Debates of May 15th, 2006

Budget Implementation Act, 2006

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member. In the time I have been listening to this debate in the House, he is one of the few members to have linked the strategic part of the budget that either will nurture and cultivate manufacturing jobs and high value activity or it will not. The member quite frankly has come down on the side that it will not.

We all understand that Ontario, particularly the part of Ontario that the member comes from, is a catalyst to creating equalization that is being redistributed to the rest of the country. The manufacturing base is fundamental to that.

I wonder if the member could further elaborate on how the budget has not acted as that catalyst, particularly for the transportation and engineering sectors that he knows so well. Perhaps he would like to take a moment to emphasize how strategically unprogressive this budget is in acting as a catalyst to investing in the transportation sector.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is really important not to underestimate the value of sectoral strategies in transportation and the environment. Coming from my area with regard to auto manufacturing we know that if we can advance newer technologies onto the road quicker, we are going to significantly improve our air quality as well as maintain investment in jobs that are very significant in enabling people to purchase homes, send children to school, contribute to the United Way. All that is at risk.

What is worse is that by not moving this technology to manufacturing in our own country, we are witnessing other countries doing that. For example, in China and Southeast Asia we are witnessing significant problems with Canadian technology not being moved as quickly as others. That is unfortunate. We have great Canadian success stories but we have to have sectoral strategies. I would argue those strategies should be tied to national goals and national issues. Air quality would be one.

My region has some of the dirtiest air in the country which is tragic because half of it comes from the United States. The other half comes from local industry but what we can control locally is very significant. We should mitigate and lower that. The budget does not do that because it does not have sectoral strategies. That is what is needed to really move stuff from the classroom to the manufacturing shop floor which once again would return payments to Canada's coffers.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the budget, a budget that a lot of Canadians look to as an indication of the type of government that we will receive from the Conservative Party.

Unfortunately, it confirms the concern and worry that many people have about the direction in which our country is heading under the government and, I would say, especially in Atlantic Canada. I say this because Canadians believe we have a responsibility to each other. These cannot just be words. We must demonstrate in real ways our commitment to actions, especially to Canadians who are most in need of a break.

It is a fact that some of our citizens have not reaped the benefits of our collective success as a nation in the past decade or so. That should challenge us to do better. Under previous governments, both Liberal and Progressive Conservative, we have made inroads in social equality and justice.

Today, Canada is a world leader. In fact, the day after the budget the front section of the Globe and Mail had a big banner in the middle which said, “Canada is a World Leader”.

This was not the case some 13 years ago when the consensus was that Canada was an economic basket case. It was clear as a country we could not continue down that path of financial ruin. In the early days of our Liberal mandate in 1993, the new government was confronted with the crippling reality of $40 billion-plus annual deficits and growing debts. It was so dire that one influential American newspaper suggested that Canada was on the brink of financial collapse, in fact, third world status.

Tough decisions had to be made. Those decisions were borne collectively and at times painfully by all Canadians. In retrospect, though, most of those tough policy decisions were right. Today, we have witnessed a tremendous financial dividend off those decisions.

The fiscal decisions of the mid-nineties were made in the national interest. They were decisions that put policy ahead of politics; not easy, but right for the country.

We can compare that to the situation today where politics trumps good public policy. Unlike the Liberals in 1993, the Conservative government took office with the best economy in Canadian history, a vibrant economy with annual surpluses that provide an opportunity to plan for our future prosperity by investing in people and by investing in our social infrastructure.

That is not what government members chose to do, though, with the opportunity presented to them. It could have invested in students, in social programs like child care, in our aboriginal communities or in the environment but it chose not to.

To me, the budget represents a lost opportunity with worse to come. It is a budget that gives too much to the rich at the expense of those who have less. Low and middle income Canadians, as well as students and aboriginals, all of whom were shut out in this era of unprecedented prosperity.

I cannot support a budget that does not invest in real child care and instead, offers a taxable individual benefit that really has not even been targeted to those most in need. The previous government had a plan that would have made a difference in the lives of families across the country and was widely supported by governments of all stripes in Canada. It was a plan that recognized that government has a responsibility to help to provide every child with the opportunity to learn and, for parents who work, we provided an early learning and child care program based on the quad principles which have become so well known in the child care community. A real child care plan involves investing our financial capital in order to enhance our human capital.

The Caledon Institute of social policy indicates, as an example of how wrong this new policy is, that a two earner couple making $30,000 will end up with a net benefit of $199, while a one earner couple making $200,000 will see a net benefit of $1,076. That is unconscionable. It is not in fact a child care plan. It is an allowance that will be disproportionately allocated.

I cannot support a budget that ignores post-secondary education so much and, in particular, students. The budget offer,s as a crowning achievement, an $80 tax reduction on books.

The previous Liberal government invested close to $13 billion in research and innovation in the last decade. We now lead all G-7 countries in per capita investment in university research and these investments have had a huge benefit to our economy, a huge benefit to the development of new technologies and to retaining and attracting top researchers. We have in fact reversed the brain drain.

The issue now is student accessibility. Last November, our government proposed sweeping investments in students in the form of direct assistance. These billions in investments called for extending the Canada access grants from one year to the entire four years of study, targeted toward low income students, those most in need, aboriginal students and persons with disabilities. That economic statement went miles beyond Bill C-48, providing much more for students than Bill C-48 did.

Again, a real plan for students involves investing in our financial capital in order to enhance our human capital.

I also cannot support a budget that makes little mention of the environment. The abandonment goes far beyond Kyoto. It hurts individual Canadians. For example, the EnerGuide program for low income housing was cancelled. This was a $500 million five year program that provided grants to low income Canadians so they could evaluate their houses and make repairs with the goal of conserving energy and reducing their personal energy costs. I do not believe it is fair and I do not believe it is appropriate to cancel that program. Now all of EnerGuide is gone.

What is more galling is that when the government was in opposition it voted for the very legislation that funded EnerGuide for low income families. I think it shameful and it is counterproductive to cancel that.

Again, the day after the budget was presented in this House, the Globe and Mail had a two page spread that broke down the budget. The article argued that in order for Canada to maintain its strong economy there were two key areas of investments: education and the environment. Can anyone guess what was missed out in the budget?

This budget goes in the opposite direction, paying scant attention to education. Its environmental proposals seek to abandon Kyoto while cutting programs like EnerGuide, which is a made in Canada solution and actually works.

Again, it is politics above policy.

Let us have a look at the celebrated GST cut. Jeffrey Simpson, in the Globe and Mail, referred to the Conservative commitment to cut the GST as a $5 billion political bribe. “As politics,” he said, “it's great; as economics, it stinks”.

It was not just him. Herb Grubel, a senior fellow with the Fraser Institute, a former member of this chamber and a former Reform Party finance critic, said:

Cutting the GST rather than business or personal income taxes may be good politics but it is definitely very bad economics.

Andrew Coyne, in the National Post, no friend of the Liberal Party, said:

A Conservative party that was prepared to blow $8.5-billion a year...on such a transparent electoral bribe, sacrificing every principle of sound taxation and severely limiting the chances of major improvements in Canada's productivity in the bargain, would have announced in very clear terms that it was no longer interested in being a party of principle.

In other countries there is a move to tax consumption because it is the most fair way of taxing. New Zealand, for example, has moved from 10.2% of taxes on general consumption as a percentage of GDP to 25.3% in the last quarter century.

The government talked about broad based tax relief. We see in the brochure that touts this budget that a family making less than $15,000 gets a $96 saving and a family making $100,000 to $150,000, which includes everybody in this chamber, saves $1,228. I do not think MPs deserve 12 times as much of a break as somebody struggling to raise their family on $15,000.

This budget misses the mark in two key areas.

First, it is dumb. It is a dumb budget economically, according to all the economics, and it ignores productivity, which we need, in favour of a GST cut.

Second, I would suggest that it is just plain mean. For decades our federal governments, and I am talking Progressive Conservative as well as Liberal, introduced measures to make Canada more equal, more fair and more just, a society that recognizes success but also recognizes our responsibility to those who are disadvantaged.

This budget represents a turning away from that ethic in favour of measures to help those disproportionately better off. The more one has, the more one spends, the more one gets. Average Canadian families do not become the major beneficiary as they should.

I do not dismiss the appearance of benefits to some families but when we examine it we find that more than ever before these budget measures will do nothing for the poor and little for the middle class.

This financial plan for Canada takes us backwards. The GST cut is dead wrong, according to leading economists; ignoring the need to invest in students is a critical mistake; turning back on the environment is a colossal blunder; and abandoning children is hugely misguided.

In short, this budget offers some sizzle but no steak. It invests in the wrong areas, cuts the wrong taxes, assists many of the wrong people and turns back the clock on real progress for Canadians.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's comments on the budget. It is interesting to contrast the start of the new Conservative government in 2006 with the start of the previous government in 1993. I think the sharpest contrast that can be drawn when we juxtaposition the two governments is that we have kept the faith with the public. We have kept the commitments we made during our election campaign.

We campaigned on a platform that we are delivering on in budget 2006. We promised to cut the GST by 1% and budget 2006 delivers on that with a 1% GST cut effective July 1. We promised to implement a universal child care benefit of $1,200 and, effective July 1, budget 2006 delivers that. We promised greater accountability and budget 2006 delivers that by putting in measures to ensure greater transparency in the budgeting process. We promised greater security to protect Canadian communities and cities and budget 2006 delivers on that with additional resources for front line police officers.

Let us contrast this budget with the budget presented in 1993 after the Liberal Party campaigned to eliminate the GST. It broke that promise. In 1993 the Liberals campaigned to scrap the free trade agreement. They broke that promise.

I wonder if the member opposite could comment on the contrast between the start of this new government and the one in 1993 as evidenced in our first budget.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would have to say the most striking difference between the Conservative government coming in and when we took power in 1993 were the conditions we inherited. In 1993 we inherited probably the worst economy in the history of Canada. The Conservatives had wracked up the debt from $200 billion to $500 billion. We had $40 billion annual deficits as opposed to right now where we have handed over the most rosy economy in the history of the country.

A little while ago I asked the minister a question in the House about what the government was going to do for students and he turned around and told me all about the wonderful things that Canada was already doing for students. We did those things. I appreciate his support but I know what we have done. However we need to do more for students now. We were going to do it in the economic statement. We have an opportunity now to do even more to build on the great record of prosperity that we left for the Conservative government. It is a wasted opportunity with worse to come.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while listening to the speeches I was thinking about small businesses as I have a business background.

Canadians have not put their clear trust into the Conservative government. Their trust is conditional. I personally feel that we are here to serve Canadians, whether we believe in their thinking or not.

I was in my riding this past weekend and I was talking to the progressive forces. They personally feel that they have been betrayed, whether it is with respect to the Kelowna agreement, students or the environment. I would like to ask the member to update us on this please.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the most unfair thing about this budget is the way it treats those most in need. The Conservatives even touted this in their brochures. The budget speech was about how great a benefit this will be for people who buy a $350,000 house. I could ask the member for Churchill how many houses in her riding cost $350,000. They talk about the great savings available to families making $150,000. I could ask the member for Cape Breton--Canso how many people in his riding make $150,000.

This is unconscionable at a time when this country needs two things. We need to do more to even out the load among those who have and those who have not. We need to invest in productivity to allow Canada to compete in the global economy with the emerging giants. We have what we need. We just need to put it in the right places. This budget puts it in the wrong places.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that in the early years the Liberal government inherited a difficult situation and had to make very tough decisions. That is undoubtedly true. I remember the then prime minister saying to Canadians that they had to tighten their belts, and they did. The debt was paid over the backs of ordinary Canadians, municipalities, cities and the provinces. They paid. They helped out.

Then a surplus began to accumulate. That surplus was never turned back to ordinary Canadians. It went to subsidies for large corporations. In some years, $1.4 billion in subsidies went to the oil and gas industry.

I am wondering if the hon. member feels that this was a sensitive way of helping ordinary Canadians deal with the very serious issues they were facing with these six years of record surpluses that the Liberals acquired.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Liberal government had to make tough decisions, not only here but in the provinces as well, which faced difficult times.

I am proud of the fact that when this country started to produce surpluses the Liberal government had the largest tax reduction in the history of Canada. I think it was a reduction of $100 billion in 2000-01. We introduced the child tax benefit, millennium scholarships, Canada access grants and learning bonds. When Liberals had the money, we identified that it should go back to the people who needed it most, to ordinary Canadians, low income Canadians, students and people who needed assistance. I am proud of that record.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-13, which is, of course, the act to implement the budget that has caused so much consternation here in the House and across Canada.

This debate gives us a chance to reiterate our concerns with the budget and another opportunity to find a way to convince these Conservatives to change their ways and to start listening to Canadians. By all accounts from far and wide in this country, the Conservative government blew it. The Conservatives had an opportunity to invest in Canada, to start ensuring that we were rebuilding this country after 10 years of neglect by the Liberals, and they abandoned that opportunity. They blew it. They lost it.

[Merv Tweed]

Thirteen years.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

My colleague from Brandon--Souris has just reminded me that it was 13 years ago that the Liberals came into power. He is quite right. It is 13 years of neglect that we are trying to overcome.

I just wish that he and his colleagues on the Conservative benches had found the courage and the wherewithal to address the weaknesses from the Liberal government and to restore the necessary elements that create strong communities and a strong country.

Unfortunately, they did not do it. They chose instead to once again follow the Liberal path of investing in areas that help big business and the wealthiest in this country. They chose to neglect hard-working Canadians who spend day and night sustaining themselves and their families, contributing to their communities, volunteering at hockey rinks and church bazaars, walking on safety patrols and helping people in need.

They looked to the government for some recognition of that contribution, some way to ensure that the path is a little brighter, that the future is a little clearer for themselves and their children, and they got none of that in this budget.

What did Canadians get? They got exactly what the Liberals have been delivering for 13 years.

On the one hand, it is an approach that has no balance in terms of fiscal policy. Rather than ensuring some money go against the debt, some money in terms of progressive tax relief and some money in terms of investment, what did we get? We got what the Liberals have always done, which is to not come clean with Canadians about the surplus and thereby dump a whole pile of it against the debt, without regard for the kind of economic growth that would have come from that investment, and to give a huge amount in tax breaks to corporations.

This time it was $7 billion worth. If we take the $5 billion of extra money that they threw against the debt, because with all of their resources they could not figure out how to invest that money that would create jobs and grow the economy, plus the $7 billion in tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy, many of the issues that we raise each and every day in this House would have been addressed in some significant way. If the Conservatives do not want to listen to the words of members in this House, maybe they will listen to some of the people who write and call, day in and day out. I want to reference just a couple.

The first one actually is a letter from a school in your constituency, Mr. Speaker. It is from the student council of Murdoch MacKay high school. A group of students involved in a Make Poverty History conference last year decided to keep fighting, to make their voices heard and to try to get through to the government. The students wrote a letter to the Prime Minister on April 24 and said the following:

As a group of caring and concerned students who have recently become aware of the issue of poverty in Canada and the world, we have organized a poster campaign, an educational trivia contest and a food drive for a local food bank in our community. We fully support the Make Poverty History campaign that has gained momentum throughout the past year and wish to see our federal government take action to eradicate poverty.

That is an incredible voice. It is an incredible impetus for the government. Those are the voices of ordinary Canadians. They are the voices of the future of this land, the voices of young people active in their student council and wanting this country to be a model for the whole world, an example of caring and compassion for the whole world to see.

Another letter, similar to the last one, comes from a constituent of mine by the name of Jacob Blondahl, who lives right in the heart of Winnipeg North on Main Street. He writes to the finance minister:

I'm writing to call on you to make ending poverty at home and abroad a priority in your first Federal Budget. Over 1.2 billion people live in abject poverty. Every day, 50,000 people die from poverty-related causes and more than 800 million people go to bed hungry every night.

In the upcoming budget, your government should acknowledge the international target for aid spending of 0.7%--

He said that the government should act to keep the commitments made in the last election.

Let me give the example of a family in my constituency that has had to come to grips with this supposedly great benefit the Conservatives have given to families through a child allowance in the name of a child care program. Let me show how the family is going to suffer as a result of it. The breakdown this family gives is as follows. The annual family allowance is $1,200. Less income tax it is $838. Minus a benefit clawback, it drops to $448. Finally, minus the young child supplement. it goes to $199. The total is $199 per year, less than a dollar a day. That is the great benefit and the great program that the Conservatives have brought to us in the name of a progressive child care policy.

I think constituents say it all and I think these are the voices that the Conservative government ought to be listening to.

The government has been obsessed with accelerated debt reduction and tax cuts, as I have mentioned. We are no further ahead for it. We are simply going to have a continuation of the kind of direction this country has gone as a result of Liberal policies.

Let me say that if we take this kind of policy down to the grassroots level, down to a constituency such as Winnipeg North, we will see that constituents, ordinary people, are not rejoicing in this budget. They are not rejoicing because they are going to feel the effects of this lost opportunity in their lives and the lives of their children for years to come.

Winnipeg North is probably one of the most economically disadvantaged constituencies in Canada. It is hard for many folks to make ends meet. A disproportionate number live on low incomes. Many hold down several jobs. It has a rich cultural mix, including first and second generation immigrant and urban aboriginal populations, and everyone is working hard to build a stronger community. They are striving to make their lives and the lives of their neighbours better.

Despite this, as we all know, the gap between the rich and the poor is growing. Despite hard work, these constituents of mine are not benefiting. They are not finding it easier to make ends meet. They are not able to feel good about what they are able to provide for their families.

Let me give a couple of examples of this. There is the question of housing in a constituency such as Winnipeg North, which is at a very difficult stage in terms of older housing in need of repair, housing that has suffered at the hands of a federal government that has taken away all the means of support, all avenues for assistance, after the government abandoned housing as a policy back some 13 years ago.

Since then, this patchwork of programs has not made the kind of difference that is required. Since then, housing has deteriorated even further. Let me look at this specifically from the point of view of off reserve aboriginal housing, because in fact, my constituency is home to a number of aboriginal constituents who are tackling the need for affordable housing.

Let me conclude by mentioning that there was a very recent study called “An Examination of Hidden Homelessness among Aboriginal Peoples in Prairie Cities”. It examined the lack of affordable housing for aboriginals. The study found that thousands of people drift from shelter to boarding house, from borrowed couch to homeless mission. Let me read for members four of statistics from the report. Five thousand people live in rooming houses in Winnipeg, 1,000 people live in hotels in downtown Winnipeg, and 2,330 aboriginal families are waiting for housing in Winnipeg. Forty-five per cent of participants have moved more than three times in the past six months. Fifty-five per cent of people earn $10,000 or less annually and 19.8% of the people have no income.

The list goes on and on. We have a difficult and very needy situation in Winnipeg. The government has abandoned its role in terms of housing. The Conservative government did not address it other than to implement the NDP addition to last year's Liberal budget.

This is an area that needs investment that will have all kinds of spinoff benefits for this country. I urge the government to finally come to grips with what it means to be relevant to families that work hard and want to make a contribution to this country.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the government obviously agrees that more needs to be done for Canadians who are disadvantaged. That is why over 600,000 Canadians are going to be removed from the tax rolls in this budget.

I think the member would agree that there are some honest disagreements and philosophies between the two governments. This government was elected on certain principles and promises and, in fact, this budget fulfills those promises. One of those promises was to deal with pandemics. This budget puts $1 billion toward pandemic preparedness. As the member knows, the virology lab is in Winnipeg, a city that the member and I share.

There is also a substantial investment in cancer control. There is $260 million for the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control, a motion that the NDP supported in the last Parliament and the previous government refused to fully fund and implement.

I wonder if the member would agree that the investments in pandemics and cancer control are good investments and something the previous government refused to do. Or, is the member's party changing its position on the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control and pandemic preparedness?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question, and the member knows this, that the members of the New Democratic Party in the past have called for public investment in cancer prevention and treatment strategies. We certainly appreciate the steps that the government has taken in that direction.

The New Democratic Party has also called for a significant investment in the virology lab in Winnipeg to ensure that it can continue to be an internationally recognized centre for responsiveness in the case of an emergency or a pandemic. However, what the member is missing is the epidemic, the serious critical crises that exist right now on the streets of Winnipeg, and the government is either totally blind or negligent.

I do not know, after I have just talked about poverty in our midst, how the member can ignore that fact. The member cannot even respond to the fact that 52% of aboriginal families indicate they live in crowded conditions in Winnipeg. There are people living in temporary hotels, hostels, and on the streets. People cannot get a decent meal. The member wants to ignore that situation.

I suggest to him that if the government is serious, and he is serious about addressing pandemics, it should start with one's own backyard and look at the problems staring us in the face right now. Kids are going to school hungry, people are living in the most despicable housing conditions imaginable, and people are having to resort to the most untenable ways of making money to subsist. That would be a truly responsible and responsive government in the event of a pandemic.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is talking about ordinary Canadians. In 1990 I graduated from university. In 1993 I travelled through her riding. At that time we had the highest unemployment rate. If we read the numbers today, when Liberal governments were in power, the unemployment rate was the lowest in 30 years and at the same time, the ordinary Canadian that the member is talking about was taking home 11% more in earnings.

How is the member going to justify to workers in the next election, when she goes door to door, that by voting with the Conservatives in the last Parliament she had not betrayed the ordinary Canadians who fall under the lowest tax bracket, those earning less than $36,000 a year?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before in the House to a similar question from many of these disgruntled Liberals who think they are still in government just like that. I would suggest to him that it was not this small group of 29 New Democrats who defeated the Liberals. It was the Canadian people who said they were tired of being taken for granted. The kinds of problems I have talked about in the House today are problems that have been caused by years and years of Liberal government neglect. Let me go back to the issue of housing. I hope members will understand what it means. Our housing problems in Winnipeg began when the federal Liberal government decided--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I would love for the hon. member to go back as far as she would like, but we do have to resume debate. The hon. member for Chambly—Borduas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly speak to Bill C-13, the 2006 budget implementation act.

I am pleased to speak immediately after the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I think she did a good job highlighting the entire issue we must consider in order to pass judgment on this budget.

In no way do I doubt the convictions of the hon. member for Winnipeg North, having heard her speak about the less fortunate a number of times now. I think she does this well with conviction and fairness.

However, as far as the budget is concerned, we do not share the same conclusions. At the end of her speech she mentioned a certain number of reasons why we do not share her conclusions in terms of the Canadian government's policies of withdrawal from the social safety net for the people she was referring to, namely the poorest in society.

Hon. members will recall the Canadian government's withdrawal from social housing, which is called affordable housing in Canada, when the Liberals were formed the government. This withdrawal occurred almost throughout their entire time in power. Nothing was invested in social housing. It was only in 2001 that the Liberal government gradually started putting money back into social housing. However, it was too late, the damage had been done. The current serious shortage in social housing is putting even greater pressure on the poor.

The same phenomenon occurred in employment insurance with the Canadian government's withdrawal and cuts to the programs. This puts a great deal of pressure on the poorest families, especially people who have the misfortune of losing their employment.

I will come back to that, but I wanted first to put this in perspective to show that in the current context I believe there is no guarantee the Liberals would do better than the Conservatives right now if they were in power. On the contrary, they showed us they were capable of the worst.

Now it is time to see whether the Conservatives are also capable of the worst. In that perspective, we have looked at whether the budget we want to implement with Bill C-13 provides us with anything positive.

We must consider it in terms of the mandate given to us by the Quebec electorate. This mandate is to defend, to the best of our ability, the interests of Quebeckers. All the better if the interests of all Canadians are defended at the same time.

The issue of fiscal imbalance is decidedly a major issue for Quebec. I believe it is a major issue for the rest of Canada, but we will speak for Quebec. Why? Because it is an issue that the Liberals refused to recognize in order to maintain their policy of disengagement with respect to the provinces and to Quebec. It was a case of maintaining this quite deplorable situation whereby the Canadian government recorded the surpluses and the provinces assumed the responsibilities.

We have before us a government that says it is prepared to examine the fiscal imbalance within ten months, or by February 2007. It says it is prepared to do whatever is necessary with the provinces to solve the problem. That is an interesting commitment.

Now let us look at the difficulties faced by farmers. How farmers have struggled these last few years, first to obtain recognition for the fact that they experience tremendous difficulties just to be able to survive, and then to feed their families and to keep their farms afloat. We know how quickly the rate of farm failures is rising.

Many farmers did not even have enough money to plant their crops this spring.

Now, a breath of fresh air is blowing across the land. It is not an ideal solution, granted, but it is welcome relief for farmers. The Bloc Québécois had a large hand this initiative, especially my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska, who worked hard to convince the Conservative government that it had to do something. As a result, the budget contains $1.5 billion in new money to support farm producers who are going through hard times.

As I mentioned earlier, $800 million will go to social housing. In 2001, the Liberals allocated $260 million. Today, $800 million in new funding is being invested in social housing. This is a positive step.

The additional infrastructure funding, the tax exemption for bursaries, the reduction in the excise tax for microbreweries and the $1 billion for post-secondary education are some other positive aspects of the budget. The Bloc Québécois feels that, in the current context, the budget does enough for the people we represent so that we can support it. Does it address every issue? No.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you take a special interest in the plight of the unemployed and the poor. Our colleague referred to this earlier. We must recognize that a number of huge commitments are missing from the budget. In the coming months, that is what we must focus on in order to correct this situation.

Let us talk about the unemployed. The Conservative Party made a promise to set up an independent fund so that the Canadian government would stop playing around with the fund to divert money—which the Liberals did. Over the past 12 years, $48 billion was misappropriated from the employment insurance fund.

Elsewhere, this behaviour would be described as theft. I will not say that, as it is not parliamentary. However, it is dramatic. On whose backs was this done? It was done on the backs of people whose employment insurance benefits were cut. This is one of the measures that made families poorer, as our colleague mentioned earlier. Who does this money belong to? It belongs to the workers and employers.

I say it often in this House and I will continue to say it until this injustice is corrected. It is scandalous. It is misappropriation of funds, in no uncertain terms. This money belongs to two groups, the workers and the employers. In addition, this money could have gone to help families.

This was the first measure the Conservative government made a commitment on. It has done nothing yet. We will have to hound it. It will have to deliver the goods to provide an independent fund.

The situation is the same with the income support program for older workers. At the moment, the collapse of our industries' infrastructure because of the entry of foreign goods has led to layoffs. Most importantly, the people hit by the layoffs are 55 and older. In the past, the Conservatives made a commitment in this regard. It must deliver the goods.

The Bloc Québécois has introduced Bill C-269 to improve the entire employment insurance program. When the time comes, I invite my colleagues in the House to support this bill. Why? Because it is the minimum in terms of responsibility and recognition we owe workers in order to come to their assistance. It is also a matter of justice for them.

My time is up, so I will stop here. I am prepared to respond in the time for questions.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Bloc member for his comments on the budget. He said that the budget proposes measures for social housing, agriculture, infrastructure and microbreweries.

I agree with him about the budget.

Nothing is ever perfect. The budget is no exception to this rule, but it is a balanced budget. It is a focused budget in terms of its spending and it offers money for debt repayment. It is a good overall package.

As my colleague across the aisle has mentioned, there are measures in the budget for secondary education, new money for aboriginal Canadians and families with children and a new approach to environmental issues. We have seen a significant increase of 35% in emissions in Canada over the last 15 years, a record far worse than many of our fellow OECD countries. We need to tackle this.

Could my colleague comment on the budget with respect to measures that we have put in place for greater resources for provinces to deliver core services, such as the $3.3 billion in new money allocated for post-secondary education, social housing and public transit?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his question.

I have already expressed my views on this and a number of other subjects. I would like to talk specifically about public transit because it also relates to measures designed to eliminate greenhouse gases. The minister and his party should reconsider their position on this issue. It is dangerous for two reasons. First, being so evasive about such an important issue sows seeds of doubt among Canadians that slow down our progress toward meeting our obligations to adopt measures that will eliminate greenhouse gases. I see nothing concrete in this budget that really promotes public transit, yet this is one of the measures we should adopt to encourage people to use more economical multi-passenger means of transportation.

I would like to remind the minister that we consider this an interim budget. We will judge this government according to such elements, including the Kyoto protocol targets. Our vote on the next budget will depend on these issues.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague from the Bloc has heard many members point out the shortcomings in the budget. Even those who were complimentary about some aspects were critical of the glaring oversights within it.

I point out to him that negotiations on how to make that budget better ended the very moment the leader of the Bloc Québécois walked out of this chamber and into the camera scrum area and said, “I support this budget”. All of a sudden all negotiations died right on the table. There were no more improvements to be made because the deal had been done.

Why did the Bloc roll over so easily? At least when the NDP traded its support in a minority Parliament, we got $4.8 billion worth of tangible benefits for Canadians. The Bloc got nothing, a big goose egg. I think my colleague from the Bloc is agreeing with me, that the Bloc got a big fat goose egg in exchange for its loyalty.

It is mystifies me. It is like Jack and the Beanstalk, I suppose, when one trades the family cow for three beans and none of those beans sprout. What was it about the budget that the Bloc would give up all of its political leverage and ability to influence?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad he thinks he got something, even though he agreed to cutting $2.5 billion from employment insurance. He got nothing.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I want to point out that I let the hon. member speak earlier. I want to remind hon. members of something. Let us look at what the NDP got: they got measures that were applicable later.

[An hon. member]

If there was money.