Debates of March 8th, 2010

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Markham—Unionville has 30 seconds to respond.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague put it so clearly that I do not need more time than that. I fully agree with him. He has identified another kind of deficit. He has underlined why unemployment and jobs are our top priority at this time.

The costs are measured not only in dollars and in terms of wages lost but also in the lives of Canadians, the crime rate and other features that are extraordinarily important for Canada. That is why the government should not have a single-minded focus on only one kind of deficit—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to share my time today with the hon. member for Northumberland—Quinte West.

I am very pleased to speak to the 2010 federal budget. As chair of the finance committee, I had the opportunity to hear from hundreds of stakeholders and witnesses on what they believe should be in the budget. I do want to thank all of those witnesses who appeared before the committee and presented their suggestions for the budget. I want to thank all members of Parliament from all parties who worked on the prebudget report which was tabled in Parliament in December last year.

The first recommendation of our committee was that the federal government continue the full implementation of current stimulus measures, pay close attention to debt management, engage in meaningful expenditure review and prepare long-term debt reduction plans to be implemented once the global economic recovery is fully entrenched.

I contend today that we have fulfilled that first recommendation, because budget 2010 takes action in three broad areas to achieve these goals. First, it delivers $19 billion in new federal stimulus under year two of Canada's economic action plan. Second, it invests in a limited number of new targeted initiatives to build jobs and growth for the economy of tomorrow, harness Canadian innovation and make Canada a destination of choice for new business investment. Third, budget 2010 outlines a three-point plan for returning to budgetary balance once the economy has recovered.

In terms of the overall direction, it is the completion of the second year of Canada's economic action plan, our government's response to the global fiscal crisis and recession. It is part of a global coordinated plan of the G20 to respond with full monetary and fiscal policy actions: monetary policy in terms of lowering and keeping interest rates low and injecting liquidity into the financial system; fiscal policy by spending on all types of infrastructure, human resources to stimulate the economy, looking after people who are hard hit by the downturn in the economy and doing things such as work sharing. I am very pleased to see it has been extended in the budget, because it is very important in my area of Edmonton—Leduc, particularly in the area of Nisku. A lot of companies there approached me and said that they are using this in order to retain employees. Once the recovery takes place, they want to have those employees so that they do not face a skills shortage, which is what is expected in Alberta in the coming years.

In terms of the deficit, I heard loud and clear through consultations, both at the finance committee and my own personal consultations in the riding. It was perhaps the number one issue raised. People understand that they have to budget as Canadians, as families and as businesses and they expect government to do the same. They are very pleased there is a five-year plan outlined in terms of reducing the deficit and addressing the debt issue.

Today I want to address one of the areas that was raised by the member for Markham—Unionville in his speech which addressed the area of innovation. My primary area of focus as a member of Parliament since being elected nine years ago has been in the area of science, research and development. Budget 2010 continues our focus in this area and builds upon actions in previous budgets and in the science and technology strategy of May 2007.

There are many investments in research and innovation in the budget, including a high Arctic research station, and the world-class TRIUMF facility, which I was very pleased to visit years ago as a member of the industry committee. It is a world-class facility and I am very pleased that it received funding. There is increased funding for the granting councils and for Genome Canada, the Rick Hansen Foundation, knowledge transfer and commercialization. There is additional funding for the college and community foundation program, and the National Research Council's regional innovation clusters. There is more funding for research and development of new technologies for the production of isotopes, and nearly $400 million over five years for the Canadian Space Agency to develop the RADARSAT constellation mission, the next generation of advanced radar remote sensing satellite.

The budget recognizes that the investments of last year went toward building capacity especially with respect to the knowledge infrastructure program and the Canada Foundation for Innovation. The budget addresses the human resources issue that was certainly raised by universities and colleges across Canada.

I would like to thank Dr. Eliot Phillipson for all of his years of service with the Canada Foundation for Innovation. He has been the president and CEO since 2004. He is stepping down this year. He has done an outstanding service to his country in my view. I think all parliamentarians would want to thank him for his work.

It is often we get into partisan debate and people back home watching us debate wonder whom they should believe. Should they believe the government which is promoting the budget or the opposition which is criticizing it?

What I would therefore like to do today is to quote a couple of national organizations on this budget, particularly on innovation. I would first like to quote the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, which issued a press release on March 4. Part of the release states:

The $32 million annual investment in the three major granting councils will help universities to pursue the kinds of research that will drive innovation and produce the highly skilled workers that all sectors of the economy need. The budget also provided $8 million for the Indirect Costs Program.

Economic stimulus efforts such as the Knowledge Infrastructure Program are helping Canada to emerge from this recession and to accelerate economic growth.

In fact, when the finance committee visited the University of Alberta, it had the opportunity of paying firsthand visits to some of the investments made under the knowledge infrastructure program.

The AUCC press release continued:

This program is making a difference on campuses across Canada and paying dividends. As the program enters its second year, Canadian universities and research partners will leverage these new and renovated facilities to generate cutting-edge discoveries.

The new investments in post-doctoral fellows will build on the stimulus infrastructure Program and the research funding announced today provided by the Knowledge Inf. The fellowship program, funded at $45 million over five years, will be internationally competitive and will help attract and keep talented recent PhD graduates in Canada.

That is something the president of the University of Alberta, Indira Samarasekera, has hammered home many times to me, both as chair of the committee and as an MP for Edmonton.

Finally, in regard to these fellowship recipients, the AUCC stated:

Their skills and knowledge will help drive innovative research and discoveries in universities, industry and other knowledge sectors.

The universities and colleges are one side of the equation, and generally receive the bulk of research funding, particularly basic research funding.

I also have a release from the Association of Canadian Community Colleges, entitled, “Budget Increases Support for Applied and Industry-Driven Research at Colleges, Institutes and Polytechnics”.

I would like to quote James Knight, president and CEO of this organization:

The budget demonstrates an understanding that colleges, institutes and polytechnics are integrated with the industrial and technological drivers of the economy. They help businesses start, develop and grow. They support the private sector’s need for applied research, product and process innovation, technology access and commercialization. They are the prime providers of graduates with the advanced skills required by Canadian employers.

Mr. Knight continued:

The government has listened to colleges and their business partners. Today’s budget strengthens the College and Community Innovation Program, a partnership of ACCC with the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), in concert with the other federal granting councils.

As an Edmontonian, I would like to applaud the work of the president of NAIT, Sam Shaw, who has presented many times on these issues.

This government has in fact had an innovation agenda since 2006. We have implemented the science and technology strategy of May 2007 and made investments in innovation, not only in terms of basic research but also further down the line in terms of commercialization.

I would also point out that the government has taken action with respect to section 116 of the Income Tax Act. This was done as a result of a request made by the venture capital community in Canada. The action taken improves the ability of Canadian businesses, including innovative high growth companies that have contributed to job creation and economic growth, to attract foreign venture capital. It does so by narrowing the definition of taxable Canadian property, thereby eliminating the need for tax reporting under section 116 of the Income Tax Act of many investments.

The Canadian Venture Capital Association, in making representations for changes, stated:

The benefit of a broader exemption is that it would make Canada a more attractive destination for equity investments by non-residents and, in particular, venture capital and private equity funds.

Even before the recession hit, the venture capital community in Canada was facing some very tough times for raising capital and bringing great ideas started and built here in Canada to the marketplace. This change was welcomed by folks like Terry Matthews here in Ottawa, who have actually brought ideas to the marketplace. This is not a budgetary item in the sense of requiring a lot of expenditure, but an essential change. I want to thank the venture capital community for raising it and I applaud the government for putting it into effect.

I would like to wrap up with some comments on the work-sharing program.

The hon. member who spoke previously talked about jobs as an issue. In fact, this is just one example. I recommend that the hon. member read page 71 of the budget, which outlines the work-sharing issue and how we as a government are focused on our investments and ensuring that companies can get through this tough time and keep their employees, their most valuable resource going forward in the future.

I recommend that members actually read and support the budget, recognizing that it is the right budget at this time.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, one of the major disappointments in this budget has been the lack of mention of, or any activity in or money for, environmental issues. This is the Conservatives' fifth year in government. The government has had three environment ministers and three plans, and we just have not seen anything at all.

The only two things that the government did do was to eliminate any reference to climate change on its websites and eliminated $6 billion in existing funding.

I know there are Canadians who do not believe in the concept of climate change. In fact, the Prime Minister thinks it is a socialist plot. However, there are another 75% of Canadians who believe it is a serious issue that ought to be dealt with by the government.

Does the hon. member have anything to say to those 75% of Canadians who do think this is a serious issue?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Madam Speaker, the question allows me the opportunity to outline what budget 2010 does in fact do for the environment.

The budget provides $100 million over four years to support clean energy generation in Canada's forestry sector, and expands the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation equipment. It allocates $16 million over two years to continue to implement the action plan of the government to protect the Great Lakes by cleaning up the areas identified as being the most degraded, and provides $38 million over two years for the invasive alien species strategy of Canada. Both issues are dealt with at the Canada-U.S. meetings, which I know the member participates in.

Budget 2010 also provides up to $11.4 million over two years to deliver meteorological and navigational service in the north, and $8 million over two years to support community based environmental monitoring, reporting and baseline data collection there.

It also provides $18.4 million over two years to support the annual reporting of the government on key environmental indicators, such as clean air, clean water and greenhouse gas emissions.

This environment minister has more than doubled the size of the Nahanni National Park in Canada, something that all Canadians should certainly be proud of.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I heard the hon. member emphasize investments in science and technology and post-secondary education.

However, we in the NDP feel that even in the area of post-secondary education, this is a budget that fails to help Canada move forward. One way it fails is by not really helping post-secondary students across the board.

When we talk about investments in research councils and investments in research, these are important factors, but we cannot forget that it is students who are going into these programs and it is students whom we need to be supporting.

Unfortunately, the government has not shown leadership in this area. Across the country tuition fees are rising at historic rates and student loans are beyond the $13 billion mark. Students are facing financial challenges at a time when there are no jobs.

While it is important to invest in research, would the member not agree that the really important part is to help students at the bottom level to ensure they will have a better future?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an important question. As someone not too long out of university, I certainly agree that it is absolutely essential to support all students.

The biggest way we can support students is by ensuring the continuation of transfers to the provinces to pay for essential services such as health care, education and social assistance.

We are not doing what the previous government did, which was to cut 25% out of the Canada health and social transfer. Our government has committed to maintain those transfers to the provinces and, in fact, to increase them year over year until 2014.

In terms of support for students, it is absolutely fair to question what we are doing. One only has to look at any one of the budgets we have tabled. In budget 2007 there was an $800 million increase for post-secondary education to ensure that students from all economic backgrounds could access these types of facilities. Education and health care are the ladders of mobility in our society and will continue to remain so because of the investments we have made in them.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today with a great amount of pride and pleasure to speak on the budget and what it means for the province of Ontario. In particular, on this day we recognize the tremendous contribution that women have made and continue to make to our country, and the improvements we have seen throughout the years.

Because of our new budget, Ontario will continue to receive support through major federal transfers in 2010-11. Federal support for provinces is at an all-time high and will continue to grow. For Ontario, this will total $18.8 billion in 2010-11, an increase of over $800 million from last year and a $6.9 billion increase from 2005-06.

This type of long-term support will help ensure that Ontario has the resources required to provide essential public services. Some examples include the $972 million provided through the equalization program, and the $9.1 billion through the Canada health transfer, an increase of $243 million from last year.

In my riding, we have seen hospital upon hospital facing challenges in managing their budgets and really having to look at how they care for patients. People have asked me what the federal government is doing to help hospitals meet their budgets. Of course, the $243 million will go a long way to doing just that.

Moreover, $4.3 billion will be provided through the Canada social transfer, representing an increase of $1.2 billion since 2005-06.

There is $151 million for Ontario in the community development trust and the police officers recruitment fund, and $196 million for labour market training.

Budget 2010 also benefits businesses and communities in Ontario by providing $11 million per year in ongoing funding for the 61 community futures organizations. Innovative small and medium size businesses in Ontario will benefit from the new small and medium size enterprise innovation commercialization program.

Budget 2010 provides $8 million per year to clean up the Great Lakes, a key objective of the action plan on clean water by the government.

Businesses in Ontario will benefit from the $497 million to be invested in the Canadian Space Agency over the next five years.

Ontario will continue to benefit from the economic action plan, which will continue to provide support to create and protect jobs, as well as assist those who are in need. Over $4 billion will go to help unemployed Canadians to find new and better jobs, including five extra weeks of regular employment insurance benefits and greater access to regular EI benefits for long tenured workers. The temporary extension of our work-sharing agreements for a maximum 78 weeks will go a long way toward helping those looking for work, as well as struggling businesses.

We have frozen employment insurance premiums at $1.73 per $100 of insured earnings,

We have dedicated $1 billion to enhancing employment insurance training programs and $500 million to the strategic training and transfer fund.

There is $6.6 million dedicated to enhance the federal victims of crime strategy, including access to EI sick benefits for those who have lost a family member due to a crime.

Also, $95 million will be provided over the next two years as additional support for the registered disability savings plan to allow it more flexibility when making contributions.

Ontario will benefit further from the new resources provided to encourage innovation and commercialization. These include $32 million per year for the federal research granting councils to support advanced research and improved commercialization; $8 million per year to support the indirect costs of federally sponsored research at post-secondary institutions; and $15 million per year for the college and community innovation program, doubling support from last year.

A new Canadian post-doctoral fellowship program will also be created, aimed at attracting the best young researchers to Canada.

Ontario will benefit from $135 million over two years to sustain the regional innovation clusters of the National Research Council.

Farmers and the agricultural industry will continue to be able to rely on this government. Our government continues to receive and evaluate proposals to the agricultural flexibility fund. To date, $219 million has been committed to multi-year initiatives. A total of $10 million is expected to be spent in 2009-10 and $52 million has been committed to 2010-11.

Since 2009, over 1,600 loans totaling $84 million have been granted under the new Canadian Agricultural Loans Act.

Canada-wide, budget 2010 will invest $19 billion of new stimulus funding to create jobs and secure our economic recovery. This will happen because of cuts to personal income tax totaling $32 billion. This includes adjustments to the federal tax brackets, enhancing the working income tax benefit, higher child benefits for parents and lower taxes for low and middle income seniors. Retraining and work support totalling $4 billion will enhance EI benefits and training opportunities to transition workers toward future employment.

Research and development funds totaling $1.9 billion will help attract talent, strengthen research capacity, improve commercialization, accelerate private sector investment and expand market access and competitiveness to build a strong economy for tomorrow.

Infrastructure investments totalling $7.7 billion will help create jobs, modernize infrastructure, support home ownership, stimulate the housing sector and improve housing right across this great country.

Targeted support to industries and communities totalling $2.2 billion will create and maintain jobs in agriculture, forestry, small business, tourism and culture.

I am proud of budget 2010, our jobs and growth budget. I believe it takes the right steps for Ontario and the rest of Canada to ensure a steady economic recovery, job growth and support for those in need.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, on pages 84 and 85, the budget refers to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. On page 85, it refers to Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions and Western Economic Diversification Canada. On pages 120 and 121, it lists $38 million for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, $29 million for the Quebec regions and $29 million for western Canada.

Given the fact that those regions were all given money and that FedNor has always been part of the budget, would the hon. member tell us what his government's plans are for FedNor?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Madam Speaker, FedNor continues to be a regional economic development agency that will be fully funded by this government. We now have the creation of the southern Ontario development program that was allocated in the last budget somewhere in the vicinity of $200 million per year.

As the member knows, this government is committed to maintaining funding in those job creating federal development areas. In my riding, we have seen many small and medium-sized businesses helped by the Community Futures Development Corporations, which are, in fact, part and parcel of FedDev and FedNor. The hon. member is correct in pointing those things out.

I can tell him what else the government will not do. It will not cut back on social transfer payments to the provinces and, in particular, to health care. I know in the member's part of the province, northern Ontario, hospitals have come under tremendous pressure in meeting their budgets. Hospitals in many of those northern Ontario communities, at least those in which I worked, such as in Hearst, South Porcupine, Timmins and various areas, such as Cochrane, are under tremendous pressure due to some great disadvantages in the forest industry.

However, I can tell the member that we continue to work on that. There is much good news in this budget with regard to retraining and other environmental assistance.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a very narrow budget that simply seeks to continue a program that is failing to get stimulus money out. We notice there is a reference in the throne speech that some 90% of the projects for the current year have been committed. Those are weasel words. The cheques are not out.

The other part of this is that this budget does not address the realities. During these difficult times there are problems with an aging society, problems with social programs and problems dealing with the basic needs.

This is my concern and the basis of my question. If we simply focus on reducing the expenditures of government departments that deliver services that Canadians need at this difficult time, will it not result in lower service levels to Canadians at a time of most need?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not live in his riding but I live in mine and I can tell him that almost 70% of the projects announced under the stimulus action plan have either been completed or have just been completed, and a few are just getting started. Shovels are in the ground and the blueprints are up and ready to go.

I just listened to the member's compatriot speak, the member for Markham—Unionville. We hear words from him such as “weasel” but that gets this country nowhere. What is disingenuous is for him to talk about having to know what department to cut back and then suggesting that we were picking and choosing which departments to cut back.There is a lot of credibility lacking in those statements.

We just had a 25% cutback in social transfer payments to the province. What does that mean? When the Liberals were in government, mothers had to find food for their children because the provinces had to raid their budgets because they cut back 25%. Hospitals were closed because provinces could no longer afford the health care because they cut back 25%.

When he talks about weasel words, he should have a---

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Laval.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

Today, March 8, is International Women's Day. For once, we are discussing the budget on this date. That certainly comes as somewhat of a surprise. More surprising and astonishing yet, but much less edifying, is the fact that, once again, this government has failed to pay attention to women, who represent 51% of the population in Quebec and Canada. Once again, there is nothing for women in the budget. There is so little for them in here that, as usual, they are barely mentioned. Reference is made to Canadians and Canadian workers, but with hardly any specific references to women, one can only assume that they are part of the population.

Does the government believe that women have no reason to complain because they are working and hardly manage to earn as much as their male counterparts? To this day, women are continuing to earn 21% less than men, even for the same number of hours and weeks of work. It is true, however, that most women do not work as many hours as men. Because they do not have access to adequate child care, most of them are forced to work part time. These women who are not working 35 hours a week do not qualify for employment insurance.

In this budget, the government overlooked EI; it did not make any change to EI to allow more workers to be eligible to benefits. I find that very distressing, especially since women are contributing to the EI fund and making it grow.

I also find very distressing the gall displayed by the Prime Minister in stating in this budget that he will get rid of the gun registry. Down with the mask and the secrecy. He has asked one of his members of Parliament, a woman, to introduce a bill to eliminate the part of the legislation dealing with long guns. We can see now that, all this time, his true intention was to get rid of the gun registry. This registry was established at the request of women, women whose children had fallen victim to a crazed gunman in 1989.

The fact that they had the nerve to do this, and include it in a budget, I believe, is an insult to women. I find it very insulting and I would even say I find it very distressing, because it means that this government just does not get it. Ever since it came to power, so for four years now, unfortunately, this government has failed to understand that women have something to say, that women have rights and that they have the right to exercise them. The Conservatives are trying every way they can—every subtle, twisted way—to divest women of their rights. They are trying to take away everything that we have fought so hard for over the years.

Today we are celebrating the 100th anniversary of the declaration of International Women’s Day. Yet here we are discussing a budget that contains nothing for women. It is so serious that Kathleen Lahey, an analyst and economist at a university in Toronto, has studied the budget and the economic stimulus plan that was supposed to be just as good for women as it is for men. She found some serious problems with this economic plan, especially in terms of investments.

Consider the following example. Only 0.00006% of approximately $9 billion, that is, about $572,000, was spent on improving women's shelters in Inuit and first nations communities. Only $572,000 is being spent to improve all women's shelters, while triple that amount is being spent on improving three animal shelters in Canada.

Does this mean that animals are more important to the government than women? This is not such an unfair comparison, because it is clear that the government has done absolutely nothing.

For years now, it has been making cuts to Status of Women Canada and to programs that would have given women the opportunity to conduct fundamental research. Women no longer have that opportunity because funds have been cut. Cuts have also been made or will be soon to organizations that offer family planning services and ensure that women and men who choose to have children have all the tools they need to make informed choices. Although this is happening here, the government is also pushing its agenda on developing countries. Claiming that it wants to help women and children, it is cutting funding for a number of organizations that were providing very important services to women and children in developing countries.

By cutting this funding, the government is showing yet again that it does not care at all about the health of women and children. It is wrong to claim that it cares about the health of women and children when it does not give them the chance to have all the tools they need to determine whether they want to bring a child into this world, whether they have the necessary resources to raise the children, or whether they have the right to terminate their pregnancy if necessary.

When a government like this slashes funding to women's organizations, to family planning organizations, to a firearms registry that was very functional—because police officers told us so, the RCMP told us so and women's groups told us so—and the registry is used many times every day by the police forces across Canada and Quebec, that same government has the audacity to send our Minister of State for Status of Women to the United Nations to have her say that Canada has made great strides in helping women and that women in Canada are moving forward. That is not true.

Over the past four years, Canadian women have taken several big steps back. We have taken so many hits that it will probably take us 20 years to get back to where we were four years ago. Once things start going south, it is very difficult to turn them around, to get those rights and that funding back. Once things are cut, they are cut for good. After that, it is very hard to find new money to support organizations that are critical to protecting women's rights and to fund important research and vital programs like the court challenges program. I understand why the government cut the program: it does not want anyone to say that the government is not doing its job. It does not want anyone to challenge it. It does not want any of us, as human beings, as citizens, to speak out against its decisions. That much is clear. A program that cost Canadians just 18 cents apiece was cut. Not because it was expensive, but because it made the government uncomfortable. It allowed people to stand up for their rights, allowed victims to stand up for their rights, allowed victims of crime to stand up for their rights, and allowed victims of discrimination to stand up for their rights.

Such actions make it perfectly clear that this government does not really care about women and children. Some people lie and make up all kinds of stories about how they care for the safety of children and others do not, but the Bloc Québécois really does care about children's safety. Keeping children safe means making sure that parents have enough money to shelter and feed their children and send them to daycare. It means knowing that families will not end up with less money because they send their children to daycare. Unlike other Canadians, Quebeckers get less money because they have adequate daycare services.

Unfortunately, my time has run out, but that is fine, because my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville has more to say.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great attentiveness to what the member had to say and I know she cares very much about women's issues. The facts she brings out from her perspective do not actually reflect the true facts. The true facts are that over the last five years to the last decade women have begun to increase their earning potential in this country and continue to do so exponentially. I was reading very recently how there are certain job sectors where women are not only at the same level but are actually increasing. In order words, in certain professions women are earning more than men and that is a good thing because certain professions are predominantly male and some are predominantly female.

I look at my own riding and ask where have we lacked in funding for women? I look at almost $500,000 to the Northumberland services for women so that we can expand, actually double the size of assistance to people and their children who are being abused by their partners, and provide them with social links throughout the community.

I look at the Status of Women and the increase in funding for that. The member reflects on one area but the truth is people who actually provide the services for women, teaching literacy and so on, their funding has increased in order to deliver those services.

One million Canadians no longer pay federal income tax, many of whom are single mothers and single senior women like my mother. So we have taken them off the tax rolls. We have done a lot for women.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is not true that the government is looking out for women's economic security when it takes away their right to pay equity, when it refuses to increase the guaranteed income supplement for seniors and when it refuses to pay the guaranteed income supplement to the people who are entitled to it.

The government is refusing to give women what they are entitled to. It is not one office per province that Status of Women Canada should have. It used to have 16 offices, and 12 of them were closed, leaving only four.

This government is governing by manipulating and scaring people. People are afraid to say how government cuts are affecting them. It is not true that organizations are receiving money. They are sometimes waiting one, two or three years to get an answer from Status of Women Canada. The answers are not forthcoming.

It is wrong to say that Status of Women Canada is doing its job. It is not doing its job, any more than the minister is doing hers, because she cannot even convince the cabinet that her job is to defend women, not the cabinet.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I must begin by recognizing and applauding my hon. colleague for her determination and her continued fighting capacity when it comes to all issues that matter to her community and ours, but specifically as we celebrate International Women's Day, how important are her comments. Yes, they are very accurate.

We know that very little help is coming to women when it comes to the Status of Women. The cutbacks in the court challenges program was an extremely important one and I was quite disappointed. I was hoping that the government would have recognized how important the court challenges program was, not only to women but to people all across Canada. I suspect the hon. member was hoping that was going to be in budget as well. Does she have any further comments on that?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for that question.

We might have hoped that the government would restore the court challenges program in the interest of reinstating some rights, some fairness and some equality among people. Poor people cannot fight and do not have access to the courts, but a similar program could give them financial assistance to do so.

Recently, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the Sharon McIvor case. Without the help of the court challenges program, this woman never would have been able to plead her case before the Supreme Court. This sort of program is crucial to defending this type of case.

In the previous budget, the government told us that it would make an exception and set up a program so that people who suffered discrimination because of their language could defend themselves. But all the government has done is set up a very small program that does not meet people's needs.

We need a comprehensive program that gives people the right to defend themselves against this government.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the budget today for two or three small reasons. First, this is International Women's Day and I believe women have something to say about this budget presented by the federal government. Yesterday was a rather special day because I was in my riding where many activities were organized in women's centres. Women told me that they are not fools and they realize the extent to which they have been ignored by this government over the past few years, since the Conservatives came to power, and especially so in this budget.

I would like to acknowledge the women in my riding of Terrebonne—Blainville, who asked me to give this government some messages. Of course, I did not really have to explain the budget in order for them to tell me that it is a hollow budget and that it contains nothing for women and does nothing to improve living conditions for them or their families. Nor is there anything in this budget for Quebec.

Furthermore, it meddles in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. Today, we must debate the NDP subamendment. I will start by saying that the Bloc Québécois will vote against this subamendment because it sanctions interference in areas that fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec.

With this budget, the Conservatives have once again missed an opportunity to properly meet the economic, social, environmental and financial needs of Quebec.

For this government, and for certain members of the other opposition parties, it is as though Quebec does not exist. The Bloc Québécois does not systematically oppose every budget; however, it does oppose a budget that does not acknowledge the existence and the predominance of the needs of the Quebec nation.

The policies in this budget are geared towards Ontario and Alberta to the detriment of the pressing needs of Quebec. We have just come through a recession. In fact, we are only emerging slowly from it. All economists agree that the next year will be a very difficult one for Quebec. Quebec will experience the most difficulties pulling out of this recession. The economic recovery will be weak in Quebec compared to Canada.

There is nothing in the budget for the forestry sector, aerospace, the environment or culture. The Bloc Québécois did a prebudget consultation tour in order to ask Quebeckers about their needs, what they wanted to see in the budget and whether they felt the government truly recognized the nation of Quebec. What budgetary items could the federal Conservative government include for Quebec?

A number of Bloc MPs, our finance critic in particular, did a tour of Quebec. They proposed things, compiled information and even delivered that information to the Minister of Finance. Unfortunately, none of those items are found in the budget.

Some items were extremely important to the ordinary Quebecker. None of those items are found in this budget. I will list them.

There is nothing for seniors, the unemployed, social housing, the homeless, older workers or informal caregivers. And these needs are found not just in Quebec, but throughout Canada. There is nothing for women, transportation, harmonized sales taxes or equalization. What is in this budget?

There is still no answer for the agencies that, throughout the recession, which is still not over, have made recommendations to the federal government. Canadian food banks requested items that Quebeckers were looking for as well. Women from Quebec and elsewhere also asked on behalf of their children, their families and themselves. There were recommendations calling for maintaining the levels of federal transfers. Of those, the Canada social transfer is being maintained, but we have not heard anything about maintaining the other transfers. There is not a word about this. Worse yet, even if some transfers are maintained, more will be lost because they are not indexed or increased.

Canadian food banks had called on the government to keep working to make the employment insurance system fairer and more comprehensive. There is nothing in the budget about this. It is not the Bloc that asked for it, but Canadian food banks. The manufacturing sector is continuing to decline as a source of jobs, whereas low-paying service jobs are growing.

Conservative members of this House often said that it was not the end of the world if people did not necessarily have extensive employment insurance programs, because they would find jobs elsewhere. Jobs have been proposed, created and made available to people, but these are low-paying jobs with no security—what we call short-term jobs. How are people supposed to live off such jobs without help from employment insurance?

What the food banks were calling for was for the government to continue increasing participation in the guaranteed income supplement. The food banks asked for that, just as the Bloc did. They also called for an increase in guaranteed income supplement and old age security benefits. They said that people can barely survive on $14,000 a year. They also called on the government to invest in social housing and to continue investing in affordable housing. There is nothing about that in this famous budget.

What we do find, as I said earlier, are intrusions, such as the creation of a single securities commission. Not only will Quebec experience a weaker economic recovery than Canada, but I imagine that Quebec will also see businesses leave for Ontario, for Toronto, where the securities commission will be set up. It seems clear that what the government wants is to make people poorer, make the system poorer, make Quebec poorer, give Quebec nothing. The government wants Quebec to toe the line and keep coming on bended knee, as many are doing at present, to beg the federal government for a few pennies.

I do not have much time left, so I will say that my message was this. First, to the Conservative members who say that we do not understand the budget, that we are not reading it correctly, I say that we understand it quite well. Clearly, the budget has nothing for Quebec. It is also very unfair to Quebec.

If the members opposite are consistent and honest, they will do their research. They will stop looking at the budget with blinders on, as they are doing now, and they will open their minds—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member will no doubt provide additional information in response to the questions.

The hon. member for Oak Ridges—Markham.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member's comments. I am dumbfounded why she and her party have decided not to vote in favour of the budget.

A member of the government operations and estimates committee, I know she pays a lot of attention to small and medium-sized businesses. This budget addresses that. It provides new funding and resources for small and medium sized enterprises.

I know Quebec is an extraordinary jurisdiction for manufacturers. The budget outlines the elimination of tariffs on our manufacturers. In fact, I think we are the only jurisdiction in the world to do that. I am not sure how that cannot impact positively on the manufacturers of Quebec.

On page 236 of the English version of the budget, it outlines another $1 billion for social housing in the country on top of another $1 billion that was already committed last year as part of our economic action plan.

I know the member was in the House for year one of our economic action plan. That plan has seen over 7,000 projects across Canada, including in Quebec, for roads, bridges, sewers and other infrastructure that will allow our businesses to compete with anybody and that will allow our communities to grow. I am not sure why she is voting against that.

As a newly appointed member of the status of women committee later today, I look forward to meeting with women, and continue to do that in my riding. Those women tell me they are energized, excited and confident that they can compete with anybody in Canada and anywhere in the world. I have a lot more faith than they do—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to wish good luck to my colleague, who will be sitting on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, where there is a lot of work to be done. Women will have to clearly explain to him what it means to be a woman with no career who is trying to find housing, and raise and feed her children.

We used to sit on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates and will perhaps again. It is true that I defended small- and medium-sized businesses. The government is not even giving loans or loan guarantees to SMEs in the manufacturing and forestry sector. These companies have no money; it is time to wake up.

I understand why my colleague would ask a question like that, but I would be ashamed to ask it myself.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, but first, I would like to congratulate all women and wish them a happy International Women's Day.

Our colleague said that she would not support the NDP's subamendment. The tax breaks given to major banks and big businesses represent a lot of money. If the amendment to eliminate these tax breaks passed, we could use that money to help women, children and seniors.

Why will the Bloc vote against a subamendment that would help the women, children and seniors of Quebec?