Debates of Jan. 28th, 2009

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have acknowledged in a forthright way that there are many things about this budget that we do not like. I also said there were a number of things in the budget that we do like, although I spent less time on that aspect. However, I think the hon. member over there would agree at least that if we compare it with the November economic update, there is a huge improvement from one document to the other. I would ascribe almost 100% of that improvement to the work that the three opposition parties did together.

We have come to the conclusion that while this is an imperfect budget, it is a huge improvement over its predecessor and it can be worked with, subject to monitoring it, watching its implementation like a hawk, and being prepared, depending on how the economy evolves, to propose significant changes in policy, as our leader has indicated. Should the government not cooperate, it could be brought down in three, six or nine months' time. We shall see as time goes by. That is the position that I think our leader described very clearly today.

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

Madam Speaker, these are obviously difficult times. A hundred thousand people have lost their jobs in the last couple of months. There were signals that EI would go through a major reform in this budget., but it was a little disappointing.

While we will support the budget, it is conditional and we will keep an eye on it.

There is money for retraining, which is positive. The government has added five weeks in EI on the back end. Perhaps two weeks upfront would have had more of a stimulative effect to get rid of the waiting period, which is an affront to workers who have lost their jobs. I think there is some confusion on that side.

I believe the last minister who spoke, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, said that there was increased access to EI. If that is what she said, she is wrong. There is not. People are waiting up to 40 days. A woman in my riding is waiting 47 days for her EI benefits. People are waiting a long time.

I have talked to the member, who is our economic guru, about EI on a number of occasions. I know he understands it. Could he tell us some of the key things that we will be looking for in holding the government to account so that the workers of Canada have some support system as they lose their jobs in the coming months. What kind of measures on EI are we going to be looking at as we hold the government to account when the budget goes through?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, if I am the economic guru, my colleague is certainly the guru of human resources, employment insurance and education. We work very well together. I think he is the expert rather than me on employment insurance.

He has pointed out the areas that we would like to see addressed, possibly weeks of benefit. The government has done that, but arguably the weeks at the end are the least important. We agree on the two week waiting period. We agree on the speed of delivery of the cheques.

I would argue that most important of all, although it is hard to say what is most important but it is extremely important, is the number of hours of work required before a person is eligible to enter the system, particularly in a time of recession.

In terms of our leader's position on how this might evolve, today in an answer to a question, he said that we would look very closely at the way the employment insurance program worked in the coming months. He said that the government had extended the benefit period, but it did not extend the eligibility criteria, and that would be a critical point. He went on to say that if the situation of the unemployed worsened, we would have to take action. We would have to say to the government that its policy had to change, otherwise we would change governments.

This indicates a flexible position on the part of our Liberal Party and our leader, that it is an evolving situation. If the employment situation were to further deteriorate, as it might, then we would call upon the government to change certain employment insurance rules if it wanted to remain the government.

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

Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party's position is rather disconcerting and difficult to follow. According to what he just said, we need to make changes to employment insurance to make it easier to qualify for benefits. However, the Liberal Party is about to vote for a budget that would freeze contributions at 1982 rates. For all intents and purposes, it will no longer be possible to improve the program. And yet it wants a delay of a few months to improve it even though his party is helping to put a lock on the program.

I wish I could understand the logic in that decision.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, in a logical manner, we have deemed that the budget is not bad enough to trigger an election while in the midst of the current crisis. However, the budget is bad enough to warrant monitoring the government very closely. In addition, as our leader just said in the quote I read, it is possible, if necessary, that in coming months we will ask the government for economic changes.

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

Madam Speaker, the member is from Ontario. Seven out of 10 Ontarians who are unemployed will not get EI. Students will still be saddled with huge debts. There is no hope for anyone waiting for child care programs. People who earn less than $20,000 will not see an increase in child tax benefits.

Given all that, why would the Liberal Party not move some amendments to fix the problems, since its members go on at length about them? Instead of asking for some reports, which are essentially meaningless, why not change part of the budget to say that EI eligibility should be changed, for example?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that I do not think that accountability is meaningless. I think that once we get the information from these periodic reports then at that point we may well demand substantive changes of the kind that she is proposing. However, we want to see the reports, respond to the changing economic environment in the content of those reports, and at that time come forward with substantive points of the kind that she describes.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by indicating that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Egmont.

It is indeed an honour for me to rise today to deliver my maiden speech in this distinguished chamber. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my wife Annette and our two daughters, Tamara and Alexandra, as well as my parents and our extended family for their love and support.

I also want to recognize and thank the Hon. Walter McLean, the member of Parliament for my riding from 1979 to 1993, for his advice, encouragement and mentorship.

I am especially grateful to the constituents of Kitchener—Waterloo who have given me their vote of confidence. It is an honour to be their representative and I will work hard to be a strong voice for them here in this chamber.

It is my privilege to speak today to budget 2009, Canada's economic action plan. I would like to begin by commending the Minister of Finance for his wide-ranging consultation process. This has been one of the most comprehensive and inclusive pre-budget consultations in Canadian history, with direct input from literally hundreds of organizations and thousands of Canadians.

For example, in my own riding of Kitchener—Waterloo I joined with the hon. members from both Kitchener—Conestoga and Kitchener Centre to hold round table discussions with community leaders. This provided an opportunity for direct local input. We produced a report that was submitted to the Minister of Finance and I am pleased to see that several of our recommendations are reflected in our action plan.

One thing that became clear to me during our consultations was that local businesses were worried about the availability of financing. A businessman who runs a small parts company in my riding told me that he was having trouble meeting his payroll and other expenses. His business was surviving but his receivables were up and getting through the week was a challenge.

Members of the House can never forget that when we talk about programs to improve financing it means help for working Canadians to get them through a difficult time. Our economic action plan addresses this issue by creating the new business credit availability program to improve access to financing for Canadian businesses during this period of economic uncertainty. Additional loans and other forms of credit support will be made available to help businesses with viable business models whose access to financing would otherwise be restricted.

The Waterloo area is the recognized centre of high tech business innovation in Canada and my riding has benefited greatly from visionary companies like Research in Motion. Many of us here in the House have our own BlackBerry devices and we know that they are from Waterloo. However, there are countless other innovations that never see the light of day because of a lack of focus on the commercialization of research. To create jobs and keep our research in Canada we must support small businesses that develop these new ideas and bring them to the marketplace.

That is why I am pleased to see that our action plan is allocating $200 million over two years to the National Research Council's industrial research assistance program to enable it to temporarily expand its initiatives for small and medium size businesses.

The entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in Kitchener—Waterloo. By supporting small and medium size enterprises we will foster a community of innovative businesses that will sustain and grow the economy both locally and nationally.

The region of southern Ontario benefits from a number of economic advantages including high education levels, large and prosperous urban centres and a close proximity to the United States marketplace.

However, the weakening U.S. and global economies have resulted in plant closures and slower economic growth that are creating hardships for workers and families in southern Ontario. To revitalize the economy in southern Ontario, our economic action plan will provide more than $1 billion over five years for a new southern Ontario development agency. This new development agency will support community development, innovation and economic diversification with contributions to communities, businesses and non-profit organizations. It will help workers, communities and businesses in southern Ontario position themselves to take advantage of opportunities as economic growth recovers in Canada and around the world.

In addition to this, we are investing in federal public infrastructure. We will increase funding to VIA Rail Canada by $407 million to support improvements to passenger rail services. The addition of a third railway track at key locations between Montreal and Toronto will allow more express trains and cut travel times by 30 minutes.

Our action plan is designed to stimulate the economy and put people back to work. But at the same time, we must remember that the effects of the global recession are being felt by many Canadian workers and their families. Canada's economic action plan is taking action to help. We will extend EI benefits and provide new opportunities to enhance skills upgrading and training. We are also investing in social housing that provides many Canadians with quality housing at affordable rates.

The mayor of Waterloo, Brenda Halloran, spoke to our budget round table about the social housing needs in our city. Many existing units are aging and require significant repair and upgrading to meet modern energy efficiency and accessibility standards. Our economic action plan will address her concerns by providing $1 billion over the next two years to improve the quality and energy efficiency of up to 200,000 social housing units for Canadians who need it most.

These investments will also provide employment for construction workers who are concerned about the slowdown in the housing market. At the same time, Canadians are being encouraged to be more energy efficient. During the consultation process, one of my constituents sent me a detailed proposal that called for an expansion of our eco-energy retrofit program. I am certain that he will be pleased to see that our plan provides an additional $300 million over two years to the eco-energy retrofit program to support an estimated 200,000 additional home retrofits.

To further stimulate economic growth and encourage Canadians to invest in improvements in their homes, our plan also proposes to introduce a temporary home renovation tax credit. We will provide meaningful tax relief to help Canadian homeowners make improvements to their property while promoting broadbased economic activity and again help preserve jobs in the construction and materials sectors.

Canada's economic action plan will provide the stimulus our country needs to get the economy back on track and well positioned for future growth. We want to put people back to work and to create new jobs. By positioning ourselves as world leaders in innovation and technology, we are investing in long-term sustainable job growth.

One of the things that I heard repeatedly from businesses in Kitchener—Waterloo was that we must continue to invest in the knowledge sector. As Canada's premier high tech community, my riding depends on this sector to provide the good quality jobs that inject stimulus into the local economy. So I am pleased to see that the Minister of Finance responded by announcing that the Institute for Quantum Computing will be receiving $50 million to support the construction and establishment of a new world class research facility that will contribute to achieving the goals of the government's science and technology strategy.

Through the prudence and forward-thinking decisions made on our economic action plan, I am confident that we will emerge from this recession with a more modern and greener infrastructure, a more skilled labour force, lower taxes and a more competitive economy.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member for Kitchener—Waterloo, who I enjoyed the Scottish dinner with the other evening.

I am pleased to hear that the member is excited about the financing of innovators and alternative energy. I would appreciate the member responding to the fact that his government has proposed a budget that is going to provide hundreds of millions of dollars to prop up the fossil fuel industry to pay for the testing of carbon sequestration while at the same time it has chosen to end the innovative program to help invest in renewable energy.

I am wondering if the member could also respond to the fact that he mentioned the extensive consultation project on the budget and if he could inform the House whether that included the first nations of northern Alberta, who have been waiting for the federal government to commit funds to look into their serious health concerns downwind and downstream of the tar sands.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to assure the House that the government remains extremely committed to achieving our greenhouse gas emission goals and a reduction of greenhouse gases by 20% by 2020. We have reaffirmed that commitment in this budget. We have also clearly indicated that there will be funding for the research of green technologies and further support for carbon capture storage to ensure that our greenhouse gas emissions are reduced.

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

Madam Speaker, allow me to pass on my congratulations to the member on his first speech in this place. I remember my first speech four and a half years ago, which was about 11 elections ago now. His speech was well done.

He comes from an area that has benefited from the great investments in research made by the previous Liberal government. The people who own RIM have often spoken about CFI, the investments in the granting councils, and the great work that was done to reverse the brain drain and bring people back. It is very significant and the member comes from an area where people know that.

I would like to ask a specific question, which pertains to page 110 of the budget document, on the national child benefit supplement and the Canada child tax benefit. The government touts this as a great step forward for those most vulnerable, but it indicates that a family income of $35,000 will get $436 a year more whereas a family with an income of $20,000 a year will receive nothing. Is that really protecting the most vulnerable?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, in this budget the government has very clearly targeted tax relief for the most vulnerable in society. Our tax cuts are directed at lower and middle income Canadians to ensure that the tax burden is eased on those important segments of our society.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, again I congratulate the member on his first speech in the House.

My question has to do with employment insurance. I come from a riding where a significant number of forestry workers have been laid off. Not only do they not qualify for any of the transition money under the community development trust fund because many of them are under the age of 55 but many of them simply do not have enough weeks to qualify for an employment insurance claim.

I would like the member to address the fact that this budget fails working families who are simply not eligible for employment insurance under the current rules.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, this government is very committed to ensuring tax relief for lower and middle income Canadians, as I mentioned, and working families specifically with respect to EI benefits. In fact, this government through the budget will enhance EI benefits by extending benefits for five weeks and also improving retraining and training benefits under the employment insurance program.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Finance and his colleagues have conducted extensive and inclusive prebudget consultations in the past six weeks, could the hon. member tell me how closely this budget aligns with what he heard during his prebudget consultations?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can assure this House that we had extensive consultations in my riding of Kitchener—Waterloo and the feedback from those stakeholders who participated in those economic round tables has been very favourable with respect to seeing the results of their input directly in this economic action plan.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Madam Speaker, it is certainly a great privilege to rise in the House this evening to talk about budget 2009 and what it means for Canadians and communities across our country.

Our economic plan for Canada is the result of extensive consultation. We are responding by taking action to protect working families and their jobs today, while also creating jobs for the future.

Our action plan includes tax relief to stimulate the economy and seeks to protect those hardest hit by the global economic downturn, including those in our coastal and rural communities.

We are injecting money into the economy to get people working. We are striving to create employment for those hardest hit by this economic uncertainty. We are working with provinces, territories and municipalities and we are investing in sectors and regions right across the country.

Our government has demonstrated that we are focused on the economy, that we will do whatever it takes to help Canadians weather this storm and to get this economy rolling again. Exceptional times call for exceptional measures.

As Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, I would be remiss if I did not talk about how budget 2009 will benefit Canada's fisheries sector and coastal communities. The one issue that came up time and time again during my consultations and discussions with harvesters and processors from coast to coast was access to credit. The global credit crunch has reached all the way across this country but with our government's business credit availability program, that will change.

For example, a lobster processor who can no longer sell his inventory at the same price and volume as before to a U.S. client because that client is feeling the downturn, needs help to access capital to finance his ongoing operation. He turns to his bank for a line of credit but the bank says no because of competing requests and the seasonal nature of his business. Through the business credit availability program, the bank will be able to get support from a financial crown corporation to allow that processor's credit needs to be met on commercial terms. The same will apply to distributors. Access to credit will enable our seafood enterprises to manage inventories and ride out a challenging season.

Support for workers is also a key component of our economic action plan. By extending EI benefits by five weeks, and I have to say that this measure is already in place as a pilot project in some areas in Canada including mine, by providing additional funds for training and by extending support for older workers, such as those who are 55 and over, our government will be helping ships' crews, plant workers and harvesters weather the economic storm.

For those in the industry who are hardest hit by the decline in global demand for fish at reasonable prices, the $1 billion community adjustment fund will provide needed investments to address significant adjustment pressures in many fishing and coastal communities.

Working with regional development agencies, such ACOA and CEDQ, we will be able to invest in initiatives that will help our fishing industry adjust to new market demands.

Our government's action plan has far-reaching positive investment for fishing communities, the fisheries and marine sectors and beyond. That is why we are investing in communities in this time of economic uncertainty. With significant investments in small craft harbours and the Canadian Coast Guard, budget 2009 will assist Canadians weather the economic storm.

As we all know, Canada is a nation built on a fishing tradition that continues to endure. Our country's wild and cultured fisheries contribute $12 billion annually to the Canadian economy. Aquaculture accounts for one-third of the commercial fishery and it is worth over $900 million each year.

When combined, commercial fishing, processing and aquaculture employ over 130,000 people. The fisheries sector is the sole economic driver in more than 1,000 coastal communities.

Our government recognizes the value of the fisheries and marine sectors and we are committed to helping them flourish with close to $400 million for vital infrastructure, small craft harbours and the Canadian Coast Guard fleet.

We will invest funds in areas that will have the most direct benefit on the Canadian economy.

As part of our government's economic stimulus plan, we will invest up to $200 million over two years for repair and maintenance of core small craft harbours. Those small craft harbours are in the ridings of most MPs in this room. We must build safe, accessible and sound harbour facilities for the commercial fishing industry and for the communities they support.

In Prince Edward Island, this investment means projects in communities such as Wood Islands, where we will invest more than $2 million for the wharf stabilization program and harbour improvements. Miminegash Harbour in western P.E.I. will also receive $1.1 million for wharf construction and shore protection. The fishers in these communities have been waiting a long time for this funding and I am pleased to deliver this.

I recognize how important wharf infrastructure is to Quebeckers and that is why we have allocated $3.6 million to three harbours in the Gaspé region for repairs, construction and reconstruction.

Fishing harbours are also important to northerners. I am pleased to report that budget 2009 allocates an additional $17 million to accelerate the construction of a small craft harbour in Pangnirtung. This critical harbour infrastructure will support Nunavut's growing commercial fisheries and will mean jobs in a region that is seeking opportunities for further economic development.

We will also invest $87 million over two years to support the government's commitment to Arctic science. This includes investments in northern research facilities and preliminary work to fulfill our commitment to establish a high Arctic research station.

Our government will invest an additional $250 million over two years to modernize federal laboratories across the country. A portion of this new money will be put toward salmon enhancement program facilities throughout British Columbia.

As the government's maritime services provider, the coast guard is vital to our country's maritime economy. We will invest $175 million in the Canadian Coast Guard to procure 68 new small vessels, 30 environment barges and to undertake major repair work on 40 of our aging larger vessels.

By procuring 47-foot lifeboats, we will bolster search and rescue operations. Purchasing new inshore fisheries science vessels will enable scientists to conduct crucial research on the health of our oceans and the fish that live there. Replacing environment response barges will enable us to be better equipped to respond to environmental emergencies in Canadian waters.

Our government is also committed to major repair work on the fleet which will improve their availability and their reliability. In addition, we will extend the life of five existing multi-task coast guard vessels so they can continue to provide programs such as fishery conservation and protection patrols.

Work will be conducted in Canada where possible by shipyards located within the regions of the vessel's home ports. We intend to try to spread this work right across the country.

We have vessels in every region across the country from British Columbia to Newfoundland and Labrador, and our long term investments will provide support for shipbuilding. These investments will ensure that Canadian waters are safe, accessible and secure. These measures will speed up all funding initiatives so that they will directly benefit local economies, create jobs and strengthen communities.

Let there be no doubt that our government is working to minimize the impact of the economic downturn as much as possible.

As the first federally elected Conservative from P.E.I. in 20 years, I am proud to represent Egmont in this House. In this budget, our government actions will translate into real jobs and real jobs for Islanders. We all realize that P.E.I. is not immune to what is happening on the world stage, however, Islanders will see significant benefit from our action plan on the economy. As the Minister of Finance said yesterday, Islanders will benefit from projects like the Summerside wind project and the wharf repairs at Wood Islands and Miminegash.

Small businesses will be eligible for tax relief and our heritage programs will benefit from cultural infrastructure investments.

P.E.I. will also receive its share of our investments in social housing help for Canadians on fixed incomes, including $400 million for new social housing for seniors and $75 million for new social housing for persons with disabilities.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister's remarks, although I disagree with many of them because there is nothing in the budget for the basic industries in Prince Edward Island at the production level.

We welcomed the announcement by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the other day on the infrastructure funding for barns and a racetrack in Summerside. I am wondering if the precedent she set there would apply to other federal government programs. The precedent she set was a federal share of 91.2% of the funding for that racetrack, yet there are other infrastructure programs that only get one-third, one-third, one-third. Municipalities cannot do it. I want to know if that sets a precedent for the federal government. Can we expect 90% funding for other racetracks in the country, for other infrastructure in some of the basic industries?

P.E.I.'s hog and beef industry is in trouble. Our potato industry is in trouble. The current minister and a previous minister announced $12.4 million for crop loss during the election, but only $3 million of that has been spent. Those industries remain in trouble.

Is the minister going to allow $9 million of that money to come back to Ottawa when it is needed in Prince Edward Island, or is she going to assure us here today that it will go to those basic industries?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Madam Speaker, if the hon. member is implying that I have delivered too much money to my riding, I certainly will take that as a compliment.

I want to correct my colleague on one point. When it comes to community projects, federal government funding through ACOA can be up to 90%. We were happy to deliver that program to Summerside.

With regard to the $12 million that was provided by the Government of Canada for potato producers in P.E.I. last fall, it is my understanding there was uptake on a part of that, but a lot of the paperwork is held up somewhere in the administration of this project and that rests with the provincial government. I have asked my officials to check this out with the provincial government to make sure that that money does flow to the people who most need it.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was looking through the budget document and found that there is actually one small craft harbour in Atlantic Canada that is getting more funding than all of British Columbia combined by a stretch. I am wondering about the balance.

Prior to the break, the minister committed to me that she was willing to come up to the northwest coast of British Columbia. We are still waiting on her presence there so she can hear from workers involved in the fishery industry. Those workers have watched as the number of commercial boats has decreased from 750 down to 150. The employment insurance adjustments that they have been calling for within the fishery industry for years are absent from the budget. They are not there. This is the number one thing asked for consistently by fishing communities.

The hatchery program on the west coast has been decimated by this budget, the one before it, and the one before that. That is mostly volunteer work that the government has to seed with a small amount of money to allow for the restoration of the west coast stocks that have been so decimated.

Do we find any of these points in the budget? Not at all. If my dear friend from Atlantic Canada sitting on the Liberal benches is so upset with the budget and these measures, he has a clear option and choice ahead of him, which he will not take.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Madam Speaker, I want to assure the member that I have been to B.C. I was there probably for four days, and the time was spent doing some pre-budget consultations. I met with many organizations that represent industries in B.C.

I want to assure my colleague that the small craft harbour that was mentioned in the budget for B.C. is only the start of our program. We had chosen small craft harbours from each jurisdiction to be named in the budget. There will be many more to come. The amount of money attached to the project depends on the actual condition of that particular harbour.

I intend to go back to B.C. to talk to the fishers.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan.

The Bloc Québécois has already said it is in total disagreement with the Conservative budget. This budget is totally unacceptable for a number of reasons, some of which I will explain now.

Quebec and Quebeckers have been going through a major economic crisis, like many other regions, and were expecting much more vigorous efforts to re-start the economy. It is important to point out that the crisis now affecting other provinces arrived in Quebec quite a while ago.

When we talk about the crisis in industry in general, in manufacturing and especially forestry in Quebec, the areas where most of these industries are concentrated have been in crisis mode for four or five years now. Various communities in Quebec and the vast majority of its regions, whether involved in pulp and paper, softwood lumber, forestry or furniture, have been seriously affected for many years now.

We would naturally have expected the Conservative budget to come to the assistance of these communities and make up some of the lost time. The Conservatives have been doing nothing to support the forestry and manufacturing industries for quite a few years now. We would have expected them to take action for once. We said to ourselves, “Finally, they are going to make funds available, as they said they would”. What we saw instead, though, was that Quebec was completely forgotten in this budget.

The Conservative budget provides $170 million for the forestry and manufacturing sectors in comparison with $2.7 billion for the automobile industry in Ontario, which is generally agreed to have been in a crisis situation for six months or at most a year. Companies in Quebec have been closing their gates one after another, some temporarily but others permanently.

It is completely incomprehensible that the government is being so unfair in this budget. When we look again at what will be given to Ontario, we see a new agency for southern Ontario with a budget of $1 billion. Once more, there is an awful lot of money for Ontario. We said it before and will say it again: this is totally unfair to Quebec.

That is one of the measures that lead us to say it is impossible for members who really defend the interests of Quebec to vote for a budget like this, which deprives Quebec of large amounts of money and sends them elsewhere.

Another important issue is employment insurance. Rather than eliminating the two week waiting period, the Conservatives have chosen to do something—and will be supported in this by the Liberals—that will not help all the working people who lose their jobs. If the two-week waiting period had been eliminated, everyone who gets employment insurance would have been affected. The Conservatives decided instead, though, to extend the benefits for another five weeks at the end, when many people may have already found new jobs. Therefore it will cost less. Once again, the Conservatives are playing politics and saving money on the backs of people who have lost their jobs. Around 50% of people who lose their jobs do not qualify for employment insurance anyway. That is completely unfair. The Conservatives have refused to make employment insurance more accessible. The measures I have suggested would have really helped everyone who loses his or her job.

I was saying that the crises in the forestry and manufacturing sectors have hit Quebec especially hard in the past four or five years. Such measures might have been seen as a sign of the Conservative government's compassion for people losing their jobs. Not so. It is implementing a measure that will help only a few and gloating over its fine politics. That makes no sense, and we will most certainly oppose it.

There is another major item of discord, and I do not think we have heard the end of it, either. Apparent in yesterday's budget was the Conservative government's clear intention to put a cap on equalization. To do so unilaterally and without consultation is totally inappropriate and fails to respect the jurisdictions of those involved. Quebec is going to lose $1 billion in the next fiscal year and nearly $2 billion the following year. I can hardly imagine the difficult choices that will have to be made in Quebec.

Will educational and daycare services have to be cut. Will there be cuts to health care services, when people are already having a hard time finding a family doctor? These measures will have a very negative impact on Quebeckers.

As I was saying, will family policy be affected? While Quebec has been a leader for a number of years, the government is going to cause it to lose ground with measures like these, unacceptably.

By heightening the fiscal imbalance—I mentioned equalization—the Conservative government is breaking earlier promises, just as it did when it reiterated its intention to walk all over Quebec's jurisdiction over securities. I return to the subamendment proposed by the Bloc Québécois. It refers to a motion passed unanimously by the members of the National Assembly that says that the intention expressed by the Conservative Government in recent months to create a single securities commission is in contravention of Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction in this matter. It also is counter to the expressed wish of the Government of Quebec, which has made it clear that it is prepared to take this matter to the Supreme Court. It is quite out of the question for the Conservative government to heighten the crisis we are already in and to announce its intention to use this budget to open the subject and once again increase tensions between the governments of Quebec and Canada.

I add in closing that this Conservative government still without provision in its budget to implement the Kyoto accord is once again in conflict with Quebec's major economic interests. Many years ago, a system was set up in Quebec to reduce pollution significantly. Renewable energies and clean electricity are used with Hydro Quebec. Businesses and individuals have taken steps that have made Quebec a leader. Implementation of the Kyoto accord and the creation of a carbon emissions trading market would encourage Quebeckers and return to them the funds they have paid out of their own pockets.

I close by saying that this budget is totally contrary to the interests and values of Quebeckers.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, the member's speech was very thoughtful.

The member has complaints regarding the regional development agency for southern Ontario. Quebec has had a regional development agency for the entire province. All the provinces have access to one. Southern Ontario was the only region that did not have access to one.

Does he not think it is fair that southern Ontario now has the same access that all Quebeckers and other Canadians have?

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, when I mentioned the creation of this regional development agency, I did not mean to question the needs in various regions, be they in Ontario or elsewhere. However, in the proposed model for cutting or modifying the equalization system, we see that $1 billion will be deducted from the amount Quebec was counting on receiving this year. Curiously, the budget for creating this new agency is also $1 billion.

No doubt Ontario had no regional development agency because southern Ontario was already so well developed economically compared to the rest of Canada and Quebec that it did not need such an agency. Now, a region that was already very diverse economically is benefiting even more. That is what I meant to say.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am interested in my colleague's comments concerning employment insurance, especially as it relates to the transition and training fund as proposed in the Conservative budget yesterday. It is an awfully big number, $8.3 billion. However, when one starts to look at that number and breaks it out, over half of it goes to those who already work. There are $4.5 billion in the fund to ensure that EI premiums will not go up for the next two years.

If one is working, one does not collect employment insurance. That also includes employers that pay into the fund. They will get a holiday as far as the premiums are concerned, whereas that money could been have targeted towards those who do not work. However, when it comes to those who are vulnerable, those who do not collect employment insurance, when we start to break out the moneys, it is lower and lower.

Would my hon. colleague like to comment and perhaps tell us the impact that would have on vulnerable Quebec workers who do not qualify for employment insurance and the lack of adequate funding for those particular training programs?