Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois opposed the adoption of the budget presented in February, and it will also oppose its implementation act. Not only do we feel that the budget is unacceptable in terms of its content, but it is just as unacceptable in terms of what is not included in it. A number of people, the forgotten ones, are affected by this situation, and I will mention some of them.
The forgotten ones include, in particular, all Quebeckers. Indeed, no significant measure is taken to correct the fiscal imbalance.
Then there are those who do not have adequate housing and the homeless. There is no money for housing programs such as the RRAP, the residential rehabilitation assistance program, and SCPI, the supporting communities partnership initiative. This is unacceptable.
There is also nothing for workers and the unemployed. Seasonal workers asked that the number of hours required to qualify be reduced, and that more be done to deal with the gap than just resorting to transition measures. However, these workers did not find anything in this budget.
Vulnerable workers, young people and women wanted the government to completely eliminate the discriminatory 910 hour eligibility threshold for new entrants to the labour market, but they also did not find anything for them in this budget.
Workers and employers who wanted the government to immediately stop dipping into the employment insurance fund did not find anything in this budget.
Older workers who are affected by massive layoffs did not find anything in this budget regarding POWA, the program for older worker adjustment.
In short, there are many things related to this budget that are unacceptable to Quebec. As for what is in it, we feel that it is very sad. This government campaigned on a so-called social program but it is governing conservatively, in both senses of the word, and it presented a budget that does not in any way meet Quebeckers' needs.
The federal government has also increased Canada's fiscal imbalance through the cuts that it has been making since 1993 in transfer payments to Quebec and the provinces. This imbalance has grown so much that it is literally stifling Quebec and the provinces.
The result of this is that the federal government has financial means that exceed its needs, while the provinces are in the opposite situation. The federal government continues to hypocritically deny the existence of such an imbalance. It was merely forced to talk about “financial pressures” in the budget. The Bloc Québécois will continue to demand that the federal government recognize the fiscal imbalance and deal with it.
Despite recommendations by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, calling for a more comprehensive reform of employment insurance, there are no improvements that could be applied immediately, except for the mention of a possible $300 million measure, which is hardly enough for seasonal workers. In addition, the 2005 budget prevents any actual improvements to the EI program because the main objective in changing the fund is to eliminate the annual surplus.
As for the plan for implementing the Kyoto protocol, it gives major polluters carte blanche. The budget confirms the choice already expressed by the federal government of a voluntary approach to the Kyoto protocol, which will not lead to the achievement of the objectives for the reduction of greenhouse gases and will place the financial burden on the taxpayers rather than the major polluters.
The absence of tax measures in the transport sector will not help Quebec to improve its greenhouse gas reduction record. These measures are not appropriate to Quebec, which has done its fair share in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Instead of the polluter pay principle, this government has implemented polluter paid measures. While Quebec has set up Hydro-Québec at its own expense, the federal government is proposing to finance the major fossil fuel consumers to help them meet the Kyoto protocol objectives. In so doing, it is asking Quebeckers to subsidize the environmental irresponsibility of Ontario and Alberta.
When it comes to social housing, the federal government has completely ignored the repeated demands by the Bloc Québécois that reflect the social consensus in Quebec, where needs are great. In the meantime, it is investing in sectors such as the military, which is not a priority to Quebeckers. I will come back to this.
As for correctional officers, in appendix 8, the budget proposes changes to the Income Tax Act. In his budgetary statement, the minister proposes increasing the maximum pension benefit accrual rate to 2.33% for RPPs, registered pension plans, and benefit limits to 2% for public safety related professions.
There are special rules on pension benefits for individuals working in a public safety occupation. Under the income tax regulations, a public safety occupation means the occupation of a firefighter, police officer, commercial airline pilot or air traffic controller. This year, corrections officer was added.
These regulations authorize individuals in a public safety occupation to retire five years earlier than other RPP, registered pension plan, contributors, without any reduction in benefits, because it is standard practice for members of these occupations, whose role is to ensure public safety, to take early retirement.
In extending this measure to all public safety occupations, including corrections officers, the government is finally recognizing that those ensuring our safety face disadvantages compared to other workers. They have demanding jobs. In fact, unlike in other occupations, stress increases with experience and, as a result, these workers must retire earlier.
In passing, the case of corrections officers is patently absurd. They have been bargaining for more than three years with Treasury Board and have been without a collective agreement since June 2002. Their specific demands have been systematically turned down, including recently. We wonder, then, how the government can agree in principle with its budget and, at the same time, refuse the demands of corrections officers.
The budget provides an additional $12.8 billion over five years for national defence. This is the most significant increase—equal to 46%—over a five-year period in the past 20 years. The government is using this money to expand the Canadian Forces by 5,000 regular force personnel and 3,000 reservists. Over $2.5 billion will allow for the acquisition of helicopters and utility aircraft, trucks for the army and specialized facilities. Some $3.8 billion will fund capital and other projects to support new roles for the military to be identified in the upcoming defence policy statement. Some $1 billion over five years will support key national security initiatives. The defence budget has already been increased by 48% since fiscal year 1996-97. In 2009-10, the defence budget will increase a further 46%, for a total increase over 1996-97 of 116%.
The government lacks consistency, confirming in its budget that a defence policy has to be in place before any new funding is allocated.
The Bloc Québécois has been asking for quite a while that, before any new money is invested in that area, Canada develop a strong, structured defence policy approved by the government.
With respect to the aerospace policy, once again, there is a big hole. This budget does not contain any measures benefiting the aerospace industry in Quebec. In fact, this government has no aerospace policy. The federal government is holding off from implementing an aerospace policy and providing assistance that would allow businesses to develop new aircraft, like Bombardier's aircraft for instance, in Quebec.
While the federal government is investing $200 million in the renovation of GM Canada's plants in Ontario, the aerospace industry in Quebec and Canada is still waiting for a real support policy. The aerospace industry accounts for $2.1 billion annually in tax revenues for Ottawa.
Last fall, the Bloc Québécois presented its own aerospace policy. This policy is designed to stimulate investment in research and development, finance export sales and support the growth of SMBs supplying the giant aerospace companies. We encourage the federal government to cut and paste our aerospace policy.
The concentration of the aerospace industry in the Montreal area, and the south shore in particular, is such that the École nationale d'aéronautique of Édouard Montpetit College was established and has been developing in Saint-Hubert. Saint-Hubert is also home to the École nationale d'aérotechnique, which is located next to the Canadian Space Agency and the Saint-Hubert airport. This is the only school in North America offering training in French, English and Spanish in the design, production and repair of all aircraft components.
That is not all that makes Quebec unique in the field of aeronautics, but it is one more reason for Quebec to be to the aerospace industry what Ontario is to the automotive industry.
