House of Commons Hansard #4 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Bloc

Roger Pomerleau Bloc Drummond, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador. She just gave an eloquent speech, reminding us just how unacceptable this budget is for the people in her province, the people of Quebec, as well as tens of thousands of Canadians all over the country who in no way benefit from this budget. My colleague used these expressions: “reprehensible, unconscionable, difficult to swallow; real impact on real people”.

How can any representative of a constituency, a riding of 80,000 voters, rise in this House and say that the budget just presented is not good for their constituents, that it deprives them of things they so desperately need, and at the same time, despite how bad it is, say that they are going to support that budget on behalf of their constituents?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Liberal

Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Madam Speaker, these are extremely difficult times in our country. The issues we are facing today in Newfoundland and Labrador are exactly as I have outlined. The change proposed in the budget is absolutely going to harm Newfoundland and Labrador. The change in this budget has a very big impact on the province.

I have received many calls and many contributions from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador on this very issue. We are listening to their concerns. The sharing of the offshore oil and gas industry revenues of $1.5 billion is not acceptable to Newfoundland and Labrador. I would think it would not be acceptable to this country to treat a member of our federation in this manner.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont Alberta

Conservative

Mike Lake ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member on her speech and I look forward to serving with her on the industry committee.

In her speech she used words like “ugly truth” and talked about catching up with the rest of the world. Obviously we have heard that same political language for strategic Liberal purposes over the course of their speeches today.

I want to clarify a few things. I have mentioned this quote from London's Daily Telegraph before, but it is a great quote about our Prime Minister in comparison with other G8 leaders:

Of all the leaders, only...the Canadian Prime Minister is able to point to a popular and successful record in office.

Some will regard it as alarming that, in current times, world leadership should rest with Canada. But the Canadian Tories are a model of how to behave during a downturn.

They have kept spending in check and reduced taxes....

It goes on to say at the end:

If the rest of the world had comported itself with similar modesty and prudence, we might not be in this mess.

Organizations like the OECD, the IMF and the World Economic Forum have ranked Canada as a world leader in terms of our ability to come out of the recession and the stability of our banking system.

I would like to give the hon. member a chance to articulate some of the things that she likes about the budget since I anticipate she might be voting in favour of it. I know her party is going to anyway.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Madam Speaker, thank you to the hon. member for the question. I look forward to serving with you on the very important Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. The future of our country is to look at investments in terms of jobs of the future, investments in terms of what we should be doing in genomics and some of the other very important areas of science. Ocean technology is very important in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I welcome your question. I lived through the 1990s as a business person in Newfoundland and Labrador. I have been on the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I have contributed to the business community of this country. Thank goodness for the Liberal government at the time for setting the parameters in place that allowed for the economic circumstance we had until recent times. If it were not for the previous minister of finance and the previous prime minister of this country, we would not be in such economic good fortunes.

You consider, sir, that over the last while we have now faced one of the largest deficits in our history.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

I would ask all members to address their remarks through the Chair.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Barrie.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Patrick Brown Conservative Barrie, ON

Good afternoon, Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you during a critical period for Canada. I would also note that I am sharing my time with our distinguished member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

A synchronized global recession is hitting every economy in the world. Canada, as a great trading nation, is feeling its effects. I have certainly noticed the pain in my home town of Barrie as well. We have lost jobs in the manufacturing sector, as have many towns in Ontario.

It is my sincere belief that the economic action plan delivered by the finance minister on January 27 was an appropriate and meaningful answer to the economic challenges we are facing. It is Canada's plan to stimulate our economy, to protect Canadians during this global recession and to invest in our long-term growth.

Our government built this plan after one of the broadest and deepest consultation processes in Canadian history. We heard Canadians' concerns about their jobs, their savings and their families. We listened to their concerns and took their advice. Now we are taking immediate and meaningful action.

We are giving more tax relief by letting Canadians earn more money before paying higher tax rates. We are building on the benefits that exist for low-income Canadians. The working income tax benefit is being increased as an added incentive for Canadians to join and remain in the workforce.

I was at the Terraces seniors home in Barrie last weekend for the 90th birthday party of my friend Raymond Blackett. I was told as I left his birthday party to make sure that we did not forget seniors in the budget. I am pleased to say that the budget certainly did not. Seniors will see new support. We are increasing the age credit amount by an additional $1,000, and we are also reducing by 25% the amount Canadian seniors are required to withdraw from their registered retirement income funds for 2008.

The bottom line is that this year and over the next five years, our personal income tax measures will put about $20 billion back into Canadians' hands and back into the Canadian economy to keep it moving forward.

When I think of tax relief, I think of my grandfather. He is very much the typical resident in Barrie. I have dinner with my grandfather every Sunday. He is 92 years old. He has been working every day all his life. He gives me the same message every Sunday: “Tell those folks in Ottawa we pay too much tax”. I think his sentiment is shared by many Canadians. I am glad the budget recognizes that we need to put more funds back into Canadians' pockets.

Let me paint a picture of how tax relief helps the local economy. I give the example of a family in Barrie. Garry Perkins, on Crompton Drive, is a pilot in Barrie. His wife Karen is a local nurse. The Perkins family resides in the north end of Barrie.

Cutting taxes means they will have more money available to support their family. I asked Garry what this tax relief would mean to him, and he gave me an example. Maybe it means he could get his son Andrew a new set of hockey equipment from Garner's, a local sports store on Dunlop Street, so by supporting local business, we are protecting a job that might have been imperilled during the slowdown. The cycle provides tremendous synergy for our economy when we put money back into the pockets of Canadians. Plain and simple, putting tax dollars back into the economy works.

I was particularly encouraged by another aspect of the budget, an aspect that I think is important to note from the perspective of an Ontarian. When I looked at the breakdown of health care across the country, I noticed Ontario is getting a $139 million increase in health care transfers. Canadians coast to coast are seeing an increase as well. It is important to note that point, because the last time Canada and the world faced a significant global recession, the approach taken by the government of the day, a Liberal government, was to significantly cut health care transfers to the provinces. The pain caused by those cuts was quite dramatic. The doctor shortages we are facing today, and some of the catastrophic crunches hospitals are facing, are a direct result of the beating the health care system took during that government's attempt to hide fiscal problems by attacking the health care system.

This government has shown a lot of leadership by managing to continue to increase health care funds despite the economic challenges we are facing, to such an extent that the Liberal Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, actually commended the Prime Minister two days ago for the budget, which he believes is positive for the country and the province of Ontario.

I am pretty excited about that aspect of the budget. I was touring the ER ward at Royal Victoria Hospital with the head of the nurses' union, Tracey Taylor. I talked to a local nurse, Betty, from Dunsmore Lane in Barrie, and they are already working beyond capacity. It would be the wrong choice to cut health care funds at this time. I am glad this government is not repeating the dreadful mistake that occurred in the 1990s when that government made that error.

Housing and renovation are important aspects of the budget to highlight. Our plan gives a shot in the arm to the home construction and home renovation industries. Both are key drivers of our economy. It allows first-time home buyers more flexibility to withdraw from RRSPs to make their purchase and gives them a break through a tax credit on their closing costs.

Our plan also includes a new measure to let Canadians invest in the value of their homes while putting tradespeople to work and giving a boost to businesses that make and sell building products. For the next two years, the new home renovation tax credit will apply to the costs of labour and supplies. It could save Canadians up to $1,350 when they improve their homes. This should certainly create jobs across the country.

I look at this through the lens of the city I represent. Just two weeks ago I was touring the facility of Yanch Heating in Barrie, one of Canada's leading producers of geothermal technology. I went on the tour with company owner Chris Yanch, who told me residents are taking up this notion of geothermal, which reduces energy consumption by 75%. He said the missing link was that there was not enough incentive to make those changes, and he wished we had a budget that would provide a little more help.

I am very pleased to be able to call that company and say that a resident in Barrie or anywhere in Canada who wanted to install geothermal would now get $1,350 more. We are helping people become active environmental stewards of their own homes.

On that same note, I remember meeting in the summer with people from another company in Barrie, Dommelvalley. They produce solar panels, and they also said that they could do so much more if there were a little incentive to help Canadians make these retrofits to their homes.

This budget does just that. It is important, and Canadians should certainly take the government up on it and make these changes. This incentive supports local businesses, creates jobs, benefits the value of people's homes and benefits the environment, particularly if they choose some of the new technologies available.

Another aspect of the budget that is particularly encouraging is the record investment in infrastructure. From 2000 to 2005, prior to my election to Parliament, I was a city councillor in Barrie. For two of those years I was the finance chair. When we were doing budget every year, I remember how constrained municipalities were with infrastructure needs that existed in Canadian municipalities.

A government that gets it and acts is a tremendous step forward for municipalities. Make no bones about it: this is an all-time record investment in infrastructure, and it is going to make a tremendous difference by not only creating jobs through the construction that this infrastructure will entail but also by helping and strengthening the vibrancy of municipalities in this country.

As Canadian families take steps to build infrastructure in their own homes, we are taking action to build infrastructure across the country. We know that getting shovels into the ground today will create jobs for Canadians now while providing the framework for Canadians to grow upon in the years to come. We are building and renewing municipal, provincial and territorial infrastructure, our post-secondary research and health infrastructure, and our key federal assets. This money will flow quickly, and the shovels will hit the ground quickly. We will see a smoother approval process for projects, and less bureaucracy and red tape.

We are talking about infrastructure that people generally identify quickly. Barrie has several shovel-ready projects, and I see examples that could turn into job creation projects in the future, such as the Allandale train station and even Georgian College, since part of this budget allocates $2 billion for college and university infrastructure upgrades. This budget is a win on numerous fronts.

I will quickly add one last point. The fund available for rinks will be a boon for Canadian communities that could not afford outdoor or artificial ice rinks. Barrie tried a few times, but the money was not available. Now communities like Barrie will be able to have that recreation. This is a tremendous budget for Canadians. It is going to make our communities stronger and I am excited to support it.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Guelph.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON

Madam Speaker, it is wonderful that my friend has an opportunity to have lunch with his grandfather every Sunday. However, I am wondering if he has explained to his grandfather that 80% of tax cuts to the middle class do not get spent but get saved, and that without the taxes we pay, we would not have all the programs provided by the federal government, programs that are already underfunded by the Conservative government.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Patrick Brown Conservative Barrie, ON

Madam Speaker, I find it amusing to hear a Liberal member of Parliament talk about social programs. In the early 1990s, when we last entertained this global slowdown, it was the decision of his party and his government to actually slash, cut and burn social programs as a means of balancing the budget. It is a bit hypocritical.

I note that the tax reduction measures are geared to Canadians most in need. That is exactly the purpose of the budget, and I would encourage the member to read it. If that is what he is concerned about, obviously he will be more content when he supports the budget, as his party is doing.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Bloc

Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC

Madam Speaker, it was very interesting to hear my colleague speak about his grandfather, who hoped he would do something because he was paying too much tax. That tells me that his grandfather has some money because he pays taxes.

Seniors are also mentioned in the budget. Some seniors do not pay taxes. Therefore, the $1,000 credit that would save $150 only applies to a certain segment of society, to certain individuals. Seniors who are not as well off, those who receive the guaranteed income supplement and live below the poverty line, have asked the Bloc Québécois for an increase of $110 in the guaranteed income supplement to help them. There is nothing. People living below the poverty line have been left behind.

What does the member have to say about that?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Patrick Brown Conservative Barrie, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the opportunity to share some information with him on a part of the budget he may not yet have had a chance to read.

In the budget, $400 million is allocated over two years for the construction of housing units for low-income seniors. That is certainly going to be helpful to Canadian seniors. I am sure it is one of the reasons we are hearing positive feedback about the budget, because it is not just increasing the age credit, but it is actual, tangible action of $400 million. No one can belittle that amount. It is a serious commitment to helping low-income seniors and to construct housing units for persons with disabilities, social housing units and affordable housing units.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Madam Speaker, in 2007 770,000 Canadians used food banks each month. Today one in nine Canadian children grows up in poverty. Research shows that for every dollar a country invests in giving children a good start in life, the country saves $7 in spending on health and other problems that arise when children's basic needs are not met.

How can the government claim to protect the vulnerable when it provides nothing in terms of the national child benefit supplement for families making $20,000, and for families living on $25,000 to $35,000 only $436, the equivalent of 12 days' rent for a one-room apartment in my Etobicoke North riding?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Patrick Brown Conservative Barrie, ON

Madam Speaker, I will be a colleague of the member for Etobicoke North on the health committee, and we can focus on how to help Canadians who are most vulnerable.

This budget certainly invests heavily in the Canadian economy as a stimulus to create jobs and help those who are vulnerable. That is exactly what this budget is about. I know that is the threshold it was viewed from. If the hon. member wants to help Canadians who are on the brink, the best thing to do is reinvigorate the economy. That is what this budget focuses on.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak in favour of the budget presented by the Minister of Finance on Tuesday.

I will make some general observations about the budget and then look at some of the specific details in terms of how the measures suggested will support members of my constituency of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo and, indeed, all Canadians.

Like many I have struggled with the notion of a deficit and, with reluctance, I have come to accept that the global economic crisis requires the response of temporary short-term stimulus and extraordinary support for the financial system. It only takes a brief glimpse of the news each evening to see how profoundly other countries are being impacted. CBC did a special last night outlining the difficulties that China was facing.

It is with some reassurance that I note the low debt to GDP ratio that Canada enjoys relative to other countries in the G7 and the five year projection for a return to surplus. It is also important to note that for a return to surplus, the expenditures in the budget are not structural in nature.

Although it is important to acknowledge the challenging economic environment and the very real difficulties workers, families and communities are experiencing, it is also important to remember that adversity creates challenges and opportunities. I am inherently optimistic about the strength and creativities of Canadians and that we will emerge from this challenge a stronger country with a solid economic foundation for the future which will include a softer footprint for this earth.

This budget is the result of an extraordinary consultation process with the Canadian people. I believe the end product is truly reflective of this extensive input.

The term coal face was originally a mining term to describe an underground worker who cut coal from the rock. The workers would emerge at the end of the day with their faces quite blackened. This term was not meant to reflect the dirty face but respect for their direct involvement with the core of the business.

If we work at the coal face, we deal with the real problems and issues rather than sitting in an office discussing things in a detached way. I would argue that the budget is truly a coal face budget for Canadians, not a partisan product developed in isolation of meaningful input.

It has been suggested by some that the budget is just a Christmas wish list that does not have a broad vision for Canada. The hon. Leader of the Opposition stated that it was a hodgepodge of measures adopted at the last minute. The hon. leader of the NDP suggested that we cobbled together the budget. I would argue exactly the opposite.

The budget contains many strategies and structures for industry and communities to move forward into their future. As the finance minister indicated, meeting short-term needs while serving long-term goals. Indeed, it is disrespectful to communities not to recognize that our strength lies in their local ability to innovate and create a future. It is the sum of our small and large businesses, their ingenuity that will ultimately return us to prosperity. We must temporarily support and provide the tools and funding to respond to their needs.

My December and January, like many in the House, was spent in wide consultation throughout my constituency. This is an area with both rural and urban communities and includes six municipalities and six aboriginal bands. My consultation process included local government, business leaders, non-government organizations and the general public. Tourism, forestry, agriculture and mining are all drivers of our economy.

As these conversations progressed, it appeared there was general consensus in terms of the range of opportunities that would not only provide short-term benefit in terms of economic stimulus, but also long-term advantage, the jobs for tomorrow and the necessary infrastructure foundation.

The goals of an economic action plan that would help Canadians and stimulate spending, improve access to financing, take immediate action to build roads, bridges and other critical infrastructure, stimulate housing and support industry and community were widely embraced. The question then becomes: does this budget achieve those aims?

Rather than talking about the budget in terms of the billions for this program and the millions for another, I would like to talk about the real meaningful opportunities.

Access to credit was a number one issue for industry, businesses and individuals. The many measures taken by this government to free up credit will support confidence and encourage lending. This will facilitate Canadian businesses to grow and create jobs.

Clinton is a small community in interior British Columbia. Fibre optic lines run through their community, but there is no funding to provide a hub and give this community broadband. From the merchants on Main Street, to the citizens who require the Internet for the opportunity to do home-based work, to the small health centre that would enthusiastically embrace telemedicine, broadband access was their single highest priority, and our budget will provide this.

Rather than solely focusing on industries suffering from a downturn, the community adjustment fund will widely embraced to support a new future. This might include pursuing the dream of Wells Grey UNESCO designation for Clearwater, further development of the hemp manufacturing for 100 Mile House, expansion of tourism opportunities for Valemount and Blue River and enhanced back country trail development for Barrier. I anticipate all these communities will be actively pursuing applications.

I sat down a number of weeks ago with one of our aboriginal communities, representatives from a forestry company and a delegation from China. Our plan to support international marketing, innovative product development and research directly aligns with their message. Of particular interest was biomass technology.

The EI work share program extension to increase flexibility and access will be most welcome. This program has been described as a win-win for the employer and employee. Not only does the program keep skilled workers in the community, it supports companies in adapting to temporary slowdowns.

Support for long-tenured workers and enhanced availability of training were included in submissions to the finance minister, and he listened. The increase in employment benefits was important, but the message that I heard was “we want to work and we would prefer the resources to be spent on training and the creation of new opportunities”.

For Kamloops, like most cities, there are many needs for sewers, water and roads and as the tournament capital of Canada, upgrading and development of recreational facilities is always a priority. I expect that the RINC program will be oversubscribed across Canada.

The mine development just outside our boundaries has been stalled due to economic reasons. I am hopeful the tax and tariff relief introduced this week will now provide enough impetus to restart this industry.

Some of the budget highlights for my area would not be complete without noting the support for the aboriginal community. Skills and training to ensure readiness for opportunity, housing and partnership for health are important elements in breaking the cycle of disadvantage. It is real action on real problems.

In my prior career as a health care professional who worked directly with many aboriginal communities, I can attest to the abysmal living conditions that too many of our first nation citizens experience. With the measures introduced this week, there is real hope for substantive change.

I suggest that this budget is not a hodgepodge as suggested, but a compact and multi-layered response to a very challenging economic time. As one of the pundits suggested, we cannot have everyone building robots right now. The beauty of this response is the delicate balance of supporting immediate needs without losing sight of the future.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON

Madam Speaker, I would like the member to think this through carefully.

She talks about a complex economic situation. In a complex economic situation we need leadership. We do not need a government that blows off a $13 billion surplus and creates a $64 billion deficit, therefore putting the country into a $77 billion debt. Any Canadian knows that if one does not have the money, one does not spend, and if one borrows, the creditors will come calling.

Could the member explain to the House how, when her government has no money, has blown off the $13 billion, has a debt of $457 billion and has no capacity to borrow, it will fund any projects?

This is the same situation that the previous Conservative government under Mulroney left us, and the IMF called us an economic basket case. We are now on the brink of that. Could she please explain how the government will do it?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Madam Speaker, that is somewhat false economics. The $39 billion that our government has paid off in debt over the first 20 months of its tenure is a much more appropriate mechanism to ensure we are in a viable position. It is always pay down the debt, do not sit with surpluses in the bank, and provide the needed services that everyone wants in terms of health and social transfers.

I am very proud of our government's management of the economy.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Bloc

Roger Pomerleau Bloc Drummond, QC

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo as well as the comments and questions directed to her by my colleague on this side of the House. I heard her sing the same old song we first heard a long time ago. In 1994, the Liberals were seated opposite and formed the government and the Reform Party was to the right and formed the opposition. Today we have the opposite: the Liberals are seated on the right, in opposition, and the Reform Party, under another name, is seated opposite and forms the government. But the way they speak and the arguments used by both sides in the House are exactly the same as those used at that time.

Yet, we have to say that the Liberals really did eliminate the deficits accumulated year after year since Mulroney's day—my colleague is quite right in saying so—and it is again the Conservatives who are leading us back into the red. We are told that they will eliminate the deficit by 2013 and begin to generate surpluses. Barely 10 weeks ago they were unable to tell us where we would be today and now they claim to know where we will be in five years. How is that possible?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Madam Speaker, to go back to the point that I made in my speech, we truly are in extraordinary global economic times. One only needs to look at the news in terms of Europe and China. In terms of Canada, all the governments of the past need to be particularly pleased at how we find ourselves relative to the rest of the world. I believe it is a compliment that in the past our processes worked.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Madam Speaker, we sat for such a short time before the Prime Minister abruptly decided to prorogue Parliament that I do not know whether I had time following the election to thank the voters of Richmond—Arthabaska. I would like to do so now before I get into my remarks on the budget. Naturally, I am very pleased that they have placed their confidence in me for the third time in a row, with an even bigger majority than before. I want to assure the people of Richmond—Arthabaska that they can count on me to fight, tooth and nail, on their behalf.

I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

We are here today to talk about the budget. The Bloc Québécois' subamendment is, of course, a major one. In light of the current crisis, we expected the Conservative government to take the needs expressed by the people into account. Quebec's National Assembly wanted to contribute its two cents to the budget consultations, and that is why the assembly—the Liberal Party of Quebec, the Parti Québécois and the Action Démocratique—decided to move a unanimous motion, which the Bloc Québécois has proposed in its subamendment today. This is further proof that there is only one party in this House that truly stands up for Quebeckers' interests. That party is the Bloc Québécois, and we have decided to vote against the budget.

The motion by Quebec's National Assembly, which the Bloc has presented today, asks for help for workers, communities and businesses affected by the economic slowdown, and financial support for struggling sectors—particularly the manufacturing and forestry sectors, of course—similar to what the government decided to do for the auto sector in Ontario. The government promised Ontario no less than $4 billion in assistance, but is giving just a few million dollars to the manufacturing and forestry sectors in Quebec. That is a really big difference.

We also want to see improvements to the employment insurance program. The government has brought in certain measures. We are not against increasing the benefit period from 45 to 50 weeks. However, Quebec's National Assembly and Quebec as a whole want improved access to employment insurance. Today, in 2009, 53% of Quebeckers who contribute to employment insurance are not entitled to benefits. That was our basic demand with respect to employment insurance, but the government refused to discuss the issue.

We are also talking about keeping equalization calculations the same. The fact that the government insists on changing the equalization calculations means that this year Quebec will lose close to $1 billion and could lose as much as $2 billion next year. For this reason alone we cannot vote for this budget. Obviously, Quebec's National Assembly has opposed and will continue to oppose a national securities commission.

The Conservative government has made choices that favour Ontario and the west, at Quebec's expense. We understand that the government is attempting to win more seats in Ontario and western Canada in order to obtain a majority. And this budget is padded with gifts for these parts of Canada.

The leader of the Bloc Québécois has reiterated his trust in me by appointing me as the agriculture critic once again. On this topic, we cannot stay silent on what the government has done and, above all, what the government has not done. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food was no different from his colleagues when he revealed what was in the budget before it was read. Obviously he did not reveal the details because, as the saying goes, “the devil is in the details.” Hearing that there will be $500 million in the budget for agriculture makes people happy at first, of course. They think there will be some money to help them. But, when the details were unveiled, we all got a surprise. For those who know the Conservatives though, it really was no surprise. The member for Lévis—Bellechasse kicked off his marketing campaign with a statement before the budget was read. He comes from an agricultural area and should know a little bit about the needs there. He said that his government would fill agricultural needs. He put on his rose-coloured glasses and said:

Farmers should—

Notice the use of the conditional in that sentence. The member chose his words carefully and he was right to do so. What came next showed that his government is less than willing to truly help the people who grow our food.

He said:

Farmers should have access to new funding to increase their slaughter capacity. This is the perfect opportunity for our government to support our beef and pork industries, as well as other producers. Our economic action plan should [he is still using the conditional tense] include a flexible program for agriculture. Such a program should help farmers tackle the challenges of the market and exploit significant opportunities in each province and territory.

The agriculture sector was quick to react and respond to this sort of wishful thinking, because there was a real disconnect between what the minister had announced and the actual details in the budget. The title of the press release from Quebec's Union des producteurs agricoles says it all: “A budget that's way off track”. That is what the Union des producteurs agricoles had to say.

“This budget is disturbingly insensitive to the agricultural community,” said Christian Lacasse, president of the UPA, in this press release. “By excluding income support measures where the need is greatest, the government is completely changing a program that was supposed to be flexible.”

I mentioned earlier that the member for Lévis—Bellechasse had said that producers would have a flexible program, a good program. The government completely ignored the recommendations of Quebec's agricultural community.

“A program that each province can adapt to its own particular agricultural reality is obviously a good thing, but it must be properly funded and targeted,” the president of the UPA went on.

As for assistance for the slaughter industry—because that, too, was announced in advance—the government has overlooked Levinoff-Colbex, which is located in Saint-Cyrille-de-Wendover, in the riding of my friend from Drummond, who is also quite familiar with this issue. It is the only major cull cattle slaughterhouse in eastern Canada. Beef producers have just recapitalized to the tune of $30 million and expect the government to apply the same rules for capitalization as for new projects: one dollar of government funding for every dollar of private investment. Consequently, $50 million over three years is not nearly enough.

It is still not known whether Levinoff-Colbex can benefit from this program, and there have long been calls for government money and support to help this slaughterhouse survive. I would remind members that it is the only one of its size left in eastern Canada.

I would like to read another excerpt from the UPA press release:

“Major financial support was also required for the forest industry, which would have needed at least double the investments announced just to keep going—”

That is what the UPA had to say. A number of my colleagues in the House will cite people from various sectors who are totally dissatisfied with this budget. Two of my Bloc Québécois colleagues issued a press release today concerning women's groups that were completely overlooked by this budget.

Continuing with agriculture, the Conservative government had the nerve to appropriate the names AgriFlex, or agri-flexibility, invented by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and its partners, such as the Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec. The central idea behind the concept is that the viability of the family farm can only be maintained if farmers had programs in place allowing them to plan for the long term.

The government did not include measures to ensure income security, the very essence of what farmers are asking for. Flexible regional funding is needed in order to ensure support for programs like Quebec's farm income stabilization insurance program, which insures farmers against catastrophic income shortfalls caused by unstable world prices, regional market conditions and other factors beyond their control.

The government opted for smoke and mirrors. It has been raising expectations, of course, ever since the election campaign. While campaigning, they talked about a plan totalling $500 million over four years. But in the budget, that turned into $500 million over five years, a small difference of only a few million dollars. The bubble has burst.

One thing is crystal clear: this government has abandoned Quebec; this government has abandoned Quebec farmers with this budget.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Conservative

Lee Richardson Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Madam Speaker, the hon. member spoke of the budget offering more benefits to the west than to Quebec. I wonder if he could just offer me one example.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Madam Speaker, there is assistance for communities. Amounts are yet to be calculated, but the economic statement refers to per capita assistance for communities in trouble. The communities most in need are those dependent on forestry and manufacturing industries, particularly in Quebec, but also in Ontario. However, it came to light that, on a per capita basis, Alberta would receive more for every job lost than would Quebec. That is why we can say that the budget as well as the former economic statement favour western Canada.

We could also talk about tax measures and the tax cuts always given to major oil companies. The Bloc Québécois had asked that this assistance be reduced or even completely abolished. Big oil companies absolutely do not need tax cuts in these turbulent economic times. However, this government refused to touch the tax breaks given to help its friends in western Canada and its friends the oil companies.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Bloc

Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank you. I would like to say that Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands are a beautiful area and would be pleased to welcome you.

First I would like to congratulate the member for Richmond—Arthabaska for his speech and I would like to hear from him about the Quebec nationalist members, as they call themselves, of the Conservative Party. I am thinking in particular of the member from Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, who is now a minister. They are forgetting about employment insurance and the forestry issue in Quebec. I would like to hear from the member for Richmond—Arthabaska in this regard.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Madam Speaker, my colleague will see what happens when we vote on the amendment to the amendment. At 6:30 this evening, the Bloc Québécois will present the unanimous motion of the National Assembly of Quebec. All Quebec members in this House should vote for this subamendment. We shall see who truly defends the interests of Quebec when we vote this evening.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant has the floor, but I would like to point out that I will probably have to interrupt her.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Bloc

Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part today in the ways and means debate, particularly as we enter into a recession.

In its budget, the government announced several measures to set the economy back on the path to prosperity. In my opinion, Quebec is not getting all the benefits of these measures that the neighbouring provinces are. What is more, the Conservatives would have done well to heed the people of Quebec and the needs they expressed.

This budget is a long way from meeting the needs unanimously expressed by the Quebec National Assembly. Unfortunately, the leader of the Conservatives chose instead to heed the demands of Ontario and the west, to the detriment of Quebec.

For example, the government is offering measures aimed mainly at Ontario, to a total of close to $4 billion. The forestry and manufacturing sectors in Quebec, on the other hand, will receive a mere few millions—a pittance.

While some of the measures announced in the budget might be of benefit to the industrial sector, nevertheless it is still a fact that there is no aid directly targeting the manufacturing sector in Quebec. Yet the Bloc proposed some far more generous measures within its recovery plan, measures that could have helped companies no longer making a profit because of the crisis. The government turned a deaf ear and opted for a variety of measures to reduce corporate taxes.

Yet everyone understands that a manufacturing or forestry company that is not recording any profit is already paying little or no taxes. So who exactly is really benefiting from these tax cuts? The answer is obvious.

I would, however, like to address the economic aspect of the situation. Clearly, a recession is an economic phenomenon that requires an economic stimulus package, and a whole speech could have been devoted to that. A recession, however, is not just about business and taxation.

In fact, there is another aspect of the recession that I prefer to talk about: the impact on people's lives, particularly the most disadvantaged. In this connection, I note a remarkable consistency in the Conservatives: to always ignore the same categories of the disadvantaged—the most vulnerable members of our society—or to once again attack the same sectors that, according to their ideology, will not be profitable.

When I took part in the debates on last November's throne speech, I raised the point that there were some glaring omissions including women, people with inadequate housing, older workers, the unemployed, the cultural industry, and seniors. Once again, the same categories of people are ignored by this budget.

I would like to focus on what is happening to seniors living below the poverty line. These seniors are among the poorest, most vulnerable members of our society. Seniors receiving the guaranteed income supplement will not be getting any more help anytime soon. The Conservatives have provided a $1,000 age-related tax credit, which is all well and good, but it will not help the poorest of our seniors.

That leads me to question this measure, because this is just like the problem with business tax credits: how is a tax credit supposed to help people who may be living below the poverty line and who pay little or no tax?

The increase to $6,048 might help seniors who are working for various reasons, but we must put things in perspective. It looks like seniors could save up to $961 in taxes, depending on their income. However, this is a tax measure that individuals will notice just once a year after they file their tax returns. This is not the kind of direct assistance that people need during hard times. And that does not even account for the fact that the amount saved will vary depending on the senior's income.

With respect to the poorest seniors, FADOQ, a network that protects the interests of Quebec seniors, has highlighted an important fact: seniors who have no income other than old age security and the guaranteed income supplement live below the poverty line.

In Quebec alone, 500,000 people collect varying amounts through the guaranteed income supplement. That means that half a million people will not receive any direct assistance because the government is refusing to improve the guaranteed income supplement.

The Bloc Québécois has once again made specific requests for this budget: an incremental increase in the seniors' supplement and graduated retroactivity for those eligible for the guaranteed income supplement who were swindled by the government. Taken together, these measures would have cost $2.5 billion over two years.

Of course, we are still asking for automatic enrollment for seniors who are eligible for the guaranteed income supplement. This is what all seniors' advocacy groups want, and their demands cannot be ignored.

I would like to say a few words about social housing, which is a critical need in my community. The Bloc Québécois said that it wanted the federal government's budget to invest $2 billion additional dollars each year for construction, renovation and conversion of affordable social housing. But the government is proposing $2 billion over two years, or half of what we requested.

Of this amount, $400 million will go towards constructing social housing for low-income seniors and $75 million will go towards construction of social housing for the disabled, which is not nearly enough in these times.

The budget makes no mention of social housing for the poorest families, for example, two- or three-bedroom units.

In Châteauguay alone, a city in my riding, the municipal housing bureau told me that 143 households were still waiting for affordable social housing. Half of these households are made up of single mothers and the other half are seniors. And that is just one medium-sized city in Quebec.

The reality is that a significant number of Quebec families cannot afford to buy a house, which is the case for these 143 households that I mentioned. The lack of a true policy for constructing affordable housing remains a serious flaw in this budget.

I will finish by saying that the Bloc Québécois and I will assume our responsibilities and will vote, without hesitation, against this unfair budget that does not respond to Quebeckers' priorities.

It is also clear to me that the proposed budgetary measures will help the wealthiest in our society more so than the poorest who are hard hit by this recession.

Voting in favour of the budget or allowing it to pass in one way or another would be to abandon Quebec and the poor in our society, when those are two causes that I represent and defend fervently. It would go against my political beliefs and my reason for being here.