Debates of March 16th, 2010

Opposition Motion--Throne Speech and Budget

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked a lot about the programs that the government brought out under the guise of economic diversification and tied them to the forest industry. Some of those programs that were administered in my area were not specifically aimed at the forest industry itself. As one union official in my home town put it, he said that these were make work projects wrapped up in a forestry package that had nothing to do with forests.

My colleague talked about the trust fund. Could he comment on what proportion of that money was used toward actual diversification of forest communities?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

We saw what happened under the previous Liberal government. No one will ever be able to accuse our government of trickery or of increasing income taxes. Quebeckers and Canadians have given us their trust since we have demonstrated that we are a responsible government.

Although economic recovery and job creation are the main focus of our economic action plan, we shall continue to help both our younger workers and our older ones. We work for our families and seniors in order that all Canadians may enjoy a good quality of life, by exercising leadership that is focused on economic recovery.

Here are some of the other federal measures to help Canadian forestry companies: the 2010 budget extends the maximum duration of work-sharing agreements; financial services of close to $30 billion have been offered through Export Development Canada to companies that have been based in Canada since 2008; the Business Development Bank of Canada has granted loans totalling $300 million to Canadian forestry companies since 2008. I hope that these measures will satisfy my colleague.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am smiling because the hon. member is telling us that EDC has invested $300 million in loans while his colleague, the hon. member from Roberval, says that the investment in the forestry sector is $30 billion any time he sets foot in Quebec. The hon. member has done his research and the investments are $300 million, it is true. But we know that they are loan guarantees mainly in order to protect the receivables of exporters. It is happening in all kinds of businesses. The $30 billion amount is for all export industries. Guarantees are provided.

I will come back to those remarks from the perspective of the Bloc Québécois. In the Conservative Party, they do not know what the right hand is doing and what the left hand thinks of the right hand, or what the head in charge is thinking. The Minister of Finance actually congratulated us because, budget after budget, we are the only party to put proposals before the government. For example, we are not just asking for the $2.2 billion for sales tax harmonization in Quebec that have been owed to us for more than 16 years now. We also suggest ways of getting the money back, such as $4.8 billion from a surtax on incomes of $150,000 and more, and $3 billion from the elimination of tax havens. We provide examples. I would like the hon. member to at least show some appreciation for the work that the Bloc Québécois has done in the House.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, which gives me the opportunity to show him once more that our government is making enlightened choices rather than advocating separation.

Through the economic action plan, our government is helping our economy to gain strength. Separation would solve nothing, since the economic crisis is worldwide.

One fact is undeniable. A family is stronger when its members roll up their sleeves and work together to find solutions.

I believe strongly in a government of partnership and cooperation where we all reach out to each other to work towards genuine solutions.

The Bloc votes against everything. It is not in a good position to stand by its motion today.

How can the Bloc help forestry regions by voting against all the measures that our government has put in place to stimulate the economy? The Bloc voted against Canada's economic action plan.

The Bloc voted against the following initiatives: the communities' endowment fund...

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I will allow one more question for the hon. member.

The honourable member for Timmins—James Bay has the floor.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the issue of forestry policy and where we are going but the issue of forestry policy is very much tied to the issue of who controls our forests.

Right now we are looking at the third largest OSB manufacturer in North American disappearing in a fire sale, bank sale. Grant Forest Products runs four of the five largest and most efficient OSB mills in North American and it is about to be taken over by Georgia-Pacific. There will be hundreds of layoffs of white-collar staff in training, development and marketing. Mills will be closed. This great Canadian company is about to be turned into a branch plant of its number one U.S. competitor. Its U.S. competitor will be able to get the proprietary technology that is given to the Grant operations in northern Alberta and Ontario, which will give it a price competitive advantage.

What commitments will the member make to review this sale before it is allowed to go through to ensure that it does meet the fundamental net benefit test for Canada and for our northern communities?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his question.

Our government will continue to follow a simple recipe that is made up of the right ingredients, a recipe for a winning formula for all Quebeckers and Canadians. It involves supporting Quebeckers and Canadians as they deal with the changes affecting our economies, working more and talking less, unlike the members opposite, meeting the expectations of our industries in a targeted fashion, respecting agreements with our partners and, above all, making the decisions that impact Quebeckers and Canadians and that give Canada a stronger foundation to weather crises.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member boast about the so-called measures that were introduced. I see that seated near him is the Minister of State responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean. I think he should have done a better job of advising him because, in his riding alone, a number of plants have shut down. Think about Dolbeau, the sawmill in Roberval. There were closures in my riding in Saint-Fulgence and in Petit-Saguenay.

Will the member admit that the plan and the so-called measures that were put forward are not doing the job?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the Minister of State responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, on all of his great work. He is making a difference in a very difficult issue to tackle. I commend him.

I also want to thank my colleague from the Bloc for giving me the opportunity to finish my remarks.

The Bloc voted against Canada's economic action plan. The Bloc voted against the following measures: the Community Adjustment Fund; and the Pulp and Paper Green Transformation Program. Not to mention the very important fact that it voted against all of the supplementary employment insurance measures.

People in his riding needed employment insurance, and the member voted against all of those measures. That is shameful!

The Bloc also voted against the measures to develop new products and markets. That is significant. The member opposite once again voted against his region and against solutions to forestry problems.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

It is always interesting to speak right after a Conservative member, particularly when it is a member who has always been afraid of separatism and views the Bloc as being here only to block all bills.

I will remind him that according to the polls, his party has only 16% support in Quebec while we have 40%. If we have been here for so long, it must be because the people of Quebec have confidence in us and think that we defend Quebec well.

That being said, today we are debating a motion introduced by my party. The motion says that federalism does not respond to Quebec's aspirations and needs. The motion stems from the totally empty Speech from the Throne and budget the government introduced. One would have thought that closing Parliament for almost two months would have given the government time to think and produce something outstanding for the new session. However, we realize that like all the proposals the government has made since our return to the House, it is just an empty shell.

The Bloc Quebecois talks about an empty shell that is costing money to Quebeckers, to the tune of 25% of their taxes, since we account for about 25% of the Canadian population. We are justified in expecting to get back the equivalent of what we are paying, but we are not getting anything. Moreover, Quebeckers' needs are not acknowledged. It is not the Bloc Quebecois and its members who defined these needs. It is Quebeckers, through a broad consultation process held across Quebec by the hon. member for Hochelaga, who is our finance critic. The ideas presented to the Minister of Finance—only to be rejected—were submitted during that consultation process.

A problem that is not solved will constantly keep resurfacing. Year after year we formulate the same requests to the government, but it never listens. The government is supposed to have recognized the Quebec nation and given it a seat at UNESCO, but it is not even able to recognize the needs of that nation.

What happens when a group does not recognize a person's needs? That person leaves. That is why the Bloc Quebecois believes it would be better to leave Canada, because this association does not benefit Quebec.

In its motion, the Bloc Quebecois mentions five issues, but it could have added several others. The five issues that were retained are those which, given the economic context, are the worst for Quebeckers and affect many of them.

Federalism does not fulfill the goals and requirements of Quebec. For example, the government will not commit to allocate $2.2 billion to Quebec for harmonizing the QST and GST.

Why does the federal government agree to pay such compensation to Ontario and British Columbia, but not to Quebec? That is not normal. It is an injustice.

There are some water carriers from Quebec. There are yes-men who are prepared to say that this government is doing a lot for Quebec. In fact, this government is unfair and it does not give us what we are entitled to, like the others. Why is it that we cannot get our due?

This government does not recognize Quebec's needs in another area: it is not providing the forestry industry with an assistance plan equivalent to that given to the automobile industry.

Earlier, I heard the member thank his cabinet colleagues who, supposedly, have helped the forestry industry. Why is it then that, on March 4, the Conseil de l'industrie forestière du Québec, the CIFQ, and the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, or CEP, both felt that the Conservative government's budget was not meeting the needs of Quebec's forestry industry?

Why is it that Guy Chevrette told us that, for most of our businesses, it was critical to get new funding at a commercial rate of interest, to make it through the crisis?

Why is it that Gaétan Ménard, who is the secretary-treasurer of CEP, said that this was another budget full of rhetoric and platitudes, and that it would not do anything for workers?

We have just seen—this is no joke—an hon. member from Quebec on his knees, a yes-man heaping praise on his colleagues and the government by saying that they are giving lots of help and money to Quebec for the forestry sector. It is appalling and shameful.

Meanwhile, in February, 11,000 jobs were lost in the manufacturing and forestry sectors in Quebec. That is significant.

They tell us that 8,000 jobs were created. These are not good jobs. They are part-time jobs, poorly paid jobs, jobs that people cannot live on.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Some hon. members are saying stupid things to me because I am telling the truth.

Later, they will say that the Bloc Québécois blocks everything and does not have Quebec's interests at heart. Perhaps only the Bloc has the real numbers. Have we asked ourselves that question? If those members really are part of the big Quebec family, then why are they sitting opposite, on the other side, in a government that does not care about Quebec's interests?

Another factor motivated the Bloc Québécois to introduce its motion. The Speech from the Throne and this budget propose no stimulus measures for the aerospace industry. That industry is located in Quebec. How is it that so many billions of dollars were given to the automotive industry in Ontario, whereas Quebec did not see a penny for the aerospace industry? This is yet another injustice. The question is worth asking. The answer is self-evident.

Why is the government not meeting Quebeckers' expectations for the environment when they want a carbon exchange and they are making an effort to lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Instead of giving money to support these activities in Quebec, the government is giving $1 billion to the nuclear industry to help extract that infamous dirty oil from the tar sands. The government is helping the oil industry.

How is it that the government has not subsidized programs to meet the needs of Quebec's least fortunate? When a member of the Bloc Québécois is speaking, he is also speaking for the least fortunate in the rest of Canada. Why would anyone want to hang, draw and quarter that member in the public square? That makes no sense.

Today's Bloc Québécois motion is extremely important, and all responsible parties should support it and vote for it. I hope that the hon. members opposite who are on their knees will think twice before selling their soul for a nothing more than a portfolio of their own.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be tempted to call the speech we just heard an empty shell, to use the expression of the member across the way.

I would remind the House that since July 2009, 135,000 jobs have been created by Canada's new economic action plan. Thanks to the work sharing program, 225,000 jobs have been maintained in businesses across Canada, like Laforo, in Sainte-Claire in the riding of Bellechasse. Sixteen thousand infrastructure projects have been put in place in communities throughout Quebec, including Laval, Gaspésie, Temiscouata, Lac Saint-Jean, Montérégie, Beauce and Les Etchemins. Infrastructure projects are being implemented because Conservative members from Quebec support the first phase of the economic action plan. Of course, we also support the second phase.

The member mentioned the tar sands. I have a question for her about that. How can she oppose investments in research and development funds that will allow Quebec businesses like CO₂ Solution to develop carbon capture technologies, particularly for tar sands development and coal-fired power plants? How can she reject measures that would remove one million Canadians from the tax rolls?

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it a bit much that the member would tell us that Canada's economic action plan maintained 225,000 jobs. A colleague and I have worked on the recovery plan. At one meeting of the public works and government services committee, we summoned economists and employment specialists. Incidentally, our committee will release a report on this subject.

These witnesses clearly stated that the government's action plan was originally supposed to create 200,000 jobs. Later, this number was brought down to 190,000. During the first phase, that is, last year, only 135,000 jobs were maintained. That will be reflected in the committee's notes. It is all fine and dandy to throw numbers around. One can boast about them because, as a government member, one can afford to do all sorts of advertising, but the numbers are not necessarily always correct.

Let us talk about the action plan in term of infrastructure. There are members who are suggesting that this is good for Quebec. Perhaps they should recall that, for Quebec, when we had municipal elections, the government refused to extend the time frame for submitting projects. That has hurt Quebec.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am taking a look at the opposition day motion put forward by the Bloc, and in many cases I understand where it is coming from. The exception, of course, is the part about federalism, as I am from a province that gave up its nationhood for the sake of a greater sum. I think we made the right move.

What puzzles me is that recently the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans made an announcement about the sealing industry off the east coast of Quebec.

That is very important to the east coast of Quebec and the Îles de la Madeleine.

This brings me to my question on the motion.

This motion mentions the forestry industry, the automobile industry and the aerospace industry. Why is there no mention of fisheries?

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

It is true that there is nothing in this budget for the aerospace industry, for older workers, for increasing the guaranteed income supplement, for women, for families suffering from economic hardship and for fisheries. The budget is an empty shell. It is only a “transitory“ budget. My colleagues are throwing abusive comments at me and saying that this budget is good and wonderful. I would ask them to show me that wonderful budget. Those Quebeckers are ready to sell us for an empty budget like this one.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member on her passionate speech, which was excellent.

For the benefit of the Conservative members, I will take the time to reread the Bloc Québécois motion that was brought forward today on this opposition day:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government demonstrated in its Speech from the Throne and its Budget that federalism does not fulfill the goals and requirements of Quebec, as there were no commitments to allocate $2.2 billion to Quebec for harmonizing the QST and GST, to provide the forestry industry with an assistance plan equivalent to that given to the automobile industry, to offer stimulus measures to the aeronautics industry, to meet Quebeckers’ expectations regarding the environment, and to enhance programs to assist the less fortunate in Quebec.

This motion says it all regarding Quebec's presence in this federation. I am always astounded by the position taken by Conservatives, especially Conservative members from Quebec, when it comes to protecting the interests of our fellow citizens. The $2.2 billion for harmonizing the QST with the GST is not something new. The dispute has been going on for 16 years between the Quebec and Canadian governments. Quebec was the first province to harmonize its taxes. In recent months, we have seen piecemeal agreements signed with other Canadian provinces that had not harmonized their taxes, as Quebec had already done. So Quebec will probably be the very last to sign such an agreement, if it manages to reach an understanding with the federal government on the matter.

The government can try to convince us this is a good budget, but the fact remains that all parties at the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously requested that the government harmonize this tax and give the Quebec government $2.2 billion in compensation. Ontario got nearly $4 billion, and other equivalent amounts were given to other Canadian provinces. There are always questions asked, and, for us, the question is simple. What is Quebec doing in Canada? The matter of compensation for harmonization is a perfect example.

The forestry industry had been going to very difficult times for at least three years before the current crisis. In 2006 or 2007, the forestry sector began to experience a crisis. Year after year, week after week, month after month, the Bloc Québécois asked the government to intervene. The government of course always said that it was the softwood lumber agreement that was behind the sector's troubles. But that issue was settled. We came to an agreement with the Americans on softwood lumber, but the forestry companies were still having difficulties. So that was the reality.

There was a problem in the automotive sector, and the government immediately found funds to help the industry—$10 billion—because it is based in Ontario. I take note of the items in the current budget. Over the past two years—I am referring to the 2009-10 and 2010-11 budgets—$9.7 billion has been invested in the automotive industry, whereas $170 million has been invested in the forestry sector. And yet the forest industry is a very important industry in Quebec, more so than in other Canadian provinces. However, there are no automobile manufacturing plants in Quebec anymore. The last one, the General Motors plant in Sainte-Thérèse, Boisbriand, close to my riding, closed its doors in the 2000s.

Once again, this is a measure that targeted Ontario. When the time comes to help the forest industry in Quebec, the government always comes up with excuses. Earlier, the Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, explained that the forestry sector problem was a problem related to marketing and sales.

What was the problem with the automotive industry? The two largest American companies were unable to sell their vehicles. They were beaten out by their competitors, and the government had to come to the rescue of the automotive industry.

The government did not want to do the same thing for the forestry sector, claiming that the WTO would not accept loan guarantees. We advocated for this industry in the House; that debate has already been held. The Conservatives decided to deal with loan guarantees by saying that they would interfere with WTO agreements. They challenged what their own lawyers said as they were defending these measures before the London tribunal. The objective of the Conservatives was to torpedo the negotiations and ensure that the forestry sector would receive as little assistance as possible.

This reflects the Conservative philosophy, which is based on laissez-faire. Business is left to its own devices, and inevitably the biggest business is the one that will manage to survive because of the government's lack of intervention.

Why did it not do the same thing for the automotive sector? It is not the same, because there were plants in Ontario. It is OK to close forestry plants in Quebec regions. It is not serious, because there will always be one surviving in Canada. It may not be in Quebec, but somewhere else in Canada. So much the better for the Canadian federation but too bad for Quebec. That is the way it is.

The latest budget announced investment in the aerospace sector, but nothing for the aeronautics industry. Seventy per cent of the aerospace industry is in Ontario, while 52%, 53% or 54%--in recent months the government has prevaricated on the size of the industry in Quebec—of the aeronautics industry is in Quebec. The government simply decided to do nothing for the aeronautics sector. In order to compete with foreign firms, this sector would need a real development policy.

All the firms in other countries receive help from their government, but Canada has decided not to support the aeronautics sector, or, at least, to not announce any development plan. They are leaving it on its own.

The government decided to help the aerospace industry, because 70% of the plants in this sector are in Ontario, and the automobile industry because all of its plants are in Ontario. As to the aeronautics industry, they let it fend for itself.

The situation is the same with the environment. Quebec is the only province that will be capable of achieving the objectives of the Kyoto accord. And the financial advantages? There is talk now of the environmental economy, of a green economy.

If a business could achieve the Kyoto objectives, that is, to produce fewer emissions than in 1990, it could sell credits on an international carbon exchange. In Canada, it was decided that there would be no carbon exchange because the polluting industries would have to buy the rights to pollute from industries saving energy and meeting the objectives.

If Quebec were a country, it could participate in the international carbon exchange. Our paper mills and aluminum plants, which have made a huge effort to reduce their emissions with reference to 1990, the reference year in the Kyoto Accord, could already be selling carbon credits on the foreign market and on the European carbon exchange, which would bring them huge amounts of money.

Once again, because Quebec is within Canada, it has to please the polluting and dirty oil industry of Alberta, which hinders the development of an environmental economy and prevents Quebec from participating in the carbon exchange. In Canadian fetters, Quebec is held back in its development.

The terrible part is that the Conservative members from Quebec support these policies, which work against Quebec.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would have agreed with the member on everything he said had he not tried to limit the incompetence of the government just to its economic strategy in Quebec.

He pointed out that the government was absolutely indifferent to an industrial strategy that would help communities throughout Canada. He focused specifically on the forestry industry. There are some 350 communities throughout Canada that rely almost exclusively upon the forestry business, and they are not all in Quebec. They are in northern Ontario, New Brunswick and British Columbia. The government has done nothing about them. It has done nothing about stimulating that business, that sector of our economy such as opening up new markets and doing something that will provide the inhabitants of those communities with a sense of a future in the community, in the language and in a culture they have become accustomed to having define them.

Therefore, I am asking the hon. member, and I am doing it deliberately in English, whether he really feels the government is against all francophones in Quebec, or that maybe it is so ruddy incompetent on industrial strategy that the francophones in Quebec are just a secondary situation as far as the Conservatives are concerned.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

I am proud because every day that I rise in this House I am defending the interests of Quebec. If, when defending the interests of Quebec, I can defend the interests of the forestry sectors in the other provinces of Canada, then so much the better, because obviously, all we want is for Quebec to get its fair share.

At present, in the development sector, considering all industries, when we look at the aeronautics industry and the forestry industry, we see that the Conservative government has made different choices. It has decided to assist the automotive sector, which is mainly in Ontario, the aerospace sector, which is mainly in Ontario, and above all, through tax credits, the oil sands industry, which is in western Canada.

The Conservative government is making strategic choices, but it has obviously decided to ignore Quebec. It is always surprising to see the Conservative members from Quebec receive these slaps in the face and never say a word.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, on his speech, which seems to me to be very realistic about the forestry and manufacturing sectors.

Earlier we heard the hon. member forLotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière boast of the alleged measures that have been taken. Also, my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville said that in February alone, 11,000 jobs were lost in Quebec in manufacturing and forestry.

Can he comment briefly on these alleged measures to assist the manufacturing and forestry sectors? They are measures that have been of no use, since many manufacturing plants and sawmills are closing down.

Furthermore, what good measures should be proposed?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Chicoutimi, who is doing an excellent job, because every day he has to fight two Conservative ministers who would have their region understand that, in the end, what the Conservative government is doing is good for the forest. The mills are closing, but it is good for the forest. There you have the Conservative reality.

Listening to the hon. member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, I see that my colleague is right. He told us quite candidly that there was $30 billion at EDC for accounts receivable guarantees and other measures for the entire manufacturing sector. Since 2008, $300 million has been invested in the forestry sector. That is what the government has been saying right from the beginning. That is next to nothing. There is $10 billion for the automotive sector, but a paltry $300 million for accounts receivable guarantees for the forestry sector.

That is the Conservative reality: sweep things under the carpet and hope that no one will understand.

Once again, luckily, the region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean has the hon. member for Chicoutimi to tell the people what the real situation is.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

I would like to respond to the question from the hon. member for Joliette about the measures taken by the government to help the less fortunate.

Although the economic recovery has begun, we realize that it is still fragile and that many Canadians are still experiencing difficulty. The object of our economic action plan is to protect all Canadians, which also means all Quebeckers, from the worst effects of the economic slowdown.

The economic action plan is helping people in all walks of life, especially those who are most economically vulnerable. This of course includes the unemployed and those who are in danger of losing their jobs. Young people coming into the workforce for the first time, older workers who need to retrain, immigrants and aboriginal Canadians are feeling the negative effects of the crisis, as are children and seniors.

For these groups, the measures in the economic action plan are going a long way toward preventing and mitigating poverty in our country. We are doing so principally by focusing on employment and economic growth. For example, in the 2010 budget, more than $19 billion is earmarked to stimulate the economy in the second year of the economic action plan. From that amount, about $1.6 billion will be used to enhance benefits for the unemployed, including long-tenured workers.

We are also helping Canadian workers by investing $1 billion to improve training opportunities.

Canada's economic action plan is a blueprint for rapid recovery and long-term economic growth. The overall objective of the plan is to improve support for skills and training so that workers can get through this difficult crisis with the prospect of finding a good job later on.

We are keeping $60 million for young people taking their first steps as professionals as the labour market is stabilizing. For example, internships for young people under the career focus program will allow new graduates to gain work experience in their field.

As for youth, they will be able to make use of the skills link program to overcome obstacles to employment. This program will give them the skills and knowledge they need to have a better future. It will help them prepare for the economy of the future.

And since we are talking about the future, I would like to talk about programs that will help children.

We know that we can reduce childhood poverty even more than we have done already by giving parents choices and by giving every child a good start in life.

We are helping families with the cost of educating their children with the Canada child tax benefit, the national child benefit supplement for low-income families and the child disability benefit.

Through the universal child care benefit, the federal government is giving families $1,200 each year for each of their children under the age of 6. We do not tell families how to spend that money. We believe that they will use it in their children's best interests.

We estimate that the universal child care benefit is bringing close to 2,200 families out of poverty. This means that 57,000 children will have a better future or a better quality of life. And speaking of a better quality of life, I would like to mention the significant contributions that the government has made to create a Canada that promotes the well-being of all Canadians, no matter what their age.

We care about senior citizens, which is why we created the position of Minister of State (Seniors). We also established the National Seniors Council, which advises us on issues that are important to senior citizens.

Today, seniors in Canada live longer, have healthier lives and are better off financially than previous generations. Seniors are valuable members of our society who offer a variety of skills, knowledge and experience to their families and communities. I am certain that the many measures put in place by the government are improving the lives of seniors.

Canada's public pension system, namely the Canada pension plan and the old age security program, provides financial security for seniors.

Every year, more than 4 million seniors receive old age security, and 3 million receive a Canada pension plan cheque. And the guaranteed income supplement provides additional benefits for seniors with little or no income. Through the supplement, Canada has been able to significantly reduce the poverty rate among seniors, which fell from 21% in 1980 to less than 5% in 2007. That is one of the lowest rates in the world.

We have taken measures so that seniors can benefit from the Canada pension plan and old age security, including the guaranteed income supplement, now and in the future.

But that is not all.

The government has increased the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption, allowing seniors to keep $1,500 annually in benefits.

Furthermore, we have introduced tax savings that help all Canadians, especially low-income seniors. Through Canada's economic action plan, we are providing new tax breaks for seniors, support for those in need of affordable housing and assistance for older workers.

In total, we have earmarked nearly $2.3 billion in tax relief for seniors and pensioners in 2010-11.

We will continue to consult with the provinces and territories to further strengthen Canada's retirement income system, in order to support seniors.

We recently carried out a triennial review of the Canada pension plan in cooperation with our provincial and territorial counterparts. The Minister of Finance then proposed changes to the CPP that would give working Canadians greater flexibility, enhance pension coverage and make the CPP more equitable.

The government's contribution to the financial well-being of seniors is clear. We are also helping seniors remain active in their communities and continue to take part in local activities. That is why we have significantly increased funding for the new horizons for seniors program and why we are tackling the serious issue of elder abuse and neglect.

Through the programs I just mentioned, we are giving Canadians, as well as Quebeckers, the tools they need to play an active role in our country's future.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member across the way for his speech. He raised an extremely important issue that also affects my riding: EI.

I think the member forgot to mention one thing though. The pilot project for economic zones will end just a few days from now. That affects my riding, the Madawaska region, and the member's riding, the Lower St. Lawrence region.

Over the past few weeks, we have heard the member say that people just have to find more than one job. Then they might not have to apply for EI benefits, and the pilot project for economic zones would become irrelevant. Without that program, the unemployed will simply be penalized and will not be eligible for other EI programs. Economic zones have a specific role.

I would like to hear the member tell us if his position remains the same or if he has changed his mind, like the industry minister who flip-flopped today about community Internet access centres. I would like to know if the member still thinks that all workers have to do is find more than one job to avoid having to rely on the economic zones pilot project.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

In fact, he is alluding to a radio interview in which I mentioned various things the unemployed in my region, who are called seasonal unemployed, could do.

I sincerely think that there can be as many potential solutions as there are seasonal workers, one of which could be to find a second job in order to have more hours of work and qualify for EI benefits or work year-round. That is the context in which I made my comment. I have not changed my mind about that.

That having been said, I can say one thing for sure. I have tried to approach the minister. As the Minister of Veterans Affairs told the House last week, this is currently under consideration. Let us hope that the program will be renewed for another year.

I sincerely believe that things are changing. Employability in Canada, and in our regions in particular, has changed, and it has changed greatly in recent years. Again, this is under consideration.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what strikes me in this budget and this Speech from the Throne is the lack of equity and the target sectors of intervention. The lack of equity certainly is a reality, and we can see that Quebec is still badly served, probably because its needs are not well-known. I would rather think that than think that we want to favour Ontario and Western Canada.

In my riding of Trois-Rivières, we depend heavily on the paper industry. This ailing industry has been telling us for years that it needs loans and loan guarantees. We stood hundreds of times in the House to demand them, but regrettably, the government never wanted to meet the expectations of our businesses. Unfortunately, Trois-Rivières now boasts the highest unemployment rate in Quebec.

Therefore, it seems to me that this government is to blame. When we tell this member that there are problems and difficulties in the industry, he talks about social measures that amount to outright interference in provincial jurisdictions.

When we talk about equity, we talk about giving provinces their fair share. This way, they too will be able to make choices that suit them.