Pierre Paquette

[The Budget, March 24th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the budget debate because, as the Bloc Quebecois leader said yesterday, this budget is truly scandalous.

It is scandalous because the federal government is once again playing its little game of fiscal hide and seek to hide the true state of public finances. We must condemn this game and this lack of transparency by this government. In this regard, this Liberal budget is the Prime Minister's tenth budget. Indeed, this budget is very much in line with what the Prime Minister did when he was finance minister, which is to hide from Canadians and Quebeckers the true state of federal finances.

For the second time in a few months, we are the victims of the sponsorship scandal. The first time, all of us, parliamentarians, citizens and taxpayers, were the victims of a major misappropriation of funds. As we know, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is currently looking into this issue. There will be an independent inquiry, but this will not prevent the Bloc Quebecois from continuing to ask questions.

Now, we are the victims of the sponsorship scandal for a second time. Indeed, on the eve of an election, the Liberal government, the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister wanted, through this budget, to create an impression of integrity, prudence and rigour. However, this is not what we are getting with this budget. This budget is not about prudence, but about irresponsibility, considering the needs of the provinces, particularly Quebec. This budget is not about integrity either, because it plays with numbers. I will get back to this later on. This budget is definitely not about rigour, because it includes a series of intrusions in Quebec's jurisdictions, not to mention the fact that federal bureaucratic spending is maintained at its current level.

With this budget, the government is trying to buy votes. However, many observers have not been fooled by this attempt. The federal government would have us believe that it runs a very tight ship, that it does not have much leeway and, therefore, that it could not transfer to the provinces, and to Quebec in particular, any money for health. If we look at the numbers, we can clearly see the figure zero for 2004-05 and 2005-06.

Nor was there sufficient leeway to transfer money to education. There is absolutely nothing allocated under the new Canada Health and Social Transfer. However, about $500 million was found to create a Canada public health agency. But when the frontlines face problems and epidemics, the provincial agencies—Quebec has the Agence de santé publique—are responsible for managing these crises.

Granted, a small committee or coordinating body could have been struck, but certainly not to the tune of $500 million. We know how things work with the federal government. We are told it will cost $500 million this year. But what will this new Canada public health agency really cost? We are talking about an agency, a new bureaucratic elephant created by the Liberal Party. No one can predict the end result.

The former justice minister, the hon. member for Outremont—I am not sure if he still represents that riding today—told us that the gun registry would only cost $2 million. I repeat that we agree with the principle of the gun registry. First, this program has cost over $1 billion. I hope that everyone in this House will agree on this. According to some observers, the cost will soon reach $2 billion.

We have similar concerns about this new Canadian public health agency. Not only is it an intrusion into provincial jurisdictions, but it is also a dreaded bureaucratic elephant.

Consequently, instead of being about prudence, integrity and rigour, this budget is, as I said, about irresponsibility and manipulation, and it provides for numerous intrusions and high levels of bureaucratic expenditures.

I want to come back to the issue of the concealed surplus. I know that some people are sick of hearing about this. Unfortunately, just because a problem has been around for over ten years and people are sick of hearing about it, does not mean that not talking about it will make it disappear. We have a moral obligation to be truthful and to inform the public that the Liberal government is once again underestimating its surplus.

I will not go back over last year, when the government altered its estimates several times. Nevertheless, we have been told for some months that the surplus would scarcely reach $2.3 billion. And what did we learn yesterday? That, from April 1, 2003 through January 2004, the surplus had already reached the $5.4 billion level. The fiscal year was not yet over for another three months. Likely the figure will hit $6 or $7 billion, if not more. We reckon it will be around the $7 billion mark.

So there we have the year end surplus. It was used to pay the so often promised $2 billion to Quebec and the provinces for health care. Some of it also went in one-time assistance—and I emphasize its one-time nature, nothing recurring here—to farmers, particularly cattle farmers. Some of it went to create that bureaucratic monster, the Canadian public health agency, and a number of other initiatives. And still after all that there is $1.9 billion left, which will be used to pay down the debt.

We are two weeks away from the end of the fiscal year. We know the Canadian economy is in good shape, that there is an upturn in the U.S. , that Canadian exports are now picking up as well, that corporate profits are on the rise. So there is not, to my knowledge, much likelihood of any disaster in the next two weeks that would lead to any major reversal of the situation.

So, from that $1.9 billion, without any jeopardy to the federal government's public finances, a certain amount could have been found for additional transfers to the provinces. But that is in the past.

Now for the future. For 2004-05, the Minister of Finance is talking of a surplus of $4 billion, that is $3 billion for his contingency reserve fund and $1 billion for economic prudence. This is a joke. We will generate a surplus of $5.4 billion for the current year, a figure on which every one agrees, despite SARS, the mad cow crisis, a major blackout in Ontario, the worst ever fires in British Columbia, and a marked strengthening of the Canadian dollar. All this despite the fact that we have generated three times the surplus announced by the federal government.

Now that we will no longer have to deal with SARS or the mad cow crisis, and probably no major blackout in Ontario—let us hope not for Ontarians—or any other disasters such as the ones that occurred in British Columbia, the government is announcing that although there will be increased growth and renewed exports to the U.S., the surplus next year will be less than this year's. What do they take the public for? They take them for fools, to say something so absurd.

We cannot accept this. The government's biggest hypocrisy is not giving the real picture on public finances. Without the real picture, the entire debate is flawed. It is truly anti-democratic and this has been going on for 10 years. It has become a farce. Journalists no longer believe these figures. The public does not believe them. This is certainly not the way to fix the democratic deficit the Prime Minister is so fond of talking about.

It is very clear that the federal government's leeway is much greater than what we were told yesterday. It is probably more in the order of $9 billion. That is what we are predicting, $9 billion for next year, and we are not alone. The members of the Conference Board of Canada are neither sovereignists nor overly progressive. They are people who are probably trying to do careful and honest work.

In a study dated February 2004, the Conference Board of Canada predicted a $10 billion surplus for next year. We are not far off. Most reliable financial observers will say that $4 billion is a big joke.

If the government had wanted to do some serious work, with integrity and prudence, it ought to have told the truth to Canadians and Quebeckers. It ought to have told them that our surplus would be around $8 or $10 billion, for example, and that out of that $8 or 10 billion, a reserve would be set aside, perhaps not $4 billion as the government has announced, but a reserve of perhaps $2 to $3 billion for contingencies. It is quite true that we do not know what might happen during the year. Then we would have a margin of around $8 billion for investments in health, education, social housing and infrastructure.

That is not what they told us yesterday. Once again, they have disguised the truth.

Probably, later on, or perhaps very soon, during an election campaign, for example, someone will finally notice that growth is continuing, that interest rates are low, and that the Canadian dollar is doing well. They will say that they did not foresee that a few weeks ago, and now, with that money, they will fulfil their election promises, because they have a healthy surplus in the federal treasury. That is the operation now under way.

This government is trying to mask its true face but no one is fooled. We know very well that, with the room to manoeuvre that the government has, election promises will be made during the campaign and then, after the election, if this government should happen to be returned to power, it will use this room to keep a certain number of promises.

Or perhaps—probably in addition—they will do what they did after the 2000 election. They will promise to invest half the surplus in social programs and transfers to provinces and the other half in lowering taxes and paying down the debt. Overall, about three-quarters of the money will go towards paying down the debt.

I want to remind the House that all the so-called unexpected surpluses of the past ten years, starting in 1997-98, went in large part to paying down the debt. We are talking about approximately $45 billion to $50 billion, money that should have gone to the provinces, including Quebec, for health and education to rectify the fiscal imbalance.

However, the federal government preferred to conceal the truth to avoid a public debate, continue to strangle the provinces, particularly Quebec, and impose its rules when it reinvests, as with the paltry $2 billion promised once, twice and finally delivered to the provinces.

This is totally unacceptable, and we will continue to speak out against it. Nevertheless, we are not alone. In fact, Quebec currently has a government with which we do not necessarily see eye to eye. As the House knows, it is a Liberal and federalist government, but it still tries to defend the interests of Quebeckers insofar as its vision for Quebec's development allows.

Yesterday, for example, as Quebec's Minister of Finance, Mr. Séguin stated the following in a press release—and I think it bears repeating:

Despite the urgent needs of the provinces, the budget contains no new money for health.

Only the federal Minister of Health believes—I said it yesterday, he is Canada's resident optimist—that there is new money.

At the very least, I expected that the $2 billion announced over and over again for 2003-04 would be recurrent. Clearly this will not be the case, although the federal government's surplus, very conservatively estimated at $4 billion, would have easily allowed this.

Quebec's Minister of Finance, a federalist and a Liberal, is the one saying this, not us. We are, in fact, saying it too but it is clear that, in Quebec—and I noticed this in the statements by the leaders of both the Parti Quebecois and the Action démocratique—this vision is shared by all Quebeckers. Only the federal Quebec Liberals fail to see reality for what it is.

I do not know if it is because they have been in power in Ottawa too long, are living in a bubble, can no longer see and are out of touch with reality, but they are the only ones who claim that there is no fiscal imbalance.

Quebec's finance minister points out that the federal contribution for health is currently 16%. The minister was referring to last year. Indeed, after the budget brought down yesterday by the Minister of Finance, the federal government contribution is no longer 16%, but 14.5%. While the Romanow Commission suggested a 25% investment by the federal government through health transfers, this year, to our surprise—I am not really surprised—or rather, to our disappointment, the investment is dropping from 16% to 14.5%. This is unacceptable when the Prime Minister of this government says that health is his priority.

Luckily health is his priority. If it were not, there would probably be disinvestments in health transfers right now. In fact, that is what we are experiencing and it is driving the provinces into debt.

As I mentioned, the federal government is raking in a surplus this year. I am using the Conference Board figures so that I will not be criticized for being subjective. I will try to use figures from a body whose objectivity is beyond reproach.

This year, as I mentioned, the Conference Board predicts that the federal government's surplus for 2004-05 will be $10 billion. The surpluses and deficits for all the provinces combined results in an accumulated deficit of $4 billion. This year, we are looking at a $5 billion deficit for all the Canadian provinces, including Quebec.

So there will be a surplus of $10 billion, and a deficit of $4 billion. The next year, more or less the same situation is forecast by the Conference Board. For the year after that, that is 2006-07, they are talking of a federal surplus of $9 billion and combined provincial deficit of $7 billion, and so on. I will not take it 20 years on, as I could with the Conference Board study. I will stop at 2009-10, when, if there is no change, the provinces will have a combined deficit of $10 billion, and the federal government a surplus of $13 billion.

Where is the logic in the taxpayers' eyes for the federal government to conceal its surpluses, to pay off the debt rapidly by putting the provinces into debt, while the provinces not only have an obligation to deliver health and education services, but also have to pay a higher interest rate? Where is the logic for the taxpayers' debts to be paid off at the level charged the lowest interest rate, while debts are being run up elsewhere at a higher rate?

It is just like an individual deciding to pay off his mortgage as fast as possible. Mortgage rates, as we know, are usually the best interest rate a consumer can get. So, while paying off his mortgage as quickly as possible, the individual goes to a credit union or a bank to borrow for his children's education, at a 9% interest rate instead of 5%. If you were to do such a thing, Mr. Speaker, which I know you would not because you are an informed consumer, you would be truly irresponsible. That is exactly what the federal government is doing.

The federal government has decided to pay off its debt quickly. As the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have said, their objective is to achieve 25% of GDP within 10 years. But this will be done by saddling the provinces with debt, making the taxpayer pay heavier debt service fees, because the interest rate the provinces pay is higher than the federal rate. Nothing could be less financially logical.

Yesterday, our resident optimist, the Minister of Health, was walking around talking to journalists, saying that Quebec had made great gains through equalization. I can even say that he was quite convincing. His optimism is probably contagious because some of the journalists said it was true, that it appeared Quebec would benefit from equalization. When one reads the budget documents, it does indeed appear that the government listened to Quebec and the provinces, and that changes will be made that correspond to their demands.

Still, the fact of the matter is that, when one looks at the bottom line, the budget talks about $1.5 billion more for the provinces over the next five years. Looking at this year's figures, it is $175 million, of which $70 million goes to Quebec. Over the last two years, the equalization formula has cost Quebec $1.4 billion. That means that, even if Quebec received the entire additional amount the federal government plans to invest in the equalization formula, it would barely compensate for the loss we have suffered. They are laughing at us.

All that the equalization formula does is soften the losses that are already planned. I can provide the numbers. For this year, the equalization payment made to Quebec will be about $3.802 billion. Next year, with the bonus being touted everywhere yesterday by the optimistic Minister of Health, the amount would decrease from $3.802 billion to $3.761 billion. The amount decreases. Certainly, the amount of the decrease is a bit smaller, $40 million smaller than with the other formula, but it is a decrease nonetheless. Therefore, let no one come and present us with a new equalization formula that, contrary to what we were told yesterday, has not been negotiated with the provinces. It was imposed unilaterally as part of this budget.

Thus, equalization is not only far from meeting the demands of Quebec and the provinces, but also far from solving the problem. It is a band-aid on a cancer, and in that I am speaking very kindly.

Moreover, the Quebec finance minister is not fooled by this operation. I will read from his press release of yesterday. I remind the House that Mr. Séguin is a Liberal and a federalist, as are many MPs on the government side. This is from Mr. Séguin's press release:

With respect to the renewal of the equalization program, Mr. Séguin indicated that the federal budget did not provide satisfactory responses to the demands of Quebec and the provinces.

That is not what I heard the Minister of Health say on television. He seems to have been misinformed. Mr. Séguin said:

The proposed reform is inadequate. While the equalization payments to Quebec decreased by $2.3 billion in 2003-04, federal reform will provide only a $70 million gain for 2004-05.

This is in relation to a decrease that was already substantial.

The press release from Mr. Séguin's office also said the following:

The minister pointed out that the reform proposed by the federal government does not respond to the unanimous demand of the provinces to correct the program's standard and to ensure comprehensive revenue coverage.

I see that this budget does not say anything about transfers for health and education. Equalization is lacking, yet the government is trying to pass this off as a rigorous and respectful budget. As I mentioned, this is an utterly irresponsible budget in that it will cause the provinces to get into debt.

I ask the Chair to please inform me when I have one minute left, because I want to be able to move my amendment to the amendment.

There is another aspect that I would like to address, and that is the manipulation of figures. I will give two brief examples.

Social housing is mentioned, but nothing new is being provided. A short sentence was included, saying that the government will find a way to give Quebec the $80 million it is entitled to, but that is not much of a guarantee. It will insist that it is new money, but that is not true.

With respect to infrastructure, $1 billion over 10 years was announced last year, and now, we are being told it is over 5 years. It is still the same money. Furthermore, it has practically all been spent.

For all these reasons, we cannot support this budget.

I move:

That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after the words “affront to” and substituting the following:

“the budget priorities of Quebeckers and Canadians such as increased health care transfer payments, funding for social housing, assistance to softwood lumber workers and industries, improvements to the employment insurance program, and full retroactivity for the guaranteed income supplement.”.

[Health, March 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Health just said is false. Quebec finance minister Séguin condemned the equalization formula as proposed unilaterally by the government opposite. The federal government is acting irresponsibly. While Ottawa is accumulating surpluses—as we were just told—the provinces and Quebec are forced to get into debt, to borrow money to provide health and education services to the public.

Can the Liberal government understand that this fiscal imbalance means that the provinces have to borrow money and get into debt, while Ottawa is lining its pockets at the expense of public health?

[Health, March 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Quebec Minister of Finance said that this budget illustrates a different page of the museum of horrors on the fiscal imbalance. The person who made that comment is not a sovereignist: he is the Quebec Minister of Finance, a federalist and a Liberal.

How can the government continue to deny the existence of the fiscal imbalance when its negative impact on health and education is condemned not only by a federalist Liberal minister in Quebec, but by all the provinces?

[Customs Tariff, March 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is extremely important to understand that in wanting basic labour rights to be respected, we are not asking that the approach be the same everywhere. I will give an example.

Generally speaking, union certification and freedom of association are respected in Canada. Of course, this is not always the case. The member is right. In some cases, the spirit of the law is not upheld. I will give the example of the Government of Quebec, which just overturned a labour tribunal decision allowing home day care educators to form a union. However, as a general rule, this is respected.

In Europe, this is respected using a different approach. Here, we have the Rand formula, in Europe they have other formulas, but our union rights are generally respected. That is what we want all over the world. That is the globalization of solidarity.

[Customs Tariff, March 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I think there is considerable concern at the moment that China, now an active participant in the World Trade Organization, seems to have become the world's factory floor, as I have heard it called. So, there are some very legitimate concerns about this threat.

It seems to me that the Canadian government has tools at its disposal that it is not using. I will tell you about an entrepreneur in Drummondville, in the riding of my colleague from Drummond, with whom I have discussed this. He is a manufacturer of paper bags. His competition is a Chinese manufacturer of the same kind of bags. Internationally, the cost of raw material, glue, and everything it takes to produce paper, are excessive; in other words, it costs him more to produce the bags than what he can sell them for.

Obviously, this is a case of dumping. It is extremely difficult at present, with the absence of political will, to enforce the existing rules. There is nothing forcing the federal government to accept obvious cases of dumping, of which there are numerous examples, in sectors such as bicycles and skates. If the rules on dumping were tightened up, and properly applied, and if the proper tools were in place, we could partially resolve the problem.

There is also social dumping, and the Canadian government is turning a blind eye to this. When, for example, textiles or carpets produced by child labour enter the country, we are not obliged to accept them. This is contrary to the conventions of the International Labour Organization. When we know that goods are produced by forced labour, by Chinese prisoners, which is also contrary to ILO conventions, we are not obliged to accept them.

But since Canada is not a signatory to most of the ILO conventions, it is not in a good position to lecture anyone else. If it did sign these conventions and take steps to enforce them, we would not longer be faced with this problem of social dumping, and these countries would be far less attractive to multinationals, because people would be able to have their rights respected.

Of course it would not be at the same level. We are not asking that the minimum wage in Mexico, Bangladesh or China be the same as the minimum wage in Canada. We are not asking that health and safety standards be at the same level. However, we are asking that there be a minimum wage and health and safety standards and that people be able to organize to assert their rights. Eventually, multinationals might find that it is not really worth going to countries where people are able to have their rights respected.

In tackling economic, commercial and social dumping, it seems we have two good ways for fighting the harmful effects of the current unfair competition, while keeping our markets open. I think the hon. member agrees that we want to keep our markets open. Canada and Quebec are trading nations; we have no interest in closing our borders. Nor, however, do we have any interest in accepting the uncontrolled free trade that exists now.

[Customs Tariff, March 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-21. In my opinion, part of what we are addressing today is our vision of development aid.

I would remind hon. members that the purpose of this bill is to extend two customs tariff programs for another ten years. The first of these is the general preferential tariff and the second, the least developed country tariff.

The GPT dates back a good number of years—more than 25 now—to 1974. It reduces Canadian customs on a broad range of products from more than 180 developing countries. This tariff agreement, as we know, is also part of the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization.

Then there is the LDCT, which is a more recent development, although also several decades old now, dating back to 1984. It provides complete duty-free access to all imports, except for certain agricultural goods, from the 48 least developed countries, according to the United Nations.

Consequently, the bill is intended to extend to June 2014 existing provisions of the Customs Tariff legislation designed, as I mentioned, to provide developing countries with preferential access to the Canadian market. In this respect, we cannot disagree with Bill C-21.

The Bloc Quebecois, like everyone in Quebec, has always defended the idea that developing countries have a right to develop, and that closing our borders to their products is certainly not a way to help them develop.

Therefore, we want to be consistent with our approach to helping these countries develop, in particular through official development assistance. If, on the one hand, we did that, while, on the other hand, when these countries made an effort to develop, we closed our borders to their products, we would be completely contradicting ourselves.

That said, I must point out that, while Bill C-21 is a good thing in principle, there are a number of reasons for caution. I will come back to them. I would also like to point out the fact that the great contradiction is not in bringing in Bill C-21, but in bringing it in with the levels of official assistance that Canada is currently providing to developing countries.

I remind the House that, since the Liberals have been here, official assistance has decreased by nearly a half. When the Liberals came to power, official development assistance was at nearly 0.5% of the GDP or GNP in Canada, while on the international scene, the agreed-upon standard—and I believe it was the former Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Pearson, who proposed this—is 0.7% of the GNP or GDP.

Thus, when the Liberals came to power, we were almost three-quarters of the way there. Now, we are one-third of the way there. In 1993-94, when the new finance minister, now the Prime Minister, arrived, there began a time of draconian cuts in Canada's official development assistance, which dropped from 0.49% to 0.44% of GDP in 1993-94 and hit rock bottom in 2000-01, with 0.25% of GDP. There is nothing to be proud of in this. At present, it stands at about 0.27% of GDP.

The great contradiction in introducing Bill C-21 is that on one hand we are opening our market, but on the other hand we are not giving them the means to organize their development, not only from an economic perspective, but from a social perspective as well. When Quebeckers support a bill like this, they do so to ensure that development does not benefit just a handful of people in these countries, but everyone, whether in Bangladesh, Cambodia or any of the 48 least developed countries.

I remind hon. members that these 48 developing and least developed countries represent 614 million people in Southeast Asia but mostly in Africa. I also remind hon. members that the average annual income of the inhabitants of these 48 countries is $500 or less. Imagine the poverty.

Some 40% of the inhabitants of these 48 countries live on only a dollar a day. This is another example of how far these countries are lagging behind. This has appalling consequences from all perspectives, not only on general living conditions, but also life expectancy. The average life expectancy in these countries is 25 years less than the average for developed countries.

We really need to open our borders to their products and properly invest in official development assistance. We must reaffirm the need for 0.7% of the gross domestic product, which is also called the gross national product. Gross national product was used as an indicator to describe the wealth of a country when the international community agreed on a target. Now we talk about the gross domestic product, but, overall, it amounts to the same thing. Not only must we reaffirm the objective of 0.7% of the gross domestic product, but we must have a very specific plan to achieve this goal in the next few years, not the next several decades.

We can only hope that the upcoming election campaign will enable the Liberals and the other parties—as the Bloc Quebecois will be doing—to make some very firm commitments, not only with respect to the objective but also with respect to the specific plan for achieving it. We know that this government is very strong on rhetoric but very weak on actual game plan. When I was at the CSN, we likened such people to drivers who always signalled a left turn and then turned right. This is the case for the Liberal party, the party of the current Prime Minister and former finance minister.

Over and above Bill C-21, which is fully in line with our vision of development, we also expect to see Canada invest properly in official development assistance. We therefore expect a firm commitment of 0.7% of GDP, and also a plan to achieve that within about 10 years, tops. Perhaps by 2014 such a law will no longer be needed. We may be able to open our borders to all countries, in the realization that everyone will be on the same footing as far as competition goes.

There are still some concerns, and I will get to them now. These least developed countries are often involved in industrial sectors in which Canadian and Quebec businesses are engaged here. There is therefore a totally legitimate concern on the part of both workers and entrepreneurs about the survival of these industries in Quebec and Canada.

Often, unfortunately, this government's approach is somewhat paternalistic or fatalistic when it comes to a number of industrial sectors with a heavy presence in Quebec. I am thinking of the garment and textile industries, for instance. I remember my days at the Université de Montréal as a student of economics in the early 1970s, when there was talk of soft sectors. The garment industry was one of those soft sectors with no future. The government's approach to this was merely to see how plants could be closed down as quietly and as quickly as possible.

At that time there were 40,000 garment workers in the greater Montreal region. That meant 40,000 jobs that were threatened, jobs the federal government merely crossed off. Its attitude: that's life, the natural economic trend, and these soft sectors will simply disappear from our economy and reappear in the developing countries. The federal government adopted a fatalistic attitude.

Fortunately for the industry itself, for the workers, for the unions involved and for the community, thanks in part to the considerable assistance provided by the City of Montreal at that time, the apparel industry is alive and well in Montreal and still accounts for 40,000 jobs. Obviously, we have not been able to increase employment in that industry, but we have managed to maintain it at the same level despite the fatalistic attitude of the federal government and its lack of substantial support.

We have managed to maintain these 40,000 jobs in the apparel industry over the last 25 to 30 years, despite the opening up of markets, and we want to preserve them. To do so, it is clear that we will have to manufacture products that are different from those currently available. This has been the case in the past.

If we have 40,000 jobs in the apparel industry in the Montreal area, which is the same level as in the early seventies, it is because our manufacturers, our workers, have developed such knowledge and skills that clothing made in Montreal is more of a top-of-the-line product than clothing made in Bangladesh or Cambodia. It is a quality product and there is a market for it not only in Quebec and in Canada, but also in a significant number of industrialized countries, particularly in the United States.

We will have to intensify our efforts in that area. This time, there must be real assistance on the part of the federal government so that the apparel industry in particular—but it is also true of the textile industry—can improve the quality of its products, diversify its products and manufacture more added-value products in order to be able to maintain its employment level and—we can always dream—perhaps even increase it.

As I said earlier, there is no need to be unduly alarmed. In fact, the 48 least developed countries I mentioned earlier represent barely 0.17% of all imports to Canada. This is not even equivalent to level of assistance we provide to these countries, which is 0.27%. We are therefore talking about 0.17% of Canadian imports, with 92% of these imports originating essentially in two countries, Bangladesh and Cambodia, particularly with regard to clothing.

Consequently, we want the government to make a very strong commitment to monitoring the rules of origin on clothing from these countries. We want to avoid the type of situation we have experienced at times under the North American Free Trade Agreement. Basically, fabric is used to manufacture, in China for example, unfinished items of clothing which are then sent to Bangladesh, where a “Made in Bangladesh” label is affixed inserted, and the clothes enter Canada duty free.

Therefore, it is extremely important that the government provide the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency with the means to monitor the rules of origin and to conduct investigations. Currently, however, it does not have the resources. The measly $5 million currently set out in the estimates will not allow the agency to act, given the complexity of the situation. Clearly, it is extremely complex. The people committing such falsification are skilled. Consequently, measures must be taken to oversee the rules of origin.

Let us hope that the government is serious when it says it is concerned about the future of these industries in Canada and Quebec and that it will take steps to ensure that the rules are respected, which is not always the case.

I am always shocked and surprised to see that Canada, particularly under this government, has earned an international reputation for being extremely naive when it comes to international trade. The former international trade minister, our resident optimist, did not help to increase awareness that people want to play with the rules of origin.

We are about the only ones who play by the rules. Everyone else uses all the tools at their disposal to bypass the rules. Canada is the only country to drastically reduce its agricultural subsidies, and open its borders without providing any help to its industries restructure and its workers retrain.

We can understand how these workers, entrepreneurs and communities would be concerned about these customs tariffs continuing to be lifted. Let us not forget that these tariffs were lifted a number of years ago.

This means that commitments more serious than those announced are in order. What good will $60 million over three years do? For example, in the softwood lumber issue, the government's aid package was totally inadequate. It was totally useless. We called for a second phase but, again, the same former international trade minister said that this second phase would be implemented in due course. The Bloc Quebecois has been calling for it for two years, and there is still nothing for the workers.

If hon. members follow what is going on in Quebec, they are aware that in recent days seasonal workers, more specifically in the North Shore region, have blocked highway 138 to show their discontent with the government's lack of action, despite the promises made by the Prime Minister.

In June of last year, the Prime Minister travelled to that region and boasted that he would support the Sans-chemise coalition, representing groups of unemployed workers, unions as well as a number of social groups. The Bloc Quebecois supports that coalition. The Prime Minister told these people that he had heard them and action would be taken.

The budget speech will be delivered this afternoon. I am anxious to see what kind of action will be taken on this issue. I am sure there will be none.

Since there is still talk of providing assistance to industries threatened by the opening up of markets, there is form of assistance we have been requesting for a very long time, which the government has not yet agreed to, and that is an older worker assistance program

For example, when a business in the apparel, textile or any other sector invests heavily in technology or equipment upgrades in order to compete, often not a single job is created to maintain its activities or increase its production. Sometime even, it must cut jobs. In an attrition process, a company could ask workers over the age of 55 who agree—instead of upgrading or learning new skills—to take immediate retirement under an older worker assistance program, which would bridge the gap until they are eligible for pension. This used to exist.

When I was at the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, many industries took advantage of a similar program. I remember, for example, a similar program at Marine Industries, as well as in the asbestos industry. It helped to humanize reorganizations and structural changes. One of the first things that the Liberal government did when it came to power was put an end to the program for older workers adjustment.

Consequently, if we are serious about wanting to help not only industries, but also those who make their living from these industries, it is essential to implement an older worker assistance program. Also, the eligibility rules and benefit levels under the employment insurance program need to be changed.

Nevertheless, more needs to be done. Perhaps we fiscal measures should be identified to encourage investment in these industries. For example, I am thinking of a measure that already exists. Members will doubtless smile. There is already a similar measure in marine construction, a sector with which our current Prime Minister is very familiar, in the environmental sector, as well as in a number of other sectors considered strategic for Canada's future. This is sometimes the case, and it may unfortunately not be used often enough.

There is an accelerated capital cost allowance program for these industries. This program could be expanded to include sectors threatened by foreign competition and the opening of our borders. This would show entrepreneurs and investors who take risks that the federal government recognizes the risks they are taking by allowing them to spread capital costs over three, four, five or six years, depending on the reality in each sector, rather than on the current rule.

These are things that must be looked into. But we must have a forum for discussing them. That said, we have asked the Standing Committee on Finance to put these items on the agenda after hearing the evidence from representatives of the apparel sector in particular.

I will tell the House one last anecdote. Did the hon. members know that a manufacturer in Bangladesh who imports his fabrics from China and makes a garment—without breaking any rules—can ship that garment to Canada with no tariff? But a Quebec or Canadian manufacturer who buys the same fabrics in China will have to pay a 19% tax on those fabrics on entry. There is something wrong with that. We are putting our own clothing sector at a disadvantage relative to foreign competition.

I want the rules of the game—as I have already said—to be the same for everyone. When I spoke about the “optimism” of the federal government with respect to international rules, that is one example. Not only do we open up our market, and that is something I agree completely with, but we also penalize our manufacturers in Quebec and Canada. That is not right. We must look into it. Since I have no confidence in the government, I want the Standing Committee on Finance to look into this state of affairs.

I will close by saying that another way to help our industry develop would be to ensure that basic rights, human rights and labour rights, are respected in those countries. Canada would be well advised to sign the International Labour Organization's conventions—something it has not done. In fact, Canada has not signed the conventions on child labour, forced labour, freedom of association or collective bargaining. In that way we can ensure that the workers in Cambodia and Bangladesh will be able to form unions, organize, negotiate good working conditions and benefit from the opening up of markets.

[Equalization, March 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this summer, after the election. Now is when we want to know what the government intends to do. Today, the Bloc Quebecois brought before the House a motion calling on the government to commit to investing half of the surplus for this fiscal year, in addition to the $2 billion already promised.

Does the Prime Minister not realize that, if it is true that health is a priority for him, investing this money would be a concrete, significant and absolutely essential gesture?

[Equalization, March 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the current Prime Minister, who was finance minister for nearly ten years, slashed federal funding to health so much that Quebec and the provinces are drowning under the costs they must bear to ensure health care. They are currently holding an ad campaign to this effect.

Will the Prime Minister admit that his only concrete action as Prime Minister has been to confirm the one-time payment of $2 billion, which was already announced by the previous government, and that this is a pittance for someone who says that health care is a priority to him?

[Supply, March 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member if he believes the federal contribution to health-care spending is adequate.

He must have heard Liberal members say that their contribution is significant. They argue that federal transfers cover 41% of all health care costs, when in fact they only cover 16% of the costs and their contribution should be 25%, as suggested by the Romanow Commission. I would like the hon. member to comment on these issues.

[Supply, March 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am very flattered that the hon. member quoted me this extensively. This proves that he is listening.

However, it does not prove that he has a clear understanding of what I said. In the health department, the 78% increase over the last five years was not for the delivery of services to Canadians; it was for bureaucracy and to help the federal government control what the provinces do with the few dollars it is giving them. However, the 33% increase in Quebec, which is probably insufficient because we have problems in health care, was for the provision of direct services to the people, not for bureaucracy and attempts to control, such as those by the federal government.

I would like the hon. member to understand better what I said when he is quoting me. The 78% increase had nothing to do with health care, and everything to do with bureaucracy at the federal health department.

I will ask him the following question. Since it would seem that only the Bloc Quebecois, and me in particular, do not understand what the figures are about, how does he explain that, in order to increase public awareness of health care, the Premiers' Council said in its ad, and I quote:

Despite a recent increase, the federal government’s share of health care funding stands at 16%—down from 50% when public health care was first introduced. Provincial and territorial governments cover the remaining 84%.

In his opinion, is this statement by premiers, including the premier of his province, untrue?