Mario Laframboise

[Highway Infrastructure, February 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister informed the House that, if the Government of Quebec made highway 185 a priority, the federal government would agree to invest in it, as promised before the elections.

Since there are five memoranda of agreement already prepared, one of them for highway 185, which are just waiting for signature by the Minister of Transport, can the Prime Minister tell us what is keeping the Minister of Transport from signing and committing the federal government to keeping its promises?

[Highway Infrastructures, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the $600 million fund for border infrastructure can in no way be used for highways 30, 50, 175 and 185?

[Highway Infrastructures, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, right now, we can identify three possible sources of funding to meet the Liberal promises made during the election campaign.

There is $108 million for Quebec's highways in the current Department of Transport budget; there is the approximately $600 million fund for border infrastructure throughout Canada, security being an issue we cannot ignore; and there is apparently—I use the word apparently deliberately—$2 billion for strategic infrastructure for Canada as a whole.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that, right now, there is really only $108 million earmarked for the Liberals' highway construction promises? One hundred and eight million, period.

[Species at Risk Act, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak once more at the report stage of Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. Today, the debate is on amendment motions in Group No. 2.

The amendments are rather substantial. One hundred and thirty-eight amendments have been moved at the report stage by members of all opposition parties in the House, members of the Bloc Quebecois, well as other political parties.

This being said, I want Quebecers to understand that it was not easy to bring this bill back to the House where it will be voted on. The legislation introduced in the previous parliament was Bill C-33. We have to wonder: when opposition parties move 138 amendments to a bill, there has to be a problem somewhere.

For Quebecers and especially for stakeholders in Quebec whom we are representing, and for the members of the Bloc Quebecois, the very principle of Bill C-5 has been in question. Why? Because Quebec, in the area of species protection, passed the appropriate legislation at the right time. I would like to provide a brief historical overview.

In 1990, the Quebec government passed the act respecting threatened or vulnerable species, the act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife, and fishing regulations. These three legislative measures are designed to protect, among others, wildlife species at risk. So, the Quebec government had already made the effort to create a whole structure to protect wildlife. In this regard, I congratulate wildlife conservation officers who, for decades, have been responsible for implementing these regulations.

So, a protective structure was put in place in Quebec. Why? The question we must ask ourselves as Quebecers is why the federal government is proposing independent or different regulations or legislation. We must ask ourselves this important question, particularly in Quebec, because we took our responsibilities in 1990.

In 1996, there was even a federal-provincial accord, the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada. This accord between provincial ministers of the environment and the federal government meant that now, we will have an accord on the protection of species at risk. In 1996, we did not need an act, but that never stopped the federal government.

Since 1996, it has been trying to impose an act that would supersede all provincial legislation. This is where the problem lies. The federal government is once again telling us “We will create a double safety net. In Quebec, you have your own provincial laws, your safety net, but we will have a federal act that will create a second safety net”. I am sorry, but back home it is not a double safety net: it is overlapping in jurisdictions.

If the federal government felt that certain species transiting in Quebec on their international journeys are lesser known in our province and are thus at risk, it would have been so simple to ask the Quebec government to include them in its regulations on the protection of species at risk. Quebec has never refused to amend its list of protected species. It would have been so simple to ask the Quebec government to make changes to its regulations to include certain species.

This is not what the federal government chose to do. It decided to enact legislation that even provides for the creation of federal officers. In Quebec, we already have wildlife conservation officers who do some wonderful work, given their limited resources and the financial resources of the Quebec government.

Instead of negotiating an accord with the province and investing funds to upgrade the network for wildlife protection, instead of granting certain sums and new budgets to wildlife conservation officers in Quebec, the federal government chose to create positions for federal officers.

I repeat for all Quebecers who are listening that this is a double safety net; we call that duplication, we call that spending twice for the same thing. In order to improve the wildlife protection network, it would have been much simpler to give some additional amounts to the existing wildlife protection officers. That would have increased their effectiveness, they might have worked less overtime in high activity periods and might have recruited more help. No; instead, the federal government chose to create an independent network.

It is hard for Bloc Quebecois representatives not to propose a series of amendments to this bill. Naturally, we know these amendments will be rejected systematically by the Liberal majority, but it is good to have the opportunity to discuss this legislation once again. We think the issue was clearly defined in the federal-provincial accord, the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada.

Today, the government is proposing a bill on the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. The difference with the accord are probably the words wildlife and Canada. The government could very well have changed the accord by saying that it was the Accord for the protection of Species at Risk in Canada. All the provincial ministers of environment would have signed the new accord with the federal government.

The government could have had an accord on new budgets to be allocated to monitoring, instead of creating an independent network of federal officers. The government would have helped Quebec's conservation officers by increasing their salary, which would have allowed them to do a better job. Once again, I want to say that they are doing a great job. At some periods of the year, they have to work many extra hours because of limited budgets. However, the federal government has decided to create an independent network of federal officers. This is what we will have in the near future.

Moreover, we will have a duplication of legislation and new regulations that will force users once again to respect not only the Loi sur la conservation or the Loi sur la mise en valeur de la faune, which are in effect in Quebec, but also to abide by the new federal regulations.

We are being told that this is a double safety net, but it is not a double safety net for users. This is another instance of overlap and duplication. We already have wildlife conservation officers, and Quebec already enforces its own legislation.

As concerns the accord signed by the Quebec government in 1996, it could have been improved, and joint action by both governments was possible. It could also have been a good opportunity to set up a real compensation plan—even though it did not happen and it was even criticized by the Liberal majority—for crucial habitats of endangered species. If a property is affected, the owner would be entitled to decent compensation thanks to a sizable fund. This bill does not provide for any compensation fund.

The only interesting thing for landowners in Quebec and Canada would have been compensation for their land, if it contained a crucial habitat for the protection of an endangered species. We needed a real compensation plan to compensate any loss to landowners. If an owner is prohibited from using his land, he should get adequate compensation.

But it was not to be. In this case, just like in health care and education, the federal government will not pay. It passes legislation and sets standards, and it wants all Quebecers and Canadians to abide by them, but it never gives any money to improve wildlife protection or compensate landowners who could incur losses.

[Supply, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to fully understand my colleague's question.

Obviously, from a constitutional point of view, it is clear that if the federal government had always paid 50% of health costs, as was agreed when the universal health care system was introduced in Canada, we would not be having this discussion today. That is the simple fact of the matter.

Obviously, all that Quebec is asking is this: “If you are unable to provide adequate funding for health care, as is now the case, give us back our tax dollars so that we can pay for it ourselves. Once again, you are unable to deliver”. That is the sad reality of Canadian federalism.

The provinces are looking after health care and are doing a tremendous job. They have a problem of inadequate funding, and the federal government collects half of the taxes. More than half. We have had discussions with the Minister of Finance, who tells us: “Is it a little less than half, or a little more than half?” He should just give us back our taxes and we will look after health. There will be no constitutional debates or wrangling. All that we are asking for is the return of our tax dollars, the money that Quebecers pay in taxes to the federal government. All that we are saying is this: “Give us back these tax dollars and we will look after health. Things will be fine and we will perhaps get along much better”.

But the federal government continues to keep our taxes—this is the reality—and to tell us: “We are going to send a commission across Canada to take another look at how the health care system could operate in Canada and in Quebec”. In Quebec, there are no problems. We are able to talk. We had the Clair commission. We held our own discussions. We know what sort of health care system we want. All that we are asking is that the federal government give us back our money and worry about the rest of Canada. It is as simple as that.

[Supply, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first, for the benefit of Quebecers and Canadians who are watching, I would like to say that today is the Bloc Quebecois' opposition day. My colleague, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve moved this motion. It simply means that the Bloc Quebecois blames the Government of Canada, the Liberal government, for paying only 14% of health care costs, while trying to divert attention by creating the Romanow commission, whose mandate is to report on the state of the state of health care in Canada.

This is a diversionary tactic, and that is what my colleague tried to express in his motion. It is hard for those who are watching, for Quebecers, to understand this.

Every day in the House, we hear ministers, such as the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Health, tell us that the federal government is investing more in 2002 than it did in 2001. It is hard to understand, but it is possible to defend their position. Indeed, if we take the evolution of federal transfers in Quebec, in 2001-02, the federal government will invest $4.5 billion in transfers, all fields combined, in health, in education and in social services. The amount that will be allocated for health will be $2.35 billion, invested by the federal government or given in cash transfers for health care in Quebec.

In 2002-03, it will be the same amount. It is already planned. Agreements have been negotiated. We should remember that the federal government keeps boasting about a negotiated agreement with the provinces. It always boils down to the same thing: take it or leave it. The amounts have already been announced.

For 2002-03, it will be $4.5 billion; for 2003-04, it will be $4.6 billion; for 2004-05, it will be $4.8 billion; so it will be the same amount for 2002 and 2003. Two years in a row, the government will pay the same amount, namely $2.35 billion for health, or a little bit more than it paid in 2000-01, but a lot less than might be needed as a result of health care expenditures.

In Quebec, health care expenditures are increasing by $875 million a year. My colleague for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie gave a very articulate explanation of this earlier. It amounts to a 5% increase in the health care annual budget in the province of Quebec. In the other provinces across Canada, we see similar increases simply due to an aging population, longer life expectancy and the arrival of new drugs on the market. Governments are investing more and more money in health care.

Between 2001 and 2005—for the next four years—transfers to Quebec will only increase by $300 million while annual expenditures in health only will increase by $875 million.

Considering the way health care expenditures and federal transfers to the provinces are increasing, by 2004-05, the federal share will drop to only 13% of health care expenditures in Quebec.

The situation is the same in the rest of Canada. The government of Ontario has released an ad using pills to show what the governments are paying: 86 pills for Ontario and 14 for the federal government. It is the same in Quebec: 86% of health care is paid by the province and 14% by the federal government.

My learned colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie showed that when medicare was established in Canada, it was half and half, 50-50.

Last fall, in Victoria, the premiers of all the provinces—including the PQ government of Quebec, the Conservative government of Ontario, and the Liberal government of British Columbia—made a unanimous request. They all requested the same thing: that the federal government increase its contribution from 14% in 2001-02 to 18%. Under the agreements the federal government is imposing on the provinces, it is supposed to drop to 13% by 2004-05. So, with this unanimous request, the provinces are urging the federal government to raise its contribution to health care funding from 14% to 18%.

What I find ironic is to hear the finance minister tell the House—and he may be partly right—that he is increasing the federal government's contribution, but it can never match the increase in health care costs. This is the harsh reality we have to face.

As I said earlier, in the next four years, the federal government will be increasing its transfer to Quebec by $300 million, while health costs will rise by $875 million a year, for a total increase of close to $3.5 billion. The federal government will only increase its contribution by $300 million, which means that its share of the funding will go from 14% of health costs in 2001-02 to 13% in 2004-05.

That is how the finance minister always manages to pull one over on Quebecers and make them believe that he is increasing the federal government's contribution. But its share of the funding can never match the skyrocketing health care costs, and that is normal. New technologies are developed, and new drugs are put on the market. People are living longer and that is a good thing for all Quebecers and Canadians. But still, the costs of health care are increasing by 5% a year, while the federal funding, all things being equal, will be decreasing if we do not urge the government to wait no further before making huge investments in Canadian health care services.

Today, in her speech, the Minister of Health told the House that she does not deny these figures. In fact, we have yet to hear a minister challenge that percentage of 14%. Even the finance minister never denied it. He just keep telling us “We are investing more this year than we did last year”. True, they will keep making small increases, but health care costs will rise by 5% a year. That is how things stand. The federal government will hand out the money bit by bit, while the costs keep skyrocketing.

The minister candidly told us today that she has other fish to fry, that she has more than transfers to the provinces to deal with. Of course, she deals with prevention and research, at a cost of $580 million, and with information on food and on cigarette packages. She also deals with the health services provided to the first nations because, as she said, she is the one paying for the services provided to the first nations and the Inuit. She co-operates with other countries on research. She also deals with the renewal of health care in this country and with the Romanow commission. She deals with modernization and invests $800 million in the renewal of the basic system.

However, all this does not put any more money in the federal health care system or in each of the province's health care systems. These amounts are all spent for other activities, including research. It is all very good, but research yields results. New drugs and new technologies are being developed. However, there is nothing to guarantee that Canadians and Quebecers will have access to these new drugs simply because we are not being given any money to buy them. There is money for research, but none to buy the new drugs. This is what the Canadian government is doing.

Of course, they pride themselves on investing in the health care system. They say “Look, we are taking care of you”. They are indeed taking care of us, but the funding for the universal system we used to have is being lavished on the Romanow commission.

I will repeat here the four preliminary recommendations to make sure that Quebecers and all Canadians hear them well. The choices offered by the Romanow commission are as follows. First, public investment should be increased, which means that more money should be invested in the medicare system. That would be normal. Second, costs and responsibilities should be shared, which leads to the adoption of user fees. They will look into the possibility of having Canadians pay user fees on top of income taxes. Third, the role of the private sector should be increased, which would open the door to the private sector. And fourth, the delivery of health services should be reorganized to try and make the system more efficient without putting more money in.

Once again, my colleague's recommendation is totally relevant. We condemn this government for contributing only 14% and for establishing a phoney commission whose recommendations will not help the sick men and women from Quebec.

[Species at Risk Act, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. There are days when we have to wonder what we are doing here in this House.

I will try to enlighten those Quebecers and Canadians who are watching us on the reasons why we are discussing a bill on the protection of wildlife species in Canada. Why should we be discussing that in Quebec when the Quebec government has been taking its responsibilities in that regard since 1990?

At the time, under a Liberal government, the National Assembly passed, with a big majority, a piece of legislation entitled an act respecting threatened or vulnerable species. Then, in 1990, it passed an act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife, followed by the fisheries regulations.

All these laws and regulations are enforced by wildlife conservation officers, women and men who work very hard to ensure the protection of species, including wildlife species at risk. They sometimes risk their lives to enforce the standards adopted by Quebec.

If, in Quebec, we enforce our own legislation with the help of wildlife conservation officers, men and women who enforce this legislation, we wonder why this parliament should discuss and pass a bill that duplicates what is already being done in Quebec and elsewhere. For the information of Quebecers, the reason is that all provinces do not enforce the same way their legislation on species at risk and other environmental legislation.

The federal government is trying to demonstrate to all stakeholders in Canada, to all those responsible for the protection of species at risk that they should protect more vigorously some of these species.

Obviously, this bill never mentions that, in Quebec, the existing legislation already provides for what is at stake in these regulations. The government spokespersons themselves admit that this bill provides for a second line of protection, because the Quebec legislation will apply, but Bill C-5 will be a second protection.

Why should we have two lines of protection when, in Quebec, the federal government would just need to discuss it with the relevant Quebec government department if it wants to have a particular species protected. It is that simple.

The Quebec government has never refused to protect an endangered species. It has never happened in the past. But the federal government wants two lines of protection. That is called duplication, and that is what really drives up the costs of the Canadian federation.

While the government is sinking money in bills such as this one, health, education and the real issues that people want to hear about are not being addressed.

A responsible dialogue could have been established between the departments involved, the federal department and the one in Quebec, to determine which species if any require protection, or Quebec's wildlife conservation officers might have been involved—we know that ministries across the countries are often underfunded; why not have included in this bill a good intention: to divide between governments, to share with the government of Quebec, the burden of enforcing all of the legislation regarding species at risk?

Why not use the additional funding from the federal government to hire more wildlife conservation officers in Quebec with more responsibilities, so that they can better enforce the law?

No. This bill will create federal enforcement officers, another category of players to duplicate and overlap what is being done in Quebec.

This is why it is often difficult to speak to bills where we wonder, yet again, what is going on. Energy and money is being spent where there is already work being done. As I said earlier, since 1990, the Quebec government has had its own legislation. I am repeating this so that Quebecers will fully understand.

In Quebec, we have the act respecting threatened or vulnerable species. What is the difference between this act and the species at risk act in Canada? Probably the word “Canada”, because you will not find it in the Quebec legislation. There is also the act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife. These acts have been in place in Quebec since 1990.

In 1996, Quebec's environment minister signed with the federal government and the other provinces an agreement to protect species at risk. What is the difference between that agreement and the act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada? Is it the fact that the words “wildlife” and “Canada” are not included?

In 1996, under an accord signed by the federal and provincial ministers of the environment, everyone was going to respect his own area of jurisdiction. No one was going to interfere. However, a press release was issued at the time by the Quebec minister of the environment saying that all this had to be monitored, because it could open the door to overlapping.

The then Quebec minister of the environment was right on, because in 2002 there will be overlapping. Once again, the federal government will come and stick its nose into an area that is very well managed by Quebec, without any exclusion clause for that province, and without any specific agreement to invest or help the Quebec wildlife conservation service.

The government could have acted in good faith by investing additional money. If it does not do so in the areas of health and education, it could have used this bill to help Quebec hire other officers, other women and men, for its conservation service, so as to reduce the workload of those who are currently working very hard. But no. Once again, the federal government will create its own network of federal enforcement officers. The bill refers to federal enforcement officers. Such is the harsh reality of this federation.

I agree with the Liberal member for Lac-Saint-Louis. In the end, this bill makes no sense to me, a true Quebecer. It makes no sense at all. Moreover, on the issue of compensation, he is quite right to say that compensation could have been possible. When we decide a habitat is essential in order to protect a specie at risk, a compensation scheme is a must. Again, the federal government should have loosened up its purse strings and provided compensation for land owners and any stakeholders incurring losses as a result of the implementation of this bill or just the implementation of Quebec laws.

The federal government could have shown great openness, and contributed to the wildlife conservation network, the wildlife conservation officers network in the province of Quebec or announce a compensation scheme for the land owners who, because of the establishment of an essential habitat on their land, could face a drop in its value because it can no longer be used. We could have had a real compensation scheme. But no, once again not a word from the federal government.

We never hear from the federal government when it is time to pay up. But when it comes to imposing new norms and establishing additional requirements for the provinces, getting everybody to work hard, having the provinces put more money into health or education and, once again, make them work even harder to protect wildlife, we can always count on the federal government. It is very good at making others spend their money. But when the time comes to spend its own money, it is never there.

Again, this is what I am trying to explain to Quebecers and Canadians who are listening this afternoon. We have to be careful. I am seriously wondering what we are doing today here as Quebecers discussing a bill that is already in place in the province of Quebec.

[Highway System, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today secondary students from Dégelis, Cabano and Edmundston, along with students attending the Rivière-du-Loup Cegep and the University of Moncton, have been demonstrating at Cabano in order to get the federal government to decide to invest the necessary funding in upgrading highway 185 between Rivière-du-Loup and Edmundston, which has recorded 30 fatalities over the past three years.

What is keeping the Minister of Transport from investing the necessary money to upgrade highway 185 in keeping with the commitment made by the Prime Minister nearly two years ago?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, February 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on December 10, 2001.

Basically, it implements the measures announced in the budget; it is a stand alone bill. To explain to Quebecers and Canadians who are listening, it is stand alone legislation implementing the budget provisions.

I will use an example to explain to our listeners what the Liberal government is doing in the budget it brought down, in particular to air transportation.

This is an area of our economy that has been seriously affected by various factors, including the events of September 11. No other area has been so catastrophically hit in a single day in the whole history of Canada.

I will try to explain what the Liberal government has been doing to revive the airline industry, which definitely collapsed. This is the only way to describe what has been happening to this industry since September 11.

This industry has collapsed. Thousands of jobs have been lost across the board, not only in the airline industry, but also in the aircraft industry and in the parts industry. Workers in the airline and aircraft industries have been hard hit by the events of September 11.

What has the Liberal government done? Of course, it was quick to announce measures to compensate the industry for the losses incurred as a result of September 11, meaning losses suffered over the eight days the airspace was closed to air traffic. Every airline was compensated for its losses. It made sense. The federal government decided to do so.

Later, it put in place a system to compensate the industry for the increase in insurance premiums. Of course, an event such as September 11 results in very high costs for the insurance industry. The federal government paid for the increase in premiums.

Then, nothing, except for an aid package. The 105 major airlines needed help. Those who have followed the whole saga of the airline industry after September 11 will recall that a $160 million aid package in loan guarantees was offered to 50 major airlines.

Canada 3000, for which a $75 million loan guarantee had been announced, was to be the first one to get some help. It did not even have time to receive that help, because it had already closed down. As a result of that bankruptcy, thousands of jobs were lost in the airline industry.

That is what happened. For all those who were expecting some help for the airline industry in the budget, here is what we find today, and I quote:

1. (1) Every person who acquires from a designated air carrier all or part of an air transportation service that includes a chargeable emplanement shall pay to Her Majesty a charge as determined under this Act in respect of the service.

So, in order to help the airline industry, to make up for additional investments in security costs, the government has decided to make all the users pay a charge, that will be paid, and I quote:

—to Her Majesty—

Therefore, a $12 charge will have to be paid for each chargeable emplanement included in the service, to a maximum of $24. That is $12 for the outward journey and $12 for the return journey, to a maximum of $24, that will be paid by the users as compensation.

So much for help. All the workers in the land transportation sector who spoke to my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, as well as all the workers in the shipping industry who spoke to my colleagues in the Bloc,also suffered losses in the wake of the tragic events of September 11. The whole transportation sector felt the repercussions, except rail transportation, which benefited from the loss in the airline industry. The train had a new appeal.

For the rest, however, for freight, the economy collapsed. Thousands of jobs were lost in transportation, but all the Liberal government could come up with to help the airline industry was to provide for a new tax, to a maximum of $24, that is $12 for the outward journey and $12 for the return journey, payable to Her Majesty.

When the government wants to deter smokers from smoking, it increases taxes on tobacco. This is what will happen. The government wants to deter people from flying; therefore, it will impose a tax on air transportation.

That tax will not apply everywhere. The bill refers to chargeable emplanement. This is where the charge will be collected. What is a chargeable emplanement? I am quoting the bill:

“chargeable emplanement” means an embarkation by an individual at a listed airport on an aircraft—

This individual will have to pay that charge.

Which are the listed airports? I will read the list of designated airports for the Province of Quebec and not burden the House with the others. The designated airports are the following: Alma, Bagotville, Baie-Comeau, Chibougamau/Chapais, Gaspé, Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Kuujjuaq, Kuujjuarapik, La Grande Rivière, La Grande-3, La Grande-4, Lourdes-de-Blanc-Sablon, Mont-Joli, Montreal International (Dorval), Montreal International (Mirabel), Qubec City (Jean Lesage International), Roberval, Rouyn-Noranda, Sept-Îles and Val-d'Or. There are three international airports; the others are regional airports.

What the federal government is proposing will kill air transportation in the regions. I cannot overemphasize this: if we want to deter people from smoking, we increase taxes on tobacco. And if we want to deter people from flying, we do what the Government of Canada is doing: we create a tax on emplanement in regional airports. This is the harsh reality that will result from the measure proposed by the Liberal government.

In the history of Canada, this industry was the one that was hit hardest in a single day. All the other industries and the workers in all the other industries are asking my Bloc Quebecois colleagues to help them. Every week, workers are losing their job in the forestry industry, in the transportation industry and in every other industry. These people are asking us to help them. Considering what the Liberal government is doing to the women and men who work in the airline industry and who have worked all their lives for it, people in other Canadian industries can forget about getting help. This is what we have to explain to Quebecers.

In this budget, there is good news in the fact that apprentice vehicle mechanics will now be allowed to deduct the cost of their tools on their tax returns. This is not an issue that was put forward by the Liberals. It has been advocated by my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, particularly the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles and the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans. They are the ones who defended this issue in the House, and this is why the government thought of doing something about it. We will have to continue our work on this issue.

All workers who have to use tools and equipment in their jobs should have the right to deduct the cost of these tools and this equipment on their tax return. Members of the Bloc Quebecois will be leading this fight in the months and years to come.

In closing, I will say that I am sad for workers in the airline industry. I am sad for towns in the regions, the small towns that are listed in this bill. These towns have built Canada with their natural resources and will continue to support Canada. I find it very sad that the government has decided to abandon them again.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, February 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question to my colleague from Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques will be quite simple.

We hear about a crisis in the softwood lumber sector. In fact, there is a major crisis in the forestry sector across Canada. Company profits are dropping and, to deal with that, to cope with the crisis, workers are turning to the EI system.

I would like my colleague to explain this program to me. In 1996, the federal government withdrew from the EI program, which now belongs to the workers and employers who contribute to it. But they have no control on it, as surpluses are transferred directly into the government's consolidated fund and used for purposes other than to improve the system at a time when the workers badly need it.

I would like my colleague to explain that to me if he can.