Debates of May 8th, 2006

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, post-secondary students have seen their tuition more than double after 13 years of Liberal government. They are graduating with an average debt of $20,000.

The former prime minister said on national TV that he would invest billions of dollars. That was in 2004. We all know that in the 2005 Liberal budget there was not one new dollar for post-secondary education.

It took the NDP with Bill C-48 to finally get $1.6 billion in the budget for post-secondary education to lower students' tuition fees. However, in this budget, instead of $1.6 billion we have noticed there is only $1 billion and that money, instead of lowering tuition fees, is going to deal with infrastructure. That is a big problem.

I want to find out from the hon. member what happened between June of last year, when this House approved the $4.5 billion in Bill C-48 and now? Why did not a penny of that money go to the students who desperately need it so that they do not have huge debts when they graduate from university?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question. What happened was that in November, members of the NDP turned their backs on those students. They had a chance to pass that budget. They had a chance to help out students across the country and they turned their backs on them.

I suggest that the member stand and face that camera, fold her arms and apologize to the students across the country for jumping in bed and calling the premature election that resulted in that money being lost to our students.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that I will share my speaking time with the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's.

Since this is my first speech, I wish to take the opportunity to thank the citizens of my riding, Louis-Hébert, for the trust they showed me by voting for me to represent them here in the House of Commons. I hope to do a very good job here.

I can take pleasure in the content of the budget presented by our Minister of Finance. I will take the liberty of evaluating certain advantages of this budget in the light of my personal experience.

Though I was born into a low-income family, my parents nevertheless managed to give my sister and me a solid and generous education. When I was just little, I often went with my father, Paul, who got up before dawn to deliver the milk to his customers in Saint-Fulgence. My father, a milkman, and a tenacious and resourceful worker, always managed to put bread on the table and provide his family with the means to grow. My mother, Rachelle, stayed at home to surround us, my sister and me, protect us, encourage us and, of course, spoil us from time to time.

This family atmosphere of love, decency and work left influences on me that will be useful to me throughout my life. I am now trying to imitate my parents in my relations with my own children.

After attending Université Laval, I married, 19 years ago, a young student called Catherine, from Saint Lucia in the Caribbean. We have four daughters, aged 8, 11, 15 and 17, who are active in sports and studious, children who fill us with pride and happiness.

As can be seen, I am in a good position to evaluate the relevance of the $1,200 that our Minister of Finance will give to parents of children under six.

When my children were preschoolers, my wife, Catherine, took a year off work to take care of them, on sabbatical leave. Then came a grandmother for a full year, and a sister for another. So for three years we had precious help to provide care for our children. Some of my daughters also went to early childhood centres and I am happy because there they experienced integration and this is helpful for them now.

I would have been very happy at the time to have an extra $100 a month to help us make ends meet. My youngest daughter has just turned eight, so I cannot take advantage of the program. I can, however, appreciate its benefits. It is true that $1,200 does not cover all the costs of child care. However, the assistance given the family budget is significant. Most of the families with children in early childhood centres are generally two income families, taxed at a rate lower than that of families reporting only one income and thus having more money available after tax.

The initial proposal by the Liberal government represented some $1,040 per child in Quebec, given that we had 200,000 children taking advantage of the program. However, one thing must not be forgotten. There are 423,340 children in Quebec. So that means that over 220,000 children did not receive any support. In all, the some 423,000 children will generate $508 million in additional revenue for the Province of Quebec, so nearly $300 million more than the previous plan.

I get comments that the day care program falls short. We have to remember that it represents more than double the amount of the previous program.

In the light of these figures, we have to conclude that the system proposed by our government is the fairest, because it is universal, it benefits everyone and it allows parents to choose the most effective way to invest.

What a fine way to invest in the Canada of tomorrow!

The Minister of Finance is rewriting the story of the Canadian government’s finances. For example, he is proposing a major income tax reduction approaching $20 billion, while supporting an initiative to reduce government spending to 4%, from the 8% we saw under the Liberals.

In his desire to return to Canadian citizens the excess income tax collected by previous governments, our minister is allowing individuals and businesses to regain control of their money.

This is the first time in human memory that the middle class is seeing its tax obligations reduced. Everyone will benefit. Seniors will work, and so will students, families and companies. The promise of a balanced budget in the near future, as made by the Minister of Finance, is restoring hope to Canadians.

In conclusion, there is no question of not trusting the Canadians who have decided to entrust their destiny to a Conservative government. Let them decide what to do with their money. If they want their child to do sports, so much the better! They will get a tax reduction of $500.

I am very familiar with soccer, having coached the sport for many years. In saving $80 each, the 160,000 players in Quebec will manage to save over $13 million a year, in Quebec alone, and for soccer alone. One cannot call that nothing.

Government intervention in decision making in family life is over. This budget underscores our unshakable confidence in the people of Canada, and allows them to profit from the robustness of our economy. I am a Conservative with a big C. Naturally I am an unfailing advocate of this approach of reducing government influence over the spending power of citizens. Obviously I am biased, but bolstered by the praise I am hearing from many electors in my riding of Louis-Hébert, I must say I am delighted at the content of our budget. I believe in income tax reduction, I believe in reducing the big government machine, I believe in free enterprise. I am proud of our government.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member. On the sports issue, I am always a little puzzled when the Conservatives talk about how this is a substantial savings for many of our young athletes. In my riding the athletes have to pay so much money for travel and equipment. All the Conservatives have come up with is a paltry sum of less than $100, yet they trumpet it as some major accomplishment for our young athletes, which in essence it is not.

My question pertains to a very special issue in the member's province. If the member is hearing so much from his constituents, then he must be hearing about the issue of EI and seasonal work.

This is just as important for Newfoundland as it is for Quebec's east coast.

Seasonal work is a huge issue. Why were seasonal workers ignored in this budget? Where are the EI reforms that were initiated by the Liberals? Why are these reforms not being continued? They have been quashed completely for the industries of rural Quebec. Why does the hon. member not stand up for rural Quebec?

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the riding of Louis-Hébert mainly comprises Sainte-Foy, Sillery and Cap-Rouge. The primary industries are the university and research. The technology park, which also focuses on research, is in my riding, as is the National Optics Institute. Furthermore, I am working with Laval University so that my fellow citizens can get new research chairs for work in technical and technological development at several levels.

As the member for Louis-Hébert, these are my priorities. I have nothing else to add about seasonal work.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Louis-Hébert gave his views on the budget and praised a number of measures in it that come to the assistance of families.

Yesterday, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights met in Geneva. Canada appeared before it. The committee seemed annoyed in particular by Canada’s performance in the fight against homelessness, by Canada’s position and behaviour in regard to employment insurance, and by housing, just to mention these subjects.

The member gave his views on the budget and praised it. So he can hardly claim today that his knowledge is limited to his own area of interest since he just told us what a good budget it is.

I know that this is a new government, that the previous government diverted more than $48 billion from employment insurance while it was in power, and that the new government has obligations in this regard.

The member who gave us his views on the budget must be able to tell us today whether the government he represents intends to return the $48 billion to the fund from which they were diverted.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked questions more related to the subjects I addressed in my speech. I spoke a great length about day care. This is a subject that the Bloc Québécois liked very much, but now that it has the figures, it goes off and finds another subject. Now that we have been talking about sports and they have seen that there is already a saving of several million dollars for Quebec, they change the subject.

So finally we arrive at the employment insurance fund. We have been speaking about it for years. However, I did read the budget. There is no mention in it of returning the money that was spent.

Finally, I think that if the hon. member has other questions, he could maybe ask the Minister of Finance directly in order to get a better answer.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Mississauga-East—Cooksville, Citizenship and Immigration; the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina, Child Care.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margaret's.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it has been with some interest that I have listened to the debate in the chamber today. I had an opportunity earlier to ask a couple of questions and I found it quite shocking that the Liberals could find nothing in this budget to support.

The Liberals break everything down to its lowest common denominator. They cannot find anything positive. This is coming from a former government that was defeated at the polls. Canadians soundly gave the Liberals the message that they were not satisfied with the job they were doing and that they wanted, deserved and expected more from their government. They expected accountability, integrity and honesty.

I would like to take a moment to congratulate the member for Louis--Hébert who did a great job on his maiden speech in the House. He certainly understood the issues. Even our Bloc colleagues are supportive of his speech, I am sure.

The Liberals continually say that there are only five priorities in the budget. Those five priorities, however, have been delivered upon and they have been delivered in spades. The difference is that the Liberals' last budget had 56 priorities and none of them were delivered.

I would break it down even further. I would take this budget and say that there is only one priority and that priority is to help Canadians have better lives, and this budget delivers on that promise.

I would like to take a small portion of my time to thank my constituents in South Shore--St. Margaret's for sending me back to the Parliament of Canada. It is an honour to be a member of Parliament and to speak in this chamber and to represent the good folks of South Shore--St. Margaret's.

The riding I represent has a number of challenges. We have the largest fishery in Canada and over 2,000 fishing boats. We have the forest industry, an agriculture community and a significant manufacturing sector. Although the riding is extremely rural, it is versatile and it is a well spread out riding. It is long and narrow. It goes all the way down the southwest coast of Nova Scotia and includes part of Halifax county, all of Lunenburg county, all of Queens county and all of Shelburne county.

The point I am making is that my riding has a variety of individuals from a variety of backgrounds and a variety of different types of work.

In the manufacturing sector, we do everything from value added to our traditional industries, fishery, forestry and agriculture, to making space age components that are sold around the world. One firm in Lunenburg, Composites Atlantic, makes all the fuselages for the 737s. It makes the cooling system on the space shuttle. We have a very widespread working sector in South Shore--St. Margaret's.

I can honestly tell all members of the House that there is something in this budget for everyone in South Shore--St. Margaret's. I would like to speak for a second to the child care component. I know there has been a lot of criticism of our child care position, especially from the NDP and from the former government, and I would like to put a little good, fresh, bright sunlight on child care.

We could break the day care allowance down as being only a coffee a day. We could do a million things but the reality is that parents in Canada are faced with a huge obstacle in raising their children. As a government we recognize that we have some responsibility to help. We want more working parents in the workforce and, quite frankly, we need them in the workforce. We also want to give Canadians choice. If a mother or father decides to stay at home they have that option. We will give them $1,200 a year but at the same time we recognize that the money will not solve their child care problems. We know child care is more expensive than this but it will help. This is the first time any government has stepped up to the plate to help in a serious and effective way.

I will get to the capital gains deferral for fishermen, which the Liberals promised, in a minute.

What the Liberals promised for child care was a death bed conversion. At the 11th hour they said that they would do something. The reality is there was no child care plan in Canada. It does not exist and it never did. We will give $1,200 directly to parents to help them meet their child care requirements.

Let us take this a step further. Let us look at the Liberal commissioned YWCA report. The report states that child care spaces financed by the government cost $15,000 per space. If the Liberals are going to tout that, they should quote it. With 2.1 million children in Canada that works out to $30 billion a year for some type of universal child care, not affordable by any government without going into deficit. It cannot be done.

In recognition of that and in recognition of the difficulty parents face in raising children, we will give $1,200 per child per year until the age of six to help families raise their children. This is significant, responsible and Canadians can afford it.

I want to speak about the capital gains deferral for fishermen. I had two private member's bills on this issue but I could not get any support from my Liberal colleagues. When I brought these private member's bills forward, there were numerous cabinet ministers from Atlantic Canada. Over the 13 year period there were at least seven or eight ministers from Atlantic Canada. None of those individuals were interested in moving forward with a capital gains deferral for fishermen. I brought one bill forward in 2002 and received no support. I brought it back again in 2004 and again received no support. Thanks to our Conservative caucus, support came immediately. Anyone involved in the agriculture sector looked at this bill and said that farmers needed it and foresters needed it. We need it in the fishery to maintain the integrity of our coastal communities and keep fishing families fishing.

When our Minister of Finance brought in the capital gains deferral he went even further than my capital gains private member's bill. Not only did he give $500,000 for intergenerational transfer, he also gave $500,000 in the same way that a small business has a one time only accessible $500,000 rollover. That is the difference. We have a Minister of Finance who looked at the issue and said that we needed to act on it. It was part of the policy that came out of our Montreal convention and part of our election platform. It was a promise made and a promise delivered. This is the difference with this budget.

I ask hon. members and the viewing public to read the budget. The budget has good stuff in it. It contains things that we have needed for a long time, such as the apprenticeship program, help for students and help for fishermen. It contains immediate dollars and continuing aid for agriculture. It helps the forestry sector and the manufacturing sector. It contains a lower tax rate for low income earners. We are going to take 600,000 people off the tax rolls as of July 1. This is a great budget.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear the member from the Conservative Party say that $1,200 will not solve the child care issue. It does not. It is at most a family allowance. Moreover, this amount is taxable, which makes it very unfair. The Conservatives have stubbornly refused the Bloc Québécois' proposal for a refundable tax credit.

The member said that the cost of child care spaces is high. What does he think that the cost of doing away with the socialization provided by child care is? What is the cost of the integrated development of children? In Quebec, we have realized that day care spaces promote the extension of learning in an academic setting. What is the cost of academic success? I think that an overall vision is necessary, one where child care is not considered as a child drop off solution. Child care is a place for learning and development, and that is what matters. Unfortunately, the Conservative budget does not respond to that need.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. Early childhood intervention and childhood development are extremely important. When children get into the school system, it gives them an advantage when they have had a better job done in their early nurturing years.

The issue is quite simple. this is not a family allowance. This is in recognition of the fact that all families face the increasing cost of child care. Government simply cannot afford a universal child care system. It is not out there. By the YWCA's numbers, it would cost $30 billion a year, and we would go into deficit. We can afford to give $1,200 per child per family up until the age of six. That helps parents who are facing increasing pressures to find day care spaces.

Most of us raised our children without any assistance of any kind for day care. This does not mean that we should not find assistance. It does not mean that there are not special needs for low income groups. However, it does mean is that a universal system is not doable at this time and under this budget.

We have said, and I will say it again, we recognize the challenges families face. We are going to help families and we are going do that significant dollars. This will be a major assistance in helping them raise their children to the best of their ability.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member, but he said things are not doable by his government. However, they were doable by our government.

We have a great number of people in the country, working mothers and families with low income, who cannot afford the kind of child care that his government would propose for them. They need government assistance. They need a government program that is regulated and is good for all Canadian children.

The member put forward a tremendous amount of money that a universal day care program would cost. I think he alluded to $15,000 per child. Would he refresh my memory on what he said the costs would be for a universal day care program?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

I would be quite happy to do it, Mr. Speaker. I have a lot of respect for the member opposite, but we have to talk about reality. I am using the numbers of the Liberals from the YWCA, which state it would cost at least a minimum of $15,000 to open up a child care space. That is not to maintain it; that is to open it up. If we roll that through to 2.1 million children, that is $30 billion. The member can do the math however he wants to, but it is still $30 billion per annum forever and ever.

First, I do not think the government has that kind of money. Second, if we want to look at the Liberals deathbed promise to open up child care spaces, they had 13 years to bring in universal child care. You did not do it because you knew it was not affordable. You deliberately misled Canadians by trying to say there was some type of universal program out there that did not exist and never did exist.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I hope the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margaret's was not saying that I was misleading Canadians. As he knows, we are supposed to direct comments through the Chair.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I shall share my time with my hon. colleague from Chambly—Borduas, whom I thank.

I am pleased to rise in this debate on the budget brought down by the new government.

The Bloc Québécois is pleased with a number of measures it contains, but not entirely pleased with the budget speech on the whole.

We have to look back at the situation we were facing at the time of the last election. There had been a Liberal government in office for 13 years. In the area of agriculture, following the mad cow crisis and acts of unfair competition by the Americans, among other things, the Bloc Québécois had been calling for support for the farm industry in Canada and Quebec. The Liberals responded to some extent, at the eleventh hour, despite years of requests from farm producers. The Liberals finally agreed to invest a small amount to support agriculture across the country. However, they imposed a nation-wide policy framework with which producers in Quebec and Ontario were not pleased at all.

Agriculture in Quebec, as in Ontario, is extremely different from agriculture in the Western provinces. A one size fits all strategic framework therefore cannot be imposed on Canadian agriculture. This seems to us to be completely bizarre and foolish. There are not a lot of dairy producers in Western Canada; dairy farming is concentrated mainly in Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick. Large amounts of money had to be invested; $1.5 million was invested. This is a large sum. The commitment made must now be honoured: the strategic framework must be revised and a new one proposed that will be appropriate to agriculture in Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick.

Earlier, my colleague from South Shore—St. Margaret's spoke about fishing. Yes, the Bloc Québécois has for years been calling for the capital gains made by a fisher who wants to transfer his or her business to another family member—a son or daughter—to be exempted. Compared to what was done in farming, this was a great injustice.

For farming, there is a capital gains exemption when a family member wants to transfer the business. It must be understood that a fishing business is like a farming business. Often, it is the retirement plan for the person who is wanting to get out of the business. It is what allows that person to retire and not burden the son or daughter who takes over the fishing business with too much debt. While it provides some assistance, it is simply insufficient for fishing.

In recent years, management in the fishing industry has been an absolute disaster, and I am not talking about management of the resource by the federal government only in the last 13 years, but ever since the federal government has been responsible for managing the resource. This disastrous management has virtually wiped out the resource, particularly in the case of groundfish.

At present, the fishing industry is facing a tragic situation as a result of falling prices. The shrimp fishery is not necessarily very profitable. This year there was a large drop in crab prices. There is a problem with international negotiations and a problem with how our industry is promoted. Unlike what is done in the farming industry, there is virtually no promotion of our industry to get Canadians and Quebeckers to consume more local products. At the international level, there is unfair international competition—I am thinking, for example, of the imposition of quotas by the European Economic Community. Those quotas are causing a great deal of harm, particularly in the shrimp fishery. The federal government will have to make diplomatic efforts to solve this problem.

Knowing my colleague from Chambly—Borduas, I am sure he will speak about employment insurance. I want to address that subject as well.

In my region, as in a majority of rural regions in Quebec and a majority of the so-called remote regions of Canada, there has been a major crisis in recent years. There was also a lack of political will on the part of the former government.

Let us talk about the lumber crisis. For years, we asked for support to be given to our companies so that they could cope with what I would call a total injustice, which was imposed on us by the U.S government and producers. They placed duties on it even though we regularly won our case before the courts. This crisis lasted for 25 years, do not forget.

I have some doubts concerning the signing of the agreement proposed to us. First, this agreement is far from perfect. Furthermore, I am not convinced that the Americans will respect it for seven or nine years. They did not respect the earlier agreements, so they will find a way of not respecting this one either.

The federal government should therefore be extremely vigilant concerning the lumber agreement. Moreover, this agreement should be improved. It is totally unfair to impose on us a quota of 32% of the market, as is the case at present. In the context of free trade, the agreement submitted to us does not allow free trade. This agreement should definitely be amended over the years.

I got a bit off track; I was talking about employment insurance. I wanted to talk about the situation in the regions. We have had to deal with the softwood lumber crisis, the mad cow crisis, the completely unfair competition in the farming sector, particularly from the U.S., and a major crisis caused by globalization. The previous government had the means to intervene, as do the Americans, who do not hesitate to protect themselves. It did not, however, intervene at all in the textile and clothing sectors, among others, and in the so-called softer sectors in Canada. This has caused, in the past year, the loss of 120,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector, including 36,000 in Quebec.

Unfortunately, I did not see anything in the budget in this connection. Nor have I noted the current government’s intention to react in accordance with the standards of international trade. Under the standards of the World Trade Organization, we are perfectly entitled to take action when a situation arises like the one that we have just been through in the past 12 months.

Furthermore, the workers in these sectors have been employed by the same company for 20 or 30 years; now they are 50, 55 or 60 years old. My colleague from Chambly—Borduas will certainly talk about it, since it is one of his pet projects. These people do not necessarily have sufficient training to enable them to be placed elsewhere or reclassified. So they have to be helped, at least so that they can live decently until they reach retirement age.

Actually, the government has expressed its intention to take action in this area. We will have to see, concretely, how this will unfold in the coming months. We in the Bloc Québécois are committed to this. For years we have been asking for the assistance program for older workers to be re-established and we will go on demanding it.

I will also continue to demand that an independent employment insurance fund be established. In my region, fewer than 40% currently have access to employment insurance. These include fishers and forest workers. These people have seasonal jobs. They cannot take their fishing boats out when there is two feet of ice on the St. Lawrence River. They have to rely on employment insurance. At present, as a result of the slash and burn approach taken by the former Liberal government since 1994, they find themselves without an income for five, six, eight or ten weeks in the spring. It may not be easy for them to get back to work either. Indeed, in order to return to work, labourers, for example, might have to invest in buying the proper attire to wear. Some of them just cannot afford it. It is as simple as that. So, some families have a hard time for many weeks in the spring.

We therefore have to establish an EI fund that will meet the needs of those workers who find themselves unemployed, one that will be managed by the workers and their employers, that is, those who pay into that fund.

The government has to stop dipping into the employment insurance fund. That is not its money.

[An hon. member]

That is misappropriation.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

It is indeed misappropriation. We are talking about $48 billion over the past few years. I could carry on, but I will let my hon. colleague continue along this line following the five minutes of questions and comments.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question. I would like to ask my colleague a question with regard to the budget and issues related to manufacturing.

On page 32 of the budget there is a good chart on manufacturing employment in terms of outlining some of the challenges. It shows that manufacturing employment is going down in Canada significantly. As well, our Canadian dollar is rising from the export of our oil and gas industry to the United States. It is creating an artificial environment that is not sustainable and is actually killing manufacturing jobs in Ontario, Quebec and other regions.

The only thing that is in the budget under the same philosophy is that by reducing corporate taxes we will actually increase employment investment, but the reality is that when we look at aerospace, textiles and auto manufacturing, those employers are calling for national strategies that actually target specific areas for their investment. They see that as the most preferred option.

Ste-Thérèse, Quebec, is where we lost an auto manufacturing plant. It is one of the reasons we have a new parts council that is in agreement with regard to calling for an incentive.

In terms of the budget, there seems to be a failing in recognizing that the industries themselves are calling for national strategies. They say, for example, the United States has incentives and subsidies for their industries which we do not have here. Unfortunately, I think the budget fails on the manufacturing component.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that in most sectors, there is already a strategy. In aeronautics, we already have a strategy.

I say yes to reducing the taxes on certain small and medium-sized businesses when they are making a profit. But if taxes are reduced and the business is not making a profit any more, the result is absolutely nothing. I think, therefore, that what is in the budget is a starting point, but we need to go a little further. We have to realize that, on the international level, we often face competition that is completely unfair, and that is unacceptable.

I could mention, for example, child labour or the wages paid in certain countries to people who have no social safety net. That is completely unfair competition. When people sleep in company dormitories, are under-paid, and work 12 to 16 hours a day for wages of 50¢ an hour, we obviously cannot compete with that. It is unfair competition.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question will deal with the first part of the member's speech regarding agriculture. As a young man I grew up in eastern Ontario on a dairy farm. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the dairy farmers of Quebec. They were very successful in those days and I am sure they still are.

My confusion lies, and it may be lost in the translation, in the fact that we are putting an additional $1 billion for agriculture in the budget. I did not really understand whether the hon. member agreed with that approach, that we were adding that money, or whether he was opposed to that money being added to the agriculture file.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with investing $1.5 billion in agriculture. Where I draw a distinction is in the way in which this money will be distributed. If my colleague has read the budget, he will see that the government draws this distinction as well.

We are speaking about the strategic framework. There is a difference between agriculture in Quebec and in the west. Farmers in the west obviously cannot be supported in the same way as Quebec farmers. Agriculture based on dairy farms, on poultry, eggs and so forth, cannot be supported in the same way as agriculture based on wheat. It is very different. There is no comparison between the two.

The federal strategic framework that was imposed on Quebec does not suit us because it does not meet the needs of Quebec farmers. This happens to be true as well for certain other parts of the country. Different agricultural sectors have to be treated differently. For example, agriculture in Quebec is not built around large-scale wheat production but around much smaller-scale production of milk, eggs and grain.

That is why we say the strategic framework has to be changed.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague from Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia on his presentation.

It is very important for me to be able to speak to the budget. I am doing so with particular concern for the citizens of my riding of Chambly—Borduas.

Every time I speak in this House I always ask myself how I can best serve the citizens of my riding. Under the circumstances, I have to assess whether this budget has positive elements that will serve the interests of the citizens we represent or whether, on the contrary, what we refer to as irritants outweigh the benefits.

In this case are there any real advantages? I see one advantage. The desire to address the problem of the fiscal imbalance head on is very important for Quebec and the other provinces. This is the first time in recent years that a government has agreed to tackle this. I think this is significant. We must acknowledge the positive aspects. There may not be any immediate revenues or measures, but at least there is a very concrete deadline, and it is within the first year.

The second aspect affects the difficulties the farmers are currently facing. This is another major problem that has been raised in the past few years and about which the previous government did very little. We must recognize that there are new elements in the support measures for farmers, to the tune of $1.5 billion. We see this as positive. It is not perfect, there is still work to be done, but it is a step forward compared to the past few years.

Another important aspect is poverty. The Conservative government has not, in our opinion, introduced measures or made commitments that address the entire problem. Nonetheless, when we talk about social housing we can see there is a new commitment compared to the lack of commitment by the former Liberal government. From 1993 to 2001, it completely withdrew from this issue.

That resulted in a major shortfall in social housing in every province, Quebec in particular. The vacancy rate dropped below 3%, which is the standard for determining when the quality of social housing is threatened.

My own riding includes 12 cities, all of which have vacancy rates lower than 3%. This is a serious problem. It did not come about by itself. It came about because of poorly designed measures and legislation that resulted from the previous federal government's disengagement. We believe that only Quebec could contribute to developing social housing.

There is also the issue of additional funding for municipal infrastructure. Investments of over $50 billion in the short term would be needed to modernize municipal infrastructure in Canada

It is not that much. This commitment to municipal infrastructure and public transit is new, as is exempting scholarships from taxation.

On that note, I will end my list of reasons why we should pass this budget. I would add that it is a transitional budget. It is not a long-term plan. We must also recognize that it is the new government's first budget.

That said, let us now look at some of the little irritating problems. Are these problems enough to make us vote against the budget? In the short term, are they worth sending Canadians to the polls over? We have to consider that.

The other two opposition parties have been throwing their weight around for a week, saying that the Bloc has been servile with the Conservatives. Really! No one here is a fool. If the Bloc voted against the budget, I can tell you that the Liberals would be looking for any means they could find to get enough members to vote in favour of the budget. Just among ourselves, no one in the country believes that the Liberals are organized enough to trigger an election. And if that were to happen, would we be further ahead with a budget that contains irritants and a majority Conservative government? They too are busy with these calculations.

The New Democrats are lecturing us like greenhorns. What did they get from the negotiation of Bill C-43 last year? What was the net benefit to taxpayers? Nothing. We are also being lectured on employment insurance. The employment insurance issue is a tragedy. What the Liberals have done is indecent. And what the Conservatives are preparing to do is indecent. It has to be said. I will not vote in favour of the budget because of what they are doing for employment insurance, because what they are about to do is indecent. However we should remember that last year the NDP voted in favour of $2.5 billion in cuts to employment insurance. That is what they did. And today we are being lectured. These are things which must be said.

So they have had a hand in making people poorer, even though they put forward progressive measures. And they say we are not as “left” as they are. I say to you that they signal left and then turn right. It has to be said. As for me, I think that this is misleading the people. One must speak the truth as it really is.

Will an election be called over the budget? That poses no problem for us. It could happen. However it will be necessary to explain why to the people, and speak the truth as I am now doing. That is why an election will not be called. It would just be a trip to nowhere. The people do not want it. Anyway, we are realistic. One has to be realistic and responsible enough to speak the truth as it is.

Back to employment insurance. On that subject, the Conservatives will be obliged to keep their word. There is nothing in this budget to indicate that they will keep their commitment on the independent fund. Yet that is indispensable. The lack of an independent fund is what allowed the Liberals to fiddle nearly $50 billion out of the employment insurance fund. That money belongs to workers and employers. That prevented nearly 60% of the workers who lost their jobs from receiving their employment insurance, even though they had contributed all their life. There is something indecent and revolting about that.

It is the same for what is being reserved for older workers. They have paid their premiums all their lives. The Liberals dismantled that program in 1997. Now they want to study this on the other side. Where were the Conservatives when it was studied by the opposition? Now they are on the other side of the House and it is as if they had developed amnesia. They don’t remember. Really! I invite them to bring along what they learned in opposition. It should not stay on this side. They are going to need a little information to make some decisions this year, preferably this spring, because there are some very hungry people waiting.

They have a responsibility because they were elected.

It is the same thing when it comes to improvements to employment insurance. Today my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle introduced a bill to reform the employment insurance system. I hope that all the hon. members will vote in favour of this bill. Otherwise, the people will be cheated.

They give fine speeches and make faces at us here, because they want to come off as though they are better than us, and they throw their weight around, but they do not tell the truth.

That was the truth. I am anxious for the Conservatives to honour their commitment.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech by the hon. member. I always look forward to his support in standing up for labour issues. He always talks about labour issues, but I want to question him about other parts of his speech.

I am absolutely in favour of the municipal infrastructure money that we have in this budget, the transit infrastructure money that we have in this budget, the housing money that we have in this budget. There are many, and I am not one of them, who would say that those are strictly provincial responsibilities, particularly the municipal infrastructure and the transit infrastructure.

I have heard from the Bloc members in speeches on other items, including the public health bill, that the federal government cannot get involved because it is provincial jurisdiction, that it is none of our business here at the federal level.

I ask the member, what is the difference? What is the rationale for supporting the municipal infrastructure and transit infrastructure when some people think that they are provincial jurisdictions? How does he define the difference in this case?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. He is quite right, these are provincial jurisdictions. But the provinces are not able to fully meet their obligations because the government took away their money in order to take over those obligations.That is what happens.

A portion of the tax money collected from Canadians should return to Quebec and the provinces. This portion must be returned, as a portion of the 10¢ gas tax was, which will gradually go to municipalities. It is the same thing with transportation and municipal infrastructure. The federal government has jurisdiction over some aspects of transportation, including marine, rail and air transportation.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's interesting analysis of the NDP budget as well as the optics of the current Parliament.

It is very interesting to note that the Bloc is similar to the Conservative Party when it was working with the Liberals and they could actually work together. I remember when the Prime Minister was the opposition leader he supported the Liberals originally, then switched and flip-flopped on a number of different things.

I am wondering why the Bloc has not negotiated anything at all. It is almost like a dog with no legs. It barks but does not go anywhere.

It is time Canadians understood that protest for the sake of protest is not a policy position. We took a stand and money is coming out at least to some Canadians because of that, unlike the Bloc that is just demonstrating the ability to not take any position whatsoever at any point in time.