and the client services for newcomers to Canada, we will have a workforce that can meet the needs of our prosperous economy. This includes investing $125 million over three years for the next programs, the workplace skills strategy and $30 million more over three years as well for literacy.

This government has a vision. Even the leader of the Conservative Party seemed to agree with what the Minister of Finance had to say.

He said that he did not see anything in this budget that would warrant two elections inside a year.

Yes, part of our vision as a government is our determination and commitment to developing people skills, human capital after all, because it is among the cornerstones of the Government of Canada's economic and social policy.

As a country, we cannot on the one hand welcome skilled immigrants, bring them into this country since we need their skills, and then leave them to fend for themselves. As devoted as they may be to Canada, they will not stay.

We need to encourage that workforce to be as skilled as possible. We need an inclusive workforce. One of the ways we can continue to attract and retain skilled immigrants is by helping them to adapt to their environment. We must give them the support they need because Canada benefits. The $398 million will go a long way to making that happen.

Part of our workforce integration strategy for newcomers will include the recognition that foreign trade professionals are a skilled group of people whose talents are being wasted. This is at a time when Canadians across the country are complaining about how difficult it is for example to find a family doctor. Those doctors that we have are overworked and are about to retire without a more cohesive replacement strategy in place.

Part of our government's vision to meet the increasing health care needs is to more effectively and quickly assist internationally trained health care professionals who have trained outside Canada with a $75 million infusion over five years to strengthen health care under the 10 year plan, and to accelerate and expand their assessment and integration. Evaluation of their skills, knowledge, language proficiency and prior learning activities will be more effectively carried out.

Investing in the regional economies of this country is a major priority for this government. In his first Speech from the Throne in 2004, repeated in the 2004 budget, our Prime Minister made a commitment to work together with municipalities in order to create and strengthen inter-governmental partnerships, while complying with the respective jurisdictions. This is the only way to channel the national priorities and the objectives in the cities and communities of Canada.

Like rivers that flow to the ocean, the regions are part of a greater whole. We cannot allow ourselves as a government to be shortsighted, because it is only collectively that we can achieve our objectives.

Part of those first steps called for a 57.1% GST rebate. This has been increased to a full 100% which means municipalities will receive more than $7 billion over the next 10 years to help them fund much needed infrastructure projects such as roads, transit and clean water.

Tomorrow starts today because economic development in the Quebec region will benefit since the government will also be investing more than $300 million over the next five years to support the region.

What does this actually mean per capita in real dollars? It means economic development in the region will be supported by $221.5 million or $44.3 million per year and will become a permanent increase to Quebec's community economic development budget. Local economic development among small and medium sized enterprises can then be supported by the Quebec agency.

By means of the community development program—

The BudgetGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I am sorry that I must interrupt the hon. member for Laval—Les Îles but the hon. member for Cambridge has the floor.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's speech on the budget. The member refers to the fact that this budget is allowing a $75 million infusion into helping increase or improve the apprenticeship and accreditation process for medical doctors. Does the member realize that $75 million over five years is really only $15 million a year?

Given the fact that many municipalities, clearly my own municipality and those in the Greater Toronto Area, are spending millions of dollars already trying to find doctors, does the hon. member actually believe that $15 million a year is going to solve anything?

The BudgetGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC

Mr. Speaker, my answer to the hon. member's question would be to say that, first, the Government of Canada is not the only partner in this undertaking. We must not forget that the provinces are the leading partners, if I may say, in this program. Second, in regard to doctors in particular, the medical associations all across Canada are also extremely important partners.

I would like to add that more of our doctors graduated abroad than in Canada.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Myron Thompson Conservative Wild Rose, AB

Mr. Speaker, I know there are other questioners, so I will be as brief as possible. I did not appreciate the speech. I never appreciate canned Liberal speeches. It really bothers me because what words I did hear come out of this speech did not make any reference whatsoever to one particular situation that is being ignored.

By the end of February, there will be many foreclosures on farms. I do not know how many for sure. The family farm will be shut down. By the end of March, there will be hundreds and hundreds more that will be shut down. There will be all kinds of problems developing because the banks have just been waiting for a budget that will give the farmers some relief in some way or another to get out of the mess that they are in. Obviously, this Liberal government does not seem to care about agriculture. No one is talking about it in their canned speeches.

I am really disgusted that a government should be allowed to sit back and allow farmers to crash and burn. That is exactly what will happen.

Why is the Liberal government not addressing this major crisis? This is a crisis. This is not only a little bit of a problem now. It is a crisis. I can yell as loud as I want, but idiots will not hear what I say. Listen to me closely, what are you going to do for the farmer? You have not done anything in this budget--

The BudgetGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I remind the hon. member to address his comments through the Chair.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC

Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the term “canned speeches”. I think the tradition in this House has always been to be respectful of other members. I ask from the member the same respect that I would give him if he were to make a speech. This is a speech that I have written in response to what I think will interest the constituency that I represent here in the House of Commons, which is Laval—Les Îles.

Fortunately or unfortunately, Laval—Les Îles is a suburban riding. We do not have farms. I could not in a 10 minute speech cover all--

The BudgetGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Myron Thompson Conservative Wild Rose, AB

Do they eat in your riding?

The BudgetGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC

Mr. Speaker, I ask the member to be quiet, so that I can continue my speech.

My suburban riding is interested. We have seniors, and small and medium size businesses. These are people who are interested in the kind of speech I gave. This is the information that I wanted to give them.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Mr. Speaker, I did not get an answer from the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour to my infrastructure question.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance was sitting right beside the member who just spoke, so perhaps he can help her. Once again, is there anything in this budget that is going to assist small communities that do not have a tax base that has prevented them for taking part in the infrastructure programs, where they cannot come up with their one-third share as per the normal process? Is there something in the budget that will address this? Please answer yes or no.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming a tradition on the other side of the House to insult the members on this side. However, I will disregard my feelings.

A budget normally does not go into a great deal of detail. It gives the large orientation of the government in terms of how much money will be spent on programs. I would like to add that in terms of what is called in French “les collectivités”, let us not forget that the provincial governments are responsible for these collectivities and that they are an extremely important partner for the federal government.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, never before have I risen in this place to speak to a budget as terrible as the one brought down yesterday by the Liberal government. None of the priorities of Quebeckers are addressed in this budget. Quebec has been totally ignored.

Take the fiscal imbalance for example; if there is one issue on which there is a consensus in Quebec, it is fiscal imbalance. Yesterday morning, newspapers reported that a survey showed that nearly 80% of Quebeckers agreed that there was a problem of fiscal imbalance and that it should be resolved. This is not some abstract concept. The people of Quebec fully understand that.

Because of the fiscal imbalance, post-secondary education, among others, is underfunded. Health is also underfunded, in spite of the accord signed in September, whereby the federal government was to increase its participation to 25% of the total over the next four years. In the early days of the program, the federal participation was 50%. There is such pressure on the health care system that, over the next few years, the Government of Quebec will have to be very shrewd in finding the money necessary to respond to the real needs of Quebeckers.

As for post-secondary education, the system is crumbling. Why? Because the federal government's contribution has dropped from 50% to approximately 12% today. The post-secondary education system cannot be properly funded with the federal government not taking its responsibilities. There is no answer in this budget in terms of increasing the federal participation through transfers for post-secondary education in particular.

More shocking yet, a few years ago, the Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec informed me that the federal government had the nerve to collect tax on the grants students receive from the Government of Quebec. We have been fighting against that for years. Not only is the federal government continuing to fail to take its responsibilities with respect to transfers for post-secondary education, but it is also taxing student grants from the Government of Quebec.

In 1996, the current Prime Minister, when he was the finance minister, changed how transfer amounts were calculated, moving from the needs of the provinces to a per capita basis. Since 1994, because the amounts paid in 1994 were indexed, Quebec has lost more than $14 billion in federal funding.

They have the nerve to say that with the increases in federal transfers we are back at 1994 levels. That is, the non-indexed 1994 level. We are back at the same level as in 1994, but in the meantime there has been a general increase in the cost of health and education. We are not at the same level. Some $14 billion in total is missing from the kitty and $1.2 billion a year, if we really want to go back to the same indexed level as the transfers that existed in 1994.

We are dealing with a situation—and that is the fiscal imbalance—whereby too much money goes into the federal government's coffers in relation to its responsibilities and not enough money goes to the coffers of the Government of Quebec in relation to its basic responsibilities in health, post-secondary education and social assistance.

Even with the agreements on health and equalization, when we calculate what the fiscal imbalance costs the Government of Quebec each year, we are talking about $2.3 billion. We are not talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, but a $2.3 billion shortfall every year. This would not be the case if the fiscal imbalance were resolved.

I was listening to the parliamentary secretary this morning—the Prime Minister is just as guilty of this and the Minister of Finance even more so—deny the very existence of the fiscal imbalance. I would remind him that we currently have a House of Commons special committee, which I am proud to chair, with a mandate to prepare a report on resolving the fiscal imbalance by June 2. It is in the Speech from the Throne and they agreed to it. This issue is addressed in the Speech from the Throne.

The special committee began its work in Halifax last week. It will be in Toronto next week and Quebec City on April 11. Judging by the high turnout and the popularity of the hearings, I would suggest that people are coming out to have a say on the fiscal imbalance precisely because it does exist.

If there were no fiscal imbalance, this special committee would not attract as many witnesses. The Liberals are the only ones not acknowledging that there is a problem, and not a new problem. It was recognized by Mr. Pearson in 1964. He transferred tax points to those provinces who wanted to take advantage of them, particularly for educational funding. Then, in 1971, came the Victoria conference. Only the Liberal government does not understand that huge surpluses are accumulating at this time in the federal coffers. According to our assessment, and those of the Conference Board of Canada and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives , $10 billion in surplus funds is going to accumulate yearly in the federal government's coffers. This government does not seem to get it: there is too much money in its coffers and not enough in the provincial coffers.

Ontario recorded a $10 billion deficit last year. Next year, Quebec is headed for a deficit estimated at around $1.5 billion to $2 billion. There is a problem somewhere. The single taxpayer is paying too much to Ottawa and then having to face the consequences of Quebec not having the proper resources to provide basic services such as health care, post-secondary education and help for disadvantaged families.

Employment insurance is another priority for Quebeckers, and probably for Canadians as well. In the past three elections, the present Prime Minister, and then finance minister, kept promising us in-depth reforms. He travelled to the regions and when things began to heat up a bit—I remember one instance in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean—he said “No need to get upset, we are going to fix the problem. We are going to overhaul the program.” When the next election came along, the same thing happened. When things began to heat up a bit, he repeated the same promise—since the PM is a bit of a chicken, as well as being a ditherer. In the last election campaign, there he was again saying: “Don't worry, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities has provided us with not one, but two unanimous reports, including the Liberal members of the committee—one wonders if they are sticking to their convictions—and we are going to solve the problem.”

We are now at the budget, a few months after the election campaign, and we find ourselves with a so-called reform of employment insurance, which is getting $300 million for seasonal workers in the most affected regions. That is seven one-thousandths of the surplus that the Prime Minister, when he was finance minister, stole from the employment insurance fund, the contributions of employers and employees. He comes to tell us that the unemployed will be satisfied with this injection of $300 million.

I was listening to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and the lieutenant of the Liberal government and Minister of Transport say: “The unemployed will be happy. This is great. The unemployed will think this is great.” I invite them to tour the regions with us to see if it is all that great. I think they will have a great reception, but not in the way they think.

This reform was supposed to ensure—and this had the unanimous support of the House, coming from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities—that the number of hours needed to access employment insurance was reduced to 360, that the number of weeks of benefits was increased, and that benefits were higher for all workers. Instead of that, we have a general, short-term pilot project. Nothing has been resolved. Since they say it is great for the unemployed, I am eager to see the reactions in the next few days.

Furthermore, they say it is marvellous, because there is going to be a commission independent of the government. That is a smokescreen: government members will be sitting on that commission. What is more, they tell us in the budget that they have set the premium rate at $1.95 for a long period of time. It was supposed to be $1.92, but they kept 3¢ more to finance their second-rate $300-million initiative. So what is the commission going to decide? Nothing, because it is already decided. If it ever decides something one day, the government will be party to that decision. What is more, the Liberal government reserves the right to overturn that decision by the commission. Hurray for the independent commission. No independent commission would prevent the government from cheerfully dipping into the employment insurance fund surpluses, and they expect us to believe that a miracle has come to pass with this remarkable initiative.

As for parental leave, in the second week of the election campaign the Prime Minister was telling us: “It's done. Don't worry: the day after the election there will be no more talk about it, because it will be resolved”. Well it is still not resolved. It is not resolved in this budget.

For years young parents in Quebec, men and women, have been waiting for the Quebec system, which depends on a transfer from the federal government's EI fund. People in Quebec are entitled to ask for this. It is a transfer to fund this initiative.

Young parents have been waiting for years for a system that would cover men and women who are self-employed. For years people and parents have been waiting to get out of this horrible federal parental leave system which depends on the employment insurance regime. Just think: the government values families so much that when young parents decide to have a child, they are given a two week penalty because they are subject to the Employment Insurance Act. What a way to value families.

People expected this to be taken care of. On the other side, the compliant Liberal members from Quebec, tell us. “It will be taken care of. Be patient, be patient.” They have been telling us that for years about employment insurance and parental leave. Where are they? They applaud. They stand to applaud a budget that completely ignores the priorities of Quebeckers. The Liberal members from Quebec, who were cut way back in the last election campaign, rise to applaud, even though none of these Quebec priorities are in the budget. It is appalling. We will make them pay one day, even more than they paid last June 28.

Insofar as day care is concerned, you should have heard them. For six months it has been unbelievable. They are full of praise for Quebec. They say, “The Quebec day care system is the most progressive in the world. We are going to copy your system,” and so forth. All the while, Quebeckers alone have been paying for the day care system in Quebec. For more than five years now, Quebeckers alone no longer benefit from the federal tax credits and tax deductions that they used to have when children went to day care for $35 a day. Now it is $7 and there are tax losses. The federal government has never wanted to acknowledge these losses. It has never wanted to correct these losses, while in Quebec, parents have lost more than $1 billion over five years in federal tax deductions and tax credits because the government does not want to correct the tax system to take into account this progressive policy, which they praise to the skies.

In this budget, for the first year there is no problem, because $700 million will be in trust. The provinces will be able to go and get this money. Nevertheless, what happens the second year will be a problem because, in later years, national standards will be applied. Criteria for the transfer of funds will be applied to the provinces. From the mouth of the Prime Minister himself during the election campaign, we heard it was to be an unconditional transfer, because Quebec had already established its $5 and $7 day care system—five years ago. However, that is not the case anymore. According to the budget, conditions and criteria will have to be negotiated. Quebec will have to give in, as they tried to make it give in regarding health, which is under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction, as they tried to make it give in last September when they negotiated the health agreement and the transfers of funds involved.

With respect to social housing, the government's attitude is detestable. I remember clearly that, during the election campaign the Prime Minister met with members of FRAPRU, the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain. He met them in front of the cameras. He wanted to show that, even though he had ships in the Caribbean, even though he did not pay income tax in Canada, even though he and his Canada Steamship Lines completely ignored labour and environmental laws, he was someone with his hand on his heart, left leaning, progressive. He promised the people that he was going to care about social housing for the most disadvantaged in our society and that he would fix the problem. In the first budget of the minority Liberal government, there is nothing about social housing. It is a big fat zero. That is so horrible. It is enough to make one lose faith in politics. People may well be fed up with politicians, because they never keep their promises. The Liberals lie shamelessly when it is time to win seats, when they are on the ropes and at risk of losing power. It is disgusting to offer things like that and win an election, as the Liberals did, on false promises.

Agriculture is another priority for Quebec. This is the worst crisis agriculture has faced in 25 years, and there is no significant federal contribution to resolve this crisis.

As for international assistance, we can talk about it. At the current rate, and including the amounts provided in yesterday's budget, five years from now, it will have reached 0.3% of GDP, with only four years left to reach 0.7% of GDP. At this rate, we will never reach the target set by the UN. It is smoke and mirrors to say that spending in this area is increasing and that the UN target will be met.

I need not list tax reductions, since there were none. Approximately $1.33 a month per family, starting in 2006, the cost of a litre of milk every month. Still, they speak of incredible tax breaks and paying attention to the people.

This budget does not in any way meet the priorities of Quebeckers. Every year, we taxpayers in Quebec send more than $40 billion in taxes to the federal government. It is time to wake up. Consensus and priorities are developing in Quebec. These priorities are tested and expressed by the National Assembly, often through unanimous motions. When the time comes for action to be taken in the House of Commons, Quebec is ignored, for purely electoral reasons. Quebec lieutenants are sent to tell us that this is a good budget, which serves Quebeckers well. It is despicable to operate only with a view to being elected.

Listen to this. Over the next three years, year in, year out, the federal government will have a surplus in excess of $10 billion in its coffers. It is stashing this money away with a view to elections. Whenever he decides to call an election, the Prime Minister will have enough surplus money on hand to give out gifts, win the election, and have a majority government again, because it looks like the Conservatives are losing steam. Then, he will find money to invest a little something in health and post-secondary education and to resolve the employment insurance problem to some extent. With an eye to elections, this government, applauded by the federal MPs from Quebec, has decided not to meet any of Quebec's priorities.

During that time, patients are lined up on stretchers, despite the accord signed in September; students are not receiving the services and quality of education they are entitled to, because education is underfunded; individuals among the most disadvantaged are sleeping on the streets or have to spend more than 50% of their income on housing and are left with less than 50% to cover basic needs like food and winter clothes for their children.

It is for election purposes that such a crummy budget was brought down, so crummy that Quebec is being given short shrift, in every one of its priorities.

I would like to conclude by pointing out that yesterday, when I saw the Liberal government presenting a budget that totally ignores Quebec's priorities and consensus, when I saw the official opposition on their feet applauding the budget, I understood one thing as a Quebecker, and I hope that all Quebeckers understood the same thing: this country is made up of two countries, and as far as Quebeckers are concerned, there is one too many.

If $40 billion in tax dollars had been handed back to Quebec years ago, we would have remedied fiscal imbalance a long time ago. There would be only one level of government so there would be no more fiscal imbalance. The parental leave issue would have been long settled, as would all the problems with EI. All of the priorities and all of the consensuses reached in our National Assembly would have been implemented. We would not be waiting for anyone else to act. We would not be the victims of election-focussed calculations by the Liberal government. We would be taking the right steps to become one of the most prosperous countries in the world.

I hope that the people of Quebec have finally got the message. In the days to come we will be expressing other reactions to the budget. I can guarantee that the Liberals will pay, like the Conservatives and that Quebec is, even more than ever, a distinct society, a distinct people capable of looking after itself.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place among all parties in the House and I wish to seek, pursuant to that, unanimous consent to table the 29th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concerning committee membership.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Does the hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell have the unanimous consent of the House?

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Pursuant to Standing Order 113(1) the report is deemed adopted.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. He is an experienced and skilled debater. I could not possibly address all the points that he articulated so well. However, I did want to ask him about the issue of social housing. He did indicate that there was nothing in the budget on the social housing side.

By way of background, I am aware of a federal study dealing with homelessness in the City of Toronto in which it was found that 35% of the homeless suffered from mental illness, 28% were youth alienated from their families, 12% were aboriginals off reserve, 10% were abused women, and the other 10% or 15% were people with other physical, mental or social problems. In regard to people who need social housing, like the homeless, this turns out to be more a social problem than an economic one.

Affordable housing is another issue. I know that the Government of Canada does invest in affordable housing, so I would ask the member if he could help to articulate what should be done on the affordable housing side, but also, how do we specifically address the social problems with regard to social housing?