Debates of Nov. 30th, 2007

Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-28, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007 and to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on October 30, 2007

First of all, I would like to reiterate my colleagues' comments that this bill does not address the Bloc's five priorities, which we all know are as follows: complete elimination of the federal spending power, tax measures for regions affected by the forestry crisis, maintaining in full the supply management system for agriculture, withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan in 2009, and full respect for the Kyoto protocol and Quebec's interests.

In this bill, the rich continue to have the biggest piece of the pie. Oil companies benefit the most from corporate tax reductions. Because Quebec manufacturing companies make no profits, this bill does nothing for them.

The bill does not include any measures to help the manufacturing and forestry sectors, which are in crisis. Yesterday, in response to a question, my colleague from Trois-Rivières said that it would take shock treatment. The Conservatives are not here to provide that sort of treatment.

This bill also has nothing for seniors. Since this is an issue I feel strongly about, I am going to talk about it.

The bill does not provide for indexing the guaranteed income supplement or for fully retroactive benefits for seniors who were cheated for years. It does not include an assistance program for older workers who have lost their jobs and cannot find work. This bill enhances a side deal benefiting Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, which cuts the heart out of the equalization program, and Quebec is paying the price.

That is why we are opposed to this bill. Whether we are talking about tax credits or the decrease in the GST, the people who are benefiting from these measures are still the richest members of our society, while the others are continuing to sink deeper and deeper into poverty. Yet these are the people who need help.

I have been sitting in this House as a Bloc Québécois member for a year now. When I look at how the government operates, I sometimes get the feeling that we are the only ones who are defending the poor.

With regard to the 1% cut in the GST, which will cost the federal government $6 billion and the Government of Quebec $100 million, we wonder who really benefits. I talked to other people about this, and the example I was given is totally absurd. I was told that someone who buys a $300,000 house will benefit from the 1% decrease in the GST. I wonder who can afford a $300,000 house. Are most people in Canada and Quebec buying $300,000 houses? I doubt it very much. Surely not. Who benefits from the decrease in the GST?

I would like to talk further about seniors who are living in dreadful conditions and whose income puts them, in large part, below the poverty line.

I toured Quebec in the spring and I saw to what extent certain seniors live in extreme poverty. In 2004, a study established the low income cutoff at $14,794. That was in 2004 for a single person. In 2007, even with the $18 increase from the Conservatives, the maximum income under the guaranteed income supplement was $13,514. That means that a poor senior who receives the maximum guaranteed income supplement is living below the poverty line. That person is $1,280 a year, or $106 a month, shy of reaching the low income cutoff.

There is something scandalous about that. Once we know about it, then we have a moral and human obligation to do something. The government is up to its neck in surpluses: $11.6 billion this year and $14.5 billion next year. The government should be doing something for the least fortunate in our society, but it is not.

What is more, we know that in Quebec, and even in Canada, a good number of seniors are not receiving the guaranteed income supplement even though they are entitled to it, quite simply because they are not receiving the necessary information. Seniors are not aware of this program and the government is not doing anything to reach them. In Quebec alone, an estimated 40,000 seniors are poor—and therefore eligible for the guaranteed income supplement—but are not receiving the supplement for lack of information.

A few years ago, an MP from the Bloc Québécois, Mr. Gagnon, did an extraordinary job of finding these seniors. He reached thousands of them, but unfortunately many more remain.

A few weeks ago, we all saw the story on Radio-Canada television of the woman in Toronto, Mrs. Bolduc, 78, who was living on $7,000 a year. She was entitled to the guaranteed income supplement, but did not know it. A social worker took up her case. Once again, we would have liked Mrs. Bolduc to receive five years of retroactivity after being cheated by the government for years. However, she was granted just 11 months of retroactivity even though five years of retroactivity would have amounted to just $12,000. The reporter asked her what she would do with $12,000. She said she would buy winter clothes, because winter was coming.

I called Mrs. Bolduc the day before yesterday, and I spoke to her for an hour. She was just leaving the hospital after breaking her arm last Friday when she fell in a Toronto subway station. I asked her if I could talk about her today, and she gave me her blessing. As I priest, that was all the encouragement I needed. I am usually the one giving people blessings, but in this case she gave me her blessing.

Mrs. Bolduc said something to me that I would like to share with the House. She said that in a country as rich as ours, it is shameful to deprive seniors of a decent income. I think this bears repeating so that the Conservatives will really hear it. The worst of it is that the government knows about the situation but is not doing anything to fix it. The government would rather spend its surplus on the debt than enable our to seniors live with dignity. I find that scandalous and immoral.

It is indecent to be treating our seniors like this. They are the people who built this country. They are not asking for handouts. They are just asking for their due. We know that seniors are getting poorer and poorer. We know that there is not enough housing and that much of it is inadequate. We know that suicide rates among seniors are climbing. It is scandalous that nothing is being done to help them.

Members of the Bloc Québécois cannot support this bill because it perpetuates gross injustices upon older workers, the manufacturing sector and seniors. It is important to speak out against it.

I have two minutes left, so I would like to share some lines that Georges Lalande, the president of the Quebec seniors council, included in a document that was sent to Quebec seniors. He quoted Victor Hugo to illustrate how important seniors are in a society like ours. Here is what Hugo wrote:

All things found upon this earth
Rich tradition gave them birth
All things blessed by heav'n on high
All thoughts human or divine
These things, if rooted in the past
Bear leaves that will forever last.

I think this means that seniors are important because they represent where we came from and help us to see where we are going.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Repentigny for his moving remarks about a senior who was short changed with the guaranteed income supplement. He spoke a little about how it was shameful that the government is going to pay down the national debt—which is not a bad thing—when it should start by paying back the money owed to seniors.

The Bloc Québécois is not asking for new subsidies to be created here. They have a right to that money; they simply did not claim it in the past, because the government did not provide enough information.

If, as a country, we are going to pay our debts, we should start by paying back the debt we owe to seniors. It is even more shocking that they cannot get full retroactivity. I think that if the situation were reversed, if the seniors had failed to pay their taxes for five or ten years, they would not be able to tell the tax man that it has been more than 11 months, and too bad for him, but they are not going to pay their taxes.

Does my colleague not find this double standard absolutely disgraceful? If a senior owes the government money, it will go back 5, 10, 15 years, but when the government owes money to seniors, for some inexplicable and unknown reason, they get only 11 months retroactivity.

Also, does my colleague not find it shameful that during its election campaign, the government promised to fix this problem and it still has not? It is breaking—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Repentigny.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his questions. Indeed, this is scandalous. An older person once said to me that the government has a long arm when the time comes to take money from our pockets, but its arm is not nearly as long when it is time to dig into its own pockets. That is one way of describing the injustice that exists. And it is true.

Considering the surplus accumulated by the government this year, the retroactivity question could easily be resolved. It would cost $3.1 billion for all of Canada, and there is a surplus of $11 billion. Thus, this problem could be resolved, especially given the growing numbers of seniors in this country. We have heard that by 2015, 28% of the population will have reached age 60.

It seems to me that we must find a place for them, especially since these people often live in insecurity; they are often disadvantaged, afraid and need help. There are growing numbers of poor seniors. This is important.

The second question had to do with the Conservatives' broken promise. During the election campaign, the Conservatives promised to resolve this problem, but it remains unresolved. An increase of $18 a month was given, when we know that $110 is what is needed just to reach the low income cutoff, the poverty line. This is also scandalous and is, in many ways, immoral.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I invite the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber to take his seat for a moment, because I would like to allow the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé to speak.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. As we all know, our colleague from Repentigny has a long history of spiritual and social involvement, and I am sure that he finds the government's contempt for seniors and workers scandalous. This week, they voted against the $55 billion employment insurance fund, thereby depriving seniors and workers of income.

What does the member for Repentigny think of this right-wing government—

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Heartless, a heartless government!

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

—that wants to get rid of all social programs and policies for the most needy in our society?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The member for Repentigny has 20 seconds to reply.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I would like to respond to part of the question. Yes, it is scandalous. Take housing, for instance. As I travelled around Quebec, I went to Rimouski, where seniors in wheelchairs were living on the fourth floor of a building with no elevator.

We know that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation records a surplus every year, so we are asking the government to increase transfers to Quebec based on the population and—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

We must continue with the debate. The hon. member for Davenport.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the government's budget and economic statement implementation act.

Although budgets often seem to be about numbers, balance sheets and allocations, the reality is they are truly about people. They are not just dollars and cents.

The decisions that are made here directly affect the lives of millions of Canadians, and this is an important and enduring responsibility. I have always believed that, in this context, budgets must be fair, balanced and responsible, not just responsible in fiscal terms but in how they treat Canadians.

I am always pleased and honoured to have the opportunity to visit with constituents and agencies within my riding of Davenport. Their insights are invaluable to me and they are truly caring and dedicated people.

During the recent break in the parliamentary calendar, I met with many of these wonderful people, who live and provide invaluable service in my riding. I visited with agencies like FoodShare, the Working Women Community Centre, St. Christopher House and Stop Community Food Centre. I also had the opportunity to meet with residents of Terra Nova Apartments, New Horizons, Rankin Apartments and St. Anne's Place.

At each location, I was deeply moved by the concerns expressed by these caring and concerned people. The concerns touched on things we should all see as priorities. They spoke about poverty in our country, the crisis facing our cities and fair taxation policies, to name but a few of the things about which they talked.

I share the concerns of my constituents on the issue of poverty and, in particular, the realities that many of our children and most vulnerable citizens must face each and every day. Only a few days ago a report was issued that indicated one in every eight Canadian children lives in poverty. This is an outrage in a country as blessed and prosperous as Canada. It is amazing when a statistic like this is released and all the government can do is speak of growth statistics and optimistic fiscal forecasts, which fail to take into account the human face of poverty.

In my city of Toronto 93,000 households live in poverty. During my meeting at the Rankin Apartments in my riding, the people spoke of the realities of poverty. In the context of the government's fiscal plan, not one economist of note, anywhere in the country, agrees that the 1% cut in the GST is a sound fiscal policy. In fact, most agree that the reduction of GST will have such minimal effect for the average family. The supposed gains would be virtually negligible.

As the Leader of the Opposition has suggested repeatedly, the funds from 1% of the GST would have been much better spent to address issues facing Canada's most vulnerable people. Can anyone imagine the investment that could be made in the fight against poverty with the billions of dollars the government is relinquishing on the GST cuts? People in my riding can. Why can the government not?

During my visits to programs like FoodShare and Stop Community Food Centre, the realities of hunger are rarely more apparent. What kind of government adopts policies for political shows while many of its most vulnerable citizens go hungry?

I am proud that the leader of my party has announced a real plan of action on this issue of poverty in Canada. The 30:50 plan would create a “making work pay benefit”, improve the child tax benefit, lift seniors out of poverty, assist first nations people and, as per its name, cut the number of people living below the poverty line by 30% within five years and reduce the number of children living below the poverty line by 50% in five years. This is a real plan of action, not just platitudes and political posturing.

The residents of St. Anne's Place, Terra Nova Apartments and New Horizons live in the heart of Toronto. They witness each day the need for investment in our cities, particularly in the areas of infrastructure and public transit.

Cities across the country require a minimum of $123 billion in infrastructure funding. Like the famous line from the movie once asked: “Where is the money?” Unfortunately, from this government there is very little to be found even in a time of unprecedented prosperity that it inherited as a result of the hard work of the previous Liberal government.

My colleague, the member for Don Valley West, who served as infrastructure minister in the previous Liberal government, welcomed cities to the table and had begun a process of supporting them with real and meaningful funding. We do not see this from the current government.

Yesterday we heard of the government's action with regard to HIV-AIDS funding and its decision to honour commitments made by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation by taking money away from other programs instead of putting forward new money as agreed. This is simply wrong.

In 2005 the former Liberal government put forward a real fiscal plan of action to help seniors, assist students, address poverty, support child care, and improve the lives of millions of Canadians. That is what a budget should really be about. The reality is that the government is like the salesperson who sells a shiny new car with gleaning paint, clean windows, nice upholstery, but the car has no engine. It is all smoke and mirrors.

For Canada's most vulnerable, for those most in need including our seniors, students, the working poor, and the cities in which they live, there is nothing in this budget document that provides any hope for a better future.

I am proud to belong to a party which has a more just, more equitable, and more humane view of Canada. We on this side of the House are heirs to the legacy of Trudeau and Pearson, the party of national health care and the Canada pension plan, and we will always speak up for those who are most vulnerable as I am proud to do today.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to correct the record. It was actually a Conservative prime minister who brought in the Canada pension plan. As well, it was Prime Minister Diefenbaker who lowered the age to 65.

However, the member was talking about fairness and justice. When the people of Canada elected us, we had a situation where there was an unbalanced marriage penalty in the taxation laws, there was an accelerated capital cost allowance for the oil fields, the majority of families had no benefit at all for child care, the corporate tax rate was such a burden on Canadian companies it was hard for them to compete, and the Liberals had promised to scrap the GST but never did.

We corrected the marriage penalty and now a spouse who stays at home has the same exemption. We cut the GST to 5%. The personal exemption rate went down by $1,000. The age exemption for seniors also was raised another $1,000 so they pay less tax. We have also introduced income pension splitting for seniors. Which one of those initiatives would the member like us to remove for the people of Canada? These are all initiatives for people who are in vulnerable situations and who need help.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member speaks of initiatives the government has brought forward, but yet we see our cities crying for infrastructure moneys and a need for more child care spaces without any support from the government.

The member opposite forgets that this is a government for the first time in the history of our country which has no elected members in any of the large major cities in this country: none in Montreal, none in Vancouver, none in Toronto. The reason for that is because Conservatives do not understand the real needs of the major cities and their concerns facing poverty, issues of homelessness, issues affecting seniors, and issues affecting infrastructure.

That is the reason the government has no support within the major cities across this country. If we look at its record, it speaks for itself. It is the record that a majority of our seniors cannot support because of the fact that the Conservative government has a dismal record when it comes to addressing issues of poverty, homelessness, and child care in our cities that is so badly needed.

I would challenge the member to go out and speak to those groups and tell them it has done exactly what he said because most cities, most municipalities, and most mayors would laugh in his face.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not have the opportunity before to ask a third question. However, perhaps my Liberal colleague could respond.

A great deal has been said about this heartless government that refuses to pay back money owed to seniors cheated out of the guaranteed income supplement. I realize that our views on state assistance to citizens will vary according to our political philosophies. The belief that solidarity is important or that personal initiative and individualism are more important will depend on whether we are on the left or the right side of the political spectrum. I can understand that. However, I believe that one thing should be clear to all members, whether they are on the left or the right, and that is that we must be concerned with justice. When money is owed to seniors—or to anyone for that matter—it should be given to them even though the debt goes back one, two, three, five or ten years. A debt must always be paid.

Does my Liberal colleague agree that, no matter whether we are on the right or the left, it is reasonable that seniors who failed to claim amounts to which they were entitled, over the years, should receive these amounts?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the seniors of our country, the elderly, need our help. That is very obvious. The poverty rate in our country is too high. Poverty among seniors is scandalous. As parliamentarians, we must help all the seniors in our country.

Lowering the GST will not solve the problem. We must find a solution that will help the seniors in our society.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the 2007 economic update.

I must say, though, that it is a woefully inadequate document. It simply does not take Canada in the direction that Parliament and the House of Commons is obligated to take our country. It quite simply sees this government, as with the past government, taking Canada down the wrong path.

It is not a balanced approach and it completely overlooks an unprecedented opportunity to invest in the people and the communities of this nation.

If we think about it, year after year we have seen incredible surpluses, surpluses that could have been invested in a way that is appropriate and helpful.

The point is that we have not had any real investment in this country. We have not had a new social program in the last 30 years. This government and the government before it had all kinds of chances to invest in national housing, child care, students, and in every juncture but both failed and failed quite miserably.

New Democrats are very concerned about the economic statement and we want to make it very clear that we will not be supporting the government's financial statement. We see it has no promise for the people we represent.

What we wanted and did not get was a balanced approach, investment in people and communities, targeted tax relief for those who need it most, and a chance to close that ever increasing prosperity gap.

I would like to speak a little bit about the reality that I see in my constituency and what this budget will not mean for the people of London—Fanshawe.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

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

My apologies to the hon. member who is speaking, but I think it is pertinent that this point be raised with you, Mr. Speaker.

During a question and comment period, the member for Jeanne-Le Ber used an unparliamentary term and I would request that you, Mr. Speaker, review the blues and act in accordance with your decision.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I thank the hon. the parliamentary secretary for his point of order. I will review the blues forthwith and come back to the House if necessary.

The hon. member for London--Fanshawe has the floor.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while I certainly would never support unparliamentary behaviour in this place, it would seem to me that we should be a lot more focused on the needs of the people of our community, their economic needs and the security of those communities, than to be dancing on words.

At any rate, I want to speak about the city I live in, the city of London, and I want to tell members what this budget and previous budgets have meant to those who are most vulnerable.

There is a community of women who have been supported by a remarkable place: My Sister's Place. About four years ago, when a review was done of services for women in the city of London, it was discovered that services for women suffering from mental illness or living in abusive situations were woefully inadequate. So, out of the housing budget, out of the SCPI budget, allocations were made to support My Sister's Place and it received about $150,000 a year.

That might sound like a lot of money, but when we put it into the large picture of things, it is really very little money for what we see in terms of services to the women of my community.

One woman told me, quite frankly, that if it had not been for My Sister's Place she would have died, that she, quite simply, would have perished, that she owed her life to the staff and the sisterhood that she found at My Sister's Place. Because it is not just the staff, although they are absolutely remarkable and do extraordinary work, it is the other women, the 60 or so women who come in every day, who provide that additional love and support that women who are abused, women who are homeless, women who are suffering from addictions and mental illness so desperately need. It is lonely out there.

My great regret is that this government does not understand what it means to be alone, what it means to be afraid, what it means to be homeless, and what it means to do without day after day. I wish that the Conservatives would try to understand.

At any rate, under the SCPI funding, it received $150,000. It was always from one year to the next. It had to reapply every year. It had to fill out extensive forms. Nobody was ever sure whether that money was coming through because the Liberal government had nothing in terms of core funding. It was a band-aid approach that left all of us, I would say, wondering, worrying and trying to figure out how we would manage.

This government came through with a new program. They call it HIPPY on the street. It is supposed to take the place of SCPI.

The interesting thing is that the government cut in half the allocation for My Sister's Place and the other agencies that make up the homelessness coalition in London. In September, it was very clear that this very important service was going to, quite simply, disappear and so the folks at My Sister's Place went into fundraising. At this point in time, they have been able to cobble together a plan and find enough community support to manage.

However, that is not good enough. The charity of the community is not infinite and the time will come when the lack of funding is going to cause significant problems for My Sister's Place and for At^Lohsa, which provides services to aboriginal people living in this city, and programs for street youth. In fact, we have lost a great deal of the programming that we had for street youth.

Quite ironically, we have a government standing on its hind legs, carrying on about how it will address crime with boot camps and all kinds of criminal bills to get tough on kids. I would call it a devastation of the youth in our communities. The government has done nothing to prevent children from being involved in crime. There are no preventative measures, and I have seen that first-hand in my city.

Another thing that this so-called budgetary interim statement fails to address is the infrastructure problem. I stood in the House about three weeks ago and talked about the six metre sinkhole, which appeared in the middle of downtown, and the crumbling infrastructure. I found out subsequently that older cities like Montreal, Toronto, London are in desperate need of infrastructure dollars. In fact, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has indicated that there is a $123 billion deficit, which is soon to become a $150 billion deficit.

The end result of this lack of investment in our cities has caused a real problem, not just the mess that a sinkhole and crumbling infrastructure creates, but a problem in regard to clean water. About 40% of the clean water produced in cities is leaking from old infrastructure. It costs a great deal to ensure that water is safe and clean. It is a very expensive proposition. We are losing that because we have inadequate infrastructure.

I had a great deal more to say, but I want to conclude by saying the economic update provides $1.50 a day to the average Canadian family, but $14.5 billion to big oil, to big banks, to those who need it least. The end result is the $190 billion is being taken from the federal government funding capacity, our ability to address the need for housing and need for infrastructure.

The Conservative government has done nothing. The Liberal Party sat on its hands. It is not acceptable.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

As we know, the Bloc wanted specific measures to help the workers, companies and regions affected by the forestry crisis. But the economic statement in this bill does nothing for the manufacturing sector, nothing in terms of a program to assist older workers, and even less than nothing for seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement.

By the way, as my colleague said earlier, the guaranteed income supplement is money that the government owes to seniors.

The Bloc Québécois believes that whether a person is on the left or the right, regardless of his political beliefs, the least he can do is keep his word. But the Conservatives did not do that. When they campaigned in Quebec, they said they would solve the problem with the guaranteed income supplement for seniors, but they did not solve it, nor did they announce a new POWA. The independent employment insurance fund now stands at $55 billion. But this week, they voted against a bill that would do something about it.

How can a government that is forecasting an $18 billion surplus over the next four years do nothing for the poor and less fortunate in this country?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess it is a matter of priority.

I will follow up with a couple of observations. He talked about seniors. The status of women committee looked at the economic security of women primarily, but we also touched on senior women and seniors in general. We discovered that far too many of our seniors were living in poverty.

Again, I come back to that $14.5 billion. All that money is being given to big oil companies and big banks, but nothing for the people who desperately need it. There is no money for seniors or for women who are living below the poverty line because they cannot access programs. Programs, such as the employment insurance fund, have been plundered not just by the Conservative government but by previous governments.

The government has no real consideration or concern about how to build a community, or what must be done to have strong communities. Investment in communities is essential. Yet $190 billion has been taken out of the federal government's ability to invest, to fund communities, to create the kind of nation that real leadership would determine. The government should be concerned.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, why does the member say the previous Liberal government did nothing? Does she believe that taking a country that had a $42 billion annual deficit in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1994, and turning that into eight or nine consecutive surplus budgets, paying down debt by $135 billion, reducing income taxes and giving Canada the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years is doing nothing?

If those are the facts, which I know they are, why would the member insult everyone's intelligence and suggest that somehow the previous government did nothing, as she said in her speech?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is interesting. I have a little story in regard to those surpluses and that reduction of the deficit.

In 1997, at a luncheon, Jean Chrétien congratulated himself for reducing the deficit and bringing about prosperity. What he did not tell everyone was that he had raided the EI fund and people entitled to employment insurance were receiving none.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a Friday and it is just a few minutes before we move into the last part of the day with private members' business. I would have liked a full time slot to talk about repackaging, and it has nothing to do with industry or business. It has to do with that government over there, which has not come up with anything new that was not already in the works when it became government. Then it reintroduced it.

On the transportation bill, I remember the parliamentary secretary stood and said that the government had held extensive consultation on it and had come with the bill. In fact, there were extensive consultations and they went on for two years, but the Conservatives took credit for it. They took credit for the bill. It was a good bill, and we will support it.

Then there is some more repackaging. The Conservatives came up with 10 or 12 justice bills. They all went through the process and to the justice committee. Then all of a sudden, the justice committee could only deal with one bill at a time. It had been loaded up. It had no chance whatsoever to deal with all the bills because they had to be done in a reasonable order.

Then the Prime Minister got up at a function and said that the other parties had wasted 1,000 days in getting through the government's important legislation on crime. The government has not even been in power a thousand days. That is a long time.

Here is how the Prime Minister thinks. The bill waited for another bill that was before the committee. It waited 200 days. The next bill waited 250. The next bill waited 200 to 300 days. He added them all up and came up with a thousand. This is the new math of the Conservative government. I have a feeling Canadians have to beware of what they have been shown. It is the tip of the iceberg. This is a government that cannot be trusted.

As the transport minister just indicated, the government is very scary. That is the point.

What did the Conservatives do on a scary night like Halloween? They had the biggest broken promise in the history of Canadian government. They had promised during the election—