Debates of May 9th, 2006

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert on her excellent speech.

If I understood correctly, she intends to support the budget. I would like to hear more about why she supports it.

Why does she support this year's budget—I understand she intends to support it—when she voted against the previous budget?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Chambly—Borduas for his excellent question.

In fact, last year, the Bloc Québécois voted against the budget. That budget, which received the support of our NDP colleagues, meant a loss of $2.3 billion for Canada's unemployed. The hon. member can read this on pages 278 to 280 of the 2005 budget. And who supported that budget? Our friends in the NDP.

This year, we will support the Conservative government's budget because it is a step in the right direction in terms of the fiscal imbalance and it establishes a timetable. We will see what the Conservatives do with it.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech. I would like to ask her a question.

What is the Bloc Québécois' vision, and what is her own, with respect to measures that will ensure a prosperous future for Quebec workers?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. It is in fact an excellent one, and I congratulate her.

First and foremost, at least $48 billion would have to be put back into the employment insurance fund, that being the amount that was literally taken against the will of the workers and employers to whom those premiums belong. That money would have to be put back into the employment insurance fund. That would be the first thing to do.

Second, the employment insurance program would have to be improved, as my colleague from Chambly—Borduas in fact said and as my colleague from Compton—Stanstead proposed earlier this week. That program would have to be improved by implementing the 12 measures proposed.

Third, my colleague from Gatineau has introduced an anti-scab bill and I congratulate him on it. It is one of the best bills we have seen to combat the replacement workers problem.

Fourth, we have to enact a bill on precautionary withdrawal. This would allow pregnant women whose workplace is unhealthy for themselves or their fetus to be reassigned while still receiving the same wages and benefits as working women in Quebec are entitled to.

Have I forgotten anything?

[An hon. member]

Yes, the older workers assistance program.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Of course, the POWA. This Conservative government should reinstate it as quickly as possible.

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

An independent fund so that money does not keep being taken from it.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I thank the member for Chambly—Borduas.

There is also Bill C-55, which I have not yet mentioned, and which allows workers in companies that declare bankruptcy to recover their wages. That bill was introduced last year and given speedy passage. It was passed by the Senate and received royal assent, but it is not yet in force. If this government wanted to do something useful at least once during its term in office, it seems to me that it might hurry up and enact Bill C-55 and bring it into force. Workers would then be able to benefit from it as quickly as possible.

In the riding of Shefford a company named C-Plast has recently declared bankruptcy. The workers at that plant are writing to us, writing to us in the Bloc Québécois, not to the government across the way, asking us what is happening with Bill C-55. We are telling them that the only thing missing for it to be brought into force is the political will of the Conservative government.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please. 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 Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Post-secondary Education; the hon. member for Markham—Unionville, The Budget; the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier, Arts and Culture.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Drummond.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert for agreeing to share her time with me, and I would also like to thank her for her excellent speech.

I would like to begin by congratulating and thanking my colleagues, the members for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and Jeanne-Le Ber for their budget analysis, as well as all members of the Bloc Québécois who did such an admirable job of supporting them. Once again this year they have taken on this arduous task brilliantly. They have again shown how strong our organization is and why the vast majority of Quebeckers put their trust in the Bloc Québécois.

The Conservatives raised Quebeckers' expectations during the last election campaign, and we are still waiting for them to walk the walk. They promised to correct the fiscal imbalance, to give Quebec a place on the international stage, and to respect Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. They still have a lot to do to keep those promises.

I have to say that the main reason we support this budget is this government's firm commitment to correct the fiscal imbalance. That is the only reason. Without the formal commitment to address this issue by February 2007, the Bloc Québécois would have voted against the budget. The government must keep that in mind and act accordingly.

This is a transitional budget. The next one will be the real one. In the meantime, I repeat, the government must move from words to actions. Even for a transitional budget, this one is still far from perfect. It contains a number of negative aspects. For example, there is nothing for employment insurance, neither an independent fund nor improvements. We must remember that, even today, 60% of unemployed workers are denied access to the employment insurance plan. Under the Liberals, employment insurance shifted from being an assistance program to being a disguised tax. The Conservative government seems to want to move in the same direction.

The Bloc Québécois has always opposed the plunder of the employment insurance fund and demanded the creation of an independent fund. This money comes from contributions by employees and employers. The government has not contributed to the fund since 1990. It has absolutely no right to plunder this fund.

The Bloc Québécois has introduced a bill to amend the Employment Insurance Act aimed at improving the employment insurance plan and thus restoring proper respect to those this budget has forgotten. We hope that this House will support this bill and especially that the government will honour its commitments in this regard now that it is in office.

Furthermore, this budget contains no commitment for a program to help older workers who lose their jobs due to foreign competition and globalization. It is not a difficult program to understand. My colleague from the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot explained it in detail to the Minister of Finance. Why is the government not acting? Action in this matter is needed urgently.

The program for older worker adjustment—known as POWA—provided for the payment of benefits to eligible workers aged 55 to 64 who had lost their jobs through a major permanent layoff, by bridging employment insurance benefits and pension benefits. Unfortunately, the program was abolished in 1997. From budget to budget, election campaign to election campaign, we have heard repeated promises to reinstate the program for older worker adjustment, but nothing has been done. The recent budget is proof.

Restoring POWA is particularly relevant to me because many victims of mass layoffs live in my riding. Last week, Teinturiers Élite, another textile business in my riding, had to close its doors. Approximately 50 people lost their jobs. Last April, Swift Galey, a jewel in our region's textile industry, also had to close its doors. Over the past five years or so, 800 jobs had been lost in that plant. Only 155 remained. The factory closed its doors last April, which led to the loss of the last 155 jobs.

In recent years, the Drummond area has seen many other plant closures in the textile industry, including Denim Swift, Celanese and Cavalier Textiles. We are talking about thousands of jobs lost in my riding. Many workers who lost their jobs had given over 20, 30 or even 40 years of service. During all of that time, these people paid into the EI fund.

What did the previous government do for these people? Nothing. What is the current government proposing to do for these people? Still nothing.

Older workers are facing hard times and the government must act immediately to help them.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities has already expressed its opinion on the terms and conditions of a program to help older workers who are victims of layoffs or plant closures. There is no need to start all over again. Instead of calling for a feasibility study, the minister must act, and quickly. There comes a time for shouldering responsibility, and that is what the Bloc Québécois is asking this government to do.

This brings me to my criticism that this budget also contains no support for manufacturing sectors affected by globalization, such as the textile, clothing, furniture and bicycle sectors.

When an industry sector is concentrated in Quebec, it would seem that the federal government drags its feet. The textile and clothing industries are good examples. Roughly half of the plants are in Quebec, where they account for nearly 100,000 direct jobs. In the Drummond area, this major economic sector is crumbling because of the federal government's inaction.

The textile and clothing industries are in crisis. They have to adapt to a business environment that has changed drastically in recent years.

The textile industry is presented as one of the most innovative manufacturing industries, but it needs a hand to get back on its feet. The federal government could take a leaf from the American government's book and put in place incentives to use Quebec and Canadian textiles by lifting the customs duty on foreign clothing made with textiles produced here.

I would like to remind the hon. members that the Bloc Québécois is determined to protect the interests of Quebeckers. I would also like to say to the people in the riding of Drummond, who elected me for the fifth time, that I will defend older workers, just as I will fight to win the embattled textile and clothing industries the help they need.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting listening to the questions from our hon. member. I can also recall, along with the former minister of industry for this side of the House, the amount of times our colleagues raised the issue of textile workers and how important those issues were to all Canadians who found themselves in areas that were being phased out.

Eleni Bakopanos, a former member on this side of the House, was very effective in ensuring that legislation was put forward to help textile workers, particularly in the Quebec area but also in other parts of Canada, who were clearly losing their jobs as a result of change in the marketplaces, in the trade and in how things were done.

It also was interesting to listen to the member talk about fiscal imbalance and the fact that the Bloc would support the budget, which clearly is not giving them anything they really think they need in Quebec. What does the member consider to be the answer to fiscal balance? Is it $20 million? To better understand the member, when she talks about the fiscal imbalance and the reason she would sell out and support a budget, which she clearly does not support, what does the fiscal imbalance mean to her?

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the only government that did not recognize the fiscal imbalance was the last government, the former Liberal government.

The fiscal imbalance, in simple terms, is that the federal government collects too much money in relation to provincial government expenses. There is too much money in the federal government's coffers while the needs are in the provinces.

An increase in new technologies for health, in the number of elderly sick people and various other factors are such that Quebec and the provinces are in need and are in crisis. Yet, the federal government has never really transferred money to meet the needs of the provinces. That is what we call the fiscal imbalance.

During the election campaign the Conservative government promised the provinces that it would eliminate the fiscal imbalance and that it would transfer the necessary funding for the provinces to meet their needs. That is only fair.

The federal government has too much money for its own jurisdictions, while the provincial governments are suffering and have a growing number of needs. That is what we call the fiscal imbalance. This government made a formal commitment during the election campaign and in its Speech from the Throne to resolve the fiscal imbalance. The deadline is February 2007. That is why we are voting in favour of this budget.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from the Bloc on her speech.

I would like to know what magic trick my colleague would use to improve all the negative measures she is denouncing and how long it would take.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel like telling my colleague that I would create sovereignty.

No time at all would be needed to put back the $48 billion that was taken from the employment insurance fund.

For years the Standing Committee on Human Resources has gone over this issue. There have been reports, witnesses, debates on this issue in this House. The human resources committee has always been unanimously in favour of improving the employment insurance program and fund. Currently 12 measures have been proposed and would easily be adapted to support those who are victims of unemployment.

A bill has just been placed on the order paper. We have been talking about this for years and we are still debating it in this House. I would vote in favour of anti-scab legislation.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to share my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Abbotsford.

It is with great honour that I rise in the House today to speak in support of the budget. I also want to recognize the hon. finance minister, who has put a great deal of effort and thought into this, including the thorough consultations he went through with industries and individuals before the budget was brought to the House. That is reflected in the many tax cuts and benefits to Canadians. I would suggest that this is the best budget the House has seen in over 13 years.

Twenty-nine different tax cuts are in the budget. Once again, we have never seen this kind of returning of dollars back to Canadians, back to where it belongs, instead of the overtaxing we have seen in the past. The cost to increase the exemption amount is $1.08 billion, and that is returned to Canadians. There will be $2 returned to taxpayers for every $1 in spending. That is a fundamental change in direction in this government.

We see more tax relief in the budget than the last four Liberal budgets combined. It focuses on spending, not on slashing spending but making necessary spending more effective. Canadians have asked us for that and they have asked the finance minister to ensure he follows through on it.

We have respected the five priorities, which we talked about during the campaign. How novel to have actually delivered on what we promised. The Conservatives are all about delivering on our commitments. Budget 2006 certainly speaks to those priorities.

There will be $20 billion in tax cuts over a two year period. As a result of these measures, my home province of Alberta will pay $1 billion less in taxes in 2007. My constituents in the riding of Macleod, those whom I have met with and those who have written and emailed me, are happy with this. They want to see more money left in their pockets so they can make the decision of what to do with it.

The budget has $1 in new spending for every $2 that delivers tax relief. This budget delivers more than twice as much tax relief as it does in spending. The 1% cut in GST is another one of our promises, which delivers a tremendous amount of effect to this whole industry. Every Canadian will feel the effects of the 1% cut in GST.

We have promised to pay down the debt by $3 billion. A lot of our dissenters would accuse us of not looking after our fiscal house. We have set aside $3 billion to continue to pay down our debt. That is fiscally prudent financing.

Let me bring this back to my riding and my former livelihood of farming. We watched farmers out in front of Parliament in the last few weeks, protesting about the serious crisis in which the grains and oil seeds industry found itself. I want to acknowledge, for the finance minister, the appreciation farmers in my riding have shown for the $1.5 billion that the budget brings to agriculture. This will help them in a time of need.

The government will not abandon them. The government is looking at a long term future, but it also recognizes that in the short term, we need to help this sector get through. We need to work hard at the WTO to ensure that we get rid of the domestic support programs, like we see in the United States and the European Union, that impact these farmers so greatly.

In the meantime, this is what we will provide to farmers across the country. One billion dollars will be added to transition into an effective program that separates farm income from disaster relief. That is forward thinking on this Conservative government's behalf. We recognize that these two programs, which were tied together in the old CAIS program, did not work. We need to recognize that they need to be separated.

Also, our Minister of Agriculture recognized, because the CAIS program did not work, that many farmers were receiving letters asking for their advance payments back. In recognition of that, he has provided a grace period. The money they have in their hands can be used to put in this year's crop. Then we will deal with it at a later date, when we come up with a better program for CAIS. Also, doubling the interest free cash advances to farmers will help them get cash to buy their inputs for this spring. Farmers are pleased, and this is only one sector of Canadians who are happy with the budget.

The other sector is the families and communities. The government is investing in child care for example, a $100 a month credit to any parent with a child under six years of age. In my riding that is important. People in rural Alberta and in rural regions across the country do not have access to day care facilities.

The former Liberal government's universally accessible day care program was nothing more than a slap in the face to rural Canadians. There was no accessibility to ranch families living west of Fort Macleod. How would they find a day care facility within a two hour drive of their home? This provides the answer. We admit that this will not pay for all the day care and assistance needed, but it helps. No one said that the government was going to pay to raise people's children. This is not our plan. Also, we will invest $250 million to create more child care spaces, and we will create those spaces because they are necessary.

The budget offers $500 to encourage our children to become physically fit, to be aware of the importance of staying fit and healthy. It is an encouragement to get children out and to become active. That is a big cost in a large family. The government recognizes that.

The child disability benefit has gone from $2,044 to $2,300. That impacts a lot of disabled people. It is a benefit that many Canadians will acknowledge.

We will invest $52 million in our Canadian cancer strategy. There has not been one member in the House who has not been affected by cancer. This is a very important place to focus our research money.

I have five first nations reserves in my riding. We have put $450 million into aboriginal women, children and families, cleaning up water and building houses on the reserves. The one initiative that is new and inventive is recognizing that almost half of our first nations people live off reserves. With that recognition, we are adding $300 million to assisted housing off reserves. This is in conjunction with the provinces. Plus we will invest $300 million in the territories.

Again, the cut in the GST impacts seniors, students and farmers. Every industry and every individual will see the benefit of the GST cut.

I have not spoken to the benefits in the budge for students, small businesses and the apprenticeship programs, but my time is up.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I have had a chance to congratulate you since you assumed the important job you have to try to keep civility here in the House. I wish you well in the job because it is very important and it leaves a lot of challenges.

The Conservatives were very fortunate when they came into office and found themselves with $11 billion to invest in Canada or to choose their priorities. I do not disagree with all the investments in the budget but I do have issues with others.

The circumstances are very different from when the Liberals came into office in 1993 and had a $42 billion deficit to deal with. All Canadians and in fact all of us in this room had to make a lot of sacrifices to get that spending under control. We did not have the great latitude of getting into office and having all of that money that the Conservatives have to make their priorities and to fulfill their election promises.

One of the areas that does concern me is the whole issue of investing in our children. The Conservatives can call it whatever they like but building jails rather than investing in the opportunities to ensure our children are well-prepared for their future is an issue that we all need to be concerned about. Whether we are talking about our children, our grandchildren our nephews or our nieces, investing in children is extremely important.

I would much rather see you take away the money you are going to put into jails and invest it in ensuring there is opportunity for our children. I would like to hear your comments on that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would just remind the hon. member for York West to address her comments through the Chair.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I am flattered that the hon. member feels that we are close enough friends that she can comment directly to me.

In response to the hon. member's comments about the deficit in 1993, I have heard that argument, a rather hollow argument, for the 13 years that the Liberal government was in place after the horrific takeover in 1993. A big part of the turnaround was because of Michael Wilson's budget. I would suggest that because of a free trade agreement, which the Liberals voted against and then decided that maybe it was a good deal, things started turning around. We appreciate the fact that they accepted the deal for the benefit that it was for all of industry, all of Canada.

Although we have been handed a good set of financial books, unfortunately, it is on the backs of overtaxed Canadians. I have trouble believing that government has better ideas on how to spend money than individuals. It is plain and simple for me: leave money in people's pockets and let them run their own businesses.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after hearing the speech by my colleague from Drummond, I sympathize with her very much. In the past two years in my riding of Compton—Stanstead and elsewhere in the Eastern Townships we have lost 5,400 jobs in the textile, shoe and furniture sectors.

I want to know why the government is refusing to reinstate the POWA for older workers over 50. What is the government's vision for the future of these people who risk facing poverty? As hon. members know, at age 50 it is not easy to find a new job. What is the government waiting for to reinstate POWA?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about people over 50 and employment, it gets closer to my heart every day.

When we talk about job losses, that is no joking matter. It is very serious and we understand the issue, which is why we have taken steps in the budget to reduce the taxes to corporations that will allow them to profit, to expand their industries, to hire more people and to keep people on wages for longer periods. It will stimulate the economy. It is a simple method of operating a business.

If businesses are allowed to keep more of their money they can reinvest and it will stimulate and increase employment.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great opportunity to speak to a budget that serves the needs of Canadians. The budget addresses the critical needs in my province that were ignored for too many years.

The budget will be remembered most for one of the largest tax cuts and broadest tax relief in the history of our country. In total, the budget will cut 29 different taxes. What is even more remarkable is that over the next two years we will return $20 billion to taxpayers and pay off $3 billion of debt each year. That is more tax relief than in the last four budgets combined.

Better yet, 90% of the tax cuts go to individuals and families. This is clearly the good news budget that Canadians have been waiting for and it certainly is good news for British Columbians.

Over the last week and actually as recently as today, I have listened to the Liberal members of the House crow about how this is their money and that they are the ones who solved Canada's financial problems. It is only fair that taxpayers ask them why it has even got to this point. Why is it that today we are returning $20 billion to the pockets of hard-working taxpayers? The answer is quite obvious. For too long Canadians have been overtaxed and the Liberals have hoarded our money.

Let us take a closer look. Do members of the House remember unemployment insurance now called employment insurance? That is money collected from hard-working Canadians to provide some insurance against the loss of employment. What have former governments done? Since 1994 the balance in the EI fund has steadily increased to $46 billion, which is actually three times higher than what the chief actuary said was necessary to fund future EI claims. Did the former government ever pay it back to the employees? Of course not.

Then there were the federal cuts to transfers to the provinces in the late 1990s. I remember those days well. My community of Abbotsford was faced with the burden of finding an additional $6 million to $7 million because the previous government chose to pass the buck. Over 13 years, a total of $6 billion was downloaded to provinces and municipalities so that the previous government would not have to take the heat for overtaxing Canadians.

Finally, let us not forget some other tax increases in past Liberal budgets. We saw more taxes on family trusts, increased federal capital taxes, surtaxes, increased cigarette taxes, a 1.5% increase in gasoline taxes and, of course, even a temporary reduction in the contribution limit for RRSPs.

In the meantime, the previous government increased spending far beyond the rate of inflation. In fact, in this past year alone, government spending increased by almost 15%, more than five times the rate of inflation. How many Canadians received that kind of salary increase? That is why the present government has brought runaway spending under control.

I am especially proud of the fact that the government has worked hard to reduce spending increases in the budget to 5.4% this year and 4.1% next year. For every new dollar in spending for which the budget provides, we are returning $2 to taxpayers.

Over the last 13 years the previous government hoarded and hid billions of dollars from budget surpluses. Canadians were told on one occasion that the surplus was $1.9 billion and then, after the fact, and perhaps the previous government was dyslexic, we discovered it was actually $9.1 billion.

Canadians are justifiably angry when their hard-earned tax dollars are hoarded and then wasted in scandals such as the sponsorship program, the costly gun registry and the HRDC boondoggle.

Fortunately, today we have a new government that actually keeps its promises, a government that is focused and a government that has a plan and that plan includes tax relief for all Canadians, not just a select few.

This is a budget that, unlike previous Liberal budgets, does not pick winners and losers, pitting one taxpayer against the other. It provides broad tax relief. This budget delivers on the promises that the Conservatives made and I made to British Columbians.

Let us have a look at that. B.C. alone will see a total tax cut of some $1.2 billion. We are providing truly universal child care benefits of $1,200 per child under age six. We are providing the gateway funding of $591 million. There will be $53 million for health care in B.C.. We see tax relief for the fishing industry, seniors, students and apprentices, and millions more to keep our streets and communities safe, more money for post-secondary education and infrastructure funding.

I want to talk about one specific issue in my community, which is immigration and providing some support for new immigrants. Approximately 25% of the residents in my community represent recent immigrants, let us say over the last 25 years. They needed help and it was not there. We are providing that help now as new immigrants come in to build our country, to integrate into our communities and to build the social fabric of our communities.

We are also providing $1.5 billion for farmers. As I have said before, my community's lifeblood is the farming industry. Farmers need help. They needed a review of the CAIS program and we are now delivering on that promise. We are also providing $400 million for B.C.'s strapped forest industry that has been devastated by the pine beetle infestation.

Ordinary British Columbians have reason to applaud. For a moment, however, I would like to speak about a group of people within my community who often have no voice and very little influence on decision makers. These are the homeless, those who, for whatever reason, have difficulty finding housing for themselves. My community of Abbotsford has experienced this problem firsthand.

As we know, housing prices on the west coast have sky-rocketed, placing incredible pressures on the poor in communities around B.C. In recent months the problem has become so acute in Abbotsford that a number of homeless have taken over a tract of land owned by the city and established temporary makeshift shelters. The area is known as compassion park. I want to commend the mayor and council of my community for their patience in holding off evicting these residents in order to seek a more permanent solution.

In fact, I am pleased to report that, together with numerous non-profit groups and charities, local churches and many caring residents, we are addressing the situation of the homeless in Abbotsford. I had hoped that as a federal government we would make our contribution to solving this problem. I am grateful to the Minister of Finance for specifically targeting British Columbia with an additional $106 million for affordable housing.

We made a promise and we delivered. Will British Columbians be better off because of this budget? Absolutely. In fact, a family earning between $15,000 and $30,000 per year will be better off by almost $300 in the year 2007, and those earning between $45,000 and $60,000 will save almost $650. More important, this budget marks a distinct culture shift in Canada, as my colleague earlier alluded to, a shift from entitlement to accountability, from overtaxation and uncontrolled spending to a government focused on priorities and fiscal prudence.

On January 23, Canadians voted for real change and this budget delivers the goods. Canadians finally have a government that takes its hands out of their pockets and delivers real tangible results.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member for Abbotsford who talked about tax relief. If the member were an honest person, he would recall that in budget 2000 the largest tax relief program in Canadian history was rolled out of $100 billion. It was a four year program ending in 2004. In 2006 there would have been an additional $50 billion.

The member talked about EI, which is very significant. I would remind the new member that when the Liberal government took over from the Conservatives in 1993, 12.3% or 12.4% of people were unemployed in Canada. Just as the Conservatives took over, because they are fairly new, it is down to 6.3%.

What am I driving at? The EI rate at the time of the previous Conservative government was $3.05 per $100 of earnings. We reduced it year after year to what it is today at $1.95. What does that mean? It means Canadians were paying less premiums but over three million of them were in secure jobs.

I want to ask the member to really be honest and just call a spade a spade.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would never suggest that the hon. member is dishonest as he has to me. It is very clear, however, that over the years that the previous government was in power, it accumulated $46 billion worth of EI premiums that did not have to be paid out. The Chief Actuary confirmed that there had been overcharging of premiums, money that was never needed to satisfy potential claims. We are returning $20 billion to taxpayers in this budget. That is real money, addressing real changes for Canadians.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to avail myself of this first opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment as the Acting Speaker of this House.

I listened attentively to the presentation by my colleague from Abbotsford. I would like to speak about the fiscal imbalance, as did my colleagues recently. It is very important for this matter to be resolved in Canada, given the difference between the revenues of the Government of Canada and those of provincial governments.

In addition, I would like to raise the issue of employment insurance. At present, the employment fund surplus totals about $48 billion. Perhaps this surplus will be considered when examining the issue of restoring fiscal balance. Could the government not have immediately retained the idea of establishing the independent employment insurance fund? Thus, the surplus would not continue to grow and to be seen as a hidden tax on a specific category of citizens only. Why did the government not immediately decide to create an independent employment insurance fund?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is suggesting that somehow we should prejudge the process that the Prime Minister and this government are going through right now to address the fiscal imbalance. Our number one focus in this budget was to return money to taxpayers' pockets and we have done that in spades.

The response I have been receiving from my residents in Abbotsford has been overwhelmingly positive. It is about time we got our hands out of taxpayers' pockets.

On the issue of the fiscal imbalance, the Prime Minister has made it very clear on numerous occasions in the House and outside that he intends to address that issue and is working very hard with the provinces to do just that.