Mr. Speaker, I must again congratulate my colleague from Trois-Rivières. In my opinion, she has explained my party's position very well, so I shall try to avoid going back over what she has addressed. I will, moreover, try to demonstrate in my speech that something rather intriguing has been going on here. I will take my cue from the reaction other parliamentarians, coming from parliaments in other countries, would have if they came here and tried to understand what is happening just now.
There is a party in power, a party that in November presented an ideological and highly partisan economic statement, which provoked a reaction in the majority opposition, which then created a coalition, and that in turn created the situation we have experienced: the highly arbitrary prorogation of the House. In other words, the Queen was asked to keep the elected representatives out until the government could redo its homework.
We ended up with a coalition of Liberals and New Democrats, supported by the Bloc Québécois. I mention this because it enabled us to understand the position of each party in opposition with respect to its commitments to their constituents.
The platform on which that coalition was based is still to this day the platform embraced by the Liberals. I would say that it has also generated consultations by the Conservatives themselves. I have a summary here that gives an overview of that, and there are more available. The newspaper that covers the riding of Lévis-Bellechasse is called La Voix du Sud and the member for that riding reports that he consulted the public. We believe this because it was reported in the media. This consultation reveals that the people in his riding told him just about the same thing that we have been saying here: improvements need to be made to employment insurance and accessibility to it.
He was even told that the number of hours to qualify for benefits should be 360. And he was told that the waiting period needed to be done away with. That is what he heard from them and that is what has been said by the Liberals, the NDP and ourselves. The Conservatives have said it, too. They heard it from us here. We even told them that the guaranteed income supplement needed to be indexed and that the seniors who had been cheated out of it needed retroactivity.
None of this is reflected in the budget. Yet we are told that the budget was based on the consultations that had been held. I have heard our Liberal colleagues say the same thing in this House. They also confirmed their intentions in the coalition platform. What is more, the Liberals have criticized the government for tabling such a budget, yet they are saying that they are going to vote in favour of the budget.
If I were a parliamentarian from another country, sitting here listening to this and watching this, I would wonder what was going on. Do these people represent their constituents or not? What are they playing at? In light of the mandate given to them by their constituents, do they have a responsibility to come into this House and do what they say they are going to do?
In November, the Conservatives delivered an ideological throne speech and an ideological economic statement. They wanted to come up with a slightly more progressive budget. Today, the Liberals are talking like progressives, but they are going to vote with the Conservatives.
People are understandably confused and no longer know who to trust, because the Liberals and the Conservatives are all the same. It is true that they are all the same. They all vote the same way when it comes to attacking fundamental rights. It is a fact. The government has eroded women's rights and workers' rights. Workers in Quebec do not have the same rights as workers in other provinces. For example, the government is injecting money into the auto industry in Ontario. It is right to invest in this sector. We are not saying that these people do not deserve support. But if they deserve support, then logically, the government should make the same commitment to Quebec and take the same steps to help such important sectors as manufacturing and forestry. There can be no double standard. The same logic should apply to parliamentarians here. They, too, should walk the talk, especially our Liberal friends.
The same is true of culture, which my colleague talked about. The government has made cuts that have affected our artists' ability to perform on other stages, in other countries. The government is going to provide funding so that foreign artists can come here to share their culture with us, but our artists do not have access to funding for the same purpose.
Concerning the national securities commission, what reason is there to abolish something or make it more fragile when it is working well, other than the desire to centralize and create an economic power concentrated in Toronto?
As for low-income families, the Liberal Party has made them one of their pet issues. It said that we should help the weakest, the poorest, in our society. We see that this budget contains measures that will support the wealthiest in our society.
I will finish by speaking about employment insurance. My colleague spoke about it. Something quite dramatic is happening. Not only do our federal friends here not want to introduce measures that would allow workers who have lost their jobs to have access to employment insurance benefits, but the budget would lock things up so tightly that we would not be able to implement any improvements. For one thing, rates are being frozen at the lowest level we have seen since 1982. That is rather odd. However, it is one of the messages heard in every riding, even those represented by Conservatives. Earlier, I read the summaries of their consultations. Our Liberal friends have made it one of their pet issues and, today, they will vote in favour of the budget, a budget that will block any possibility of improving employment insurance benefits and, above all, accessibility. In fact, 60% of people who lose their jobs cannot access employment insurance benefits. It is a major problem and it is one of the measures that is impoverishing our society and the people who are already struggling without jobs.
I am speaking particularly to my colleagues from Quebec. I am inviting them to vote in favour of the Bloc's subamendment in a few minutes. It will give them the opportunity to respect the will of their constituents.
This is the opportunity the Liberal member was alluding to when he asked the member from Kelowna—Lake Country why they did not take the opportunity to improve the employment insurance system. How could it be that he and his party missed that opportunity? Now we are giving them that chance. They simply have to vote for the subamendment.